Mixing in the Esp Classroom a Thesis by Rizka Nur Avisha

FREQUENCY AND ATTITUDES OF CODE-SWITCHING AND CODE- MIXING IN THE ESP CLASSROOM

A THESIS

RIZKA NUR AVISHA

REG. NO. 130705037

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA

MEDAN 2018

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA v

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I, RIZKA NUR AVISHA DECLARE THAT I AM THE SOLE AUTHOR OF

THIS THESIS EXCEPT WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE TEXT OF

THIS THESIS. THIS THESIS CONTAINS NO MATERIAL PUBLISHED

ELSEWHERE OR EXTRACTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM A

THESIS BY WHICH I HAVE QUALIFIED FOR OR AWARDED ANOTHER

DEGREE. NO OTHER PERSON’S WORK HAS BEEN USED WITHOUT

DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN THE MAIN TEXT OF THIS THESIS.

THIS THESIS HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF

ANOTHER DEGREE IN ANY TERTIARY EDUCATION.

Signed :

Date : August 16th, 2018

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA COPYRIGHT DECLARATION

NAME : RIZKA NUR AVISHA

TITLE OF THESIS : FREQUENCY AND ATTITUDES OF CODE-

SWITCHING AND CODE-MIXING IN THE

ESP CLASSROOM

QUALIFICATION : S-1/SARJANA SASTRA

DEPARTMENT : ENGLISH

I AM WILLING THAT MY THESIS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR

REPRODUCTION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE LIBRARIAN OF

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES,

UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT

USERS ARE MADE AWARE OF THEIR OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW

OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA.

Signed :

Date : August 16th, 2018

vii

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.

I would like to thank and praise to Allah SWT for giving me strength, health, patience, and everything that happen unexpectedly during writing this thesis.

Alhamdullillah, I finished it well. I am feeling grateful for experiences that I got during writing this thesis. It makes me get more lessons in my life. I am nothing without you.

My special gratitude is for my beloved parents, Irwansyah, S.H and Eva Elita, thank you for always pray for me to be a success woman someday. Thank you for always tell me your experience in your past, that always motivate me to be better. All of this I dedicate to both of you. Hope Allah always protects you and both of you always love Allah. I love you.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S as my supervisor for his kindness, patience, knowledge, suggestion and motivation for me to write and finish this thesis. I also would like to thank to Rahmadsyah

Rangkuti, M.A., Ph.D. as my co-supervisor for his kindness, patience, and knowledge to help me in writing this thesis.

My gratitude also to the Head of English Department, Prof. T. Silvana Sinar,

M.A., Ph.D. and the Secretary of English Department, Rahmadsyah Rangkuti. M.A.,

Ph.D. also all the lectures and the staffs of the English Department for the facilities and opportunities that given to me during my study in this faculty.

viii

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

I want to thank to my beloved husband Ilham Fahrezie, S.E and my precious best friends, Siti fatimah, Mira Yani Eka sari, Ade Yulia Pratiwi, Yuliani, Maya

Tamara who always support me and hear all of my complaints. Thank you also for your jokes that makes me laugh and also makes me forget my problems for a while. I really enjoy the time when I am with you. Thank you for your kindness and always makes me better beside you. I am really thankful to have you all.

Medan, August 16th, 2018

Rizka Nur Avisha 130705037

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA ABSTRACT

This thesis entitled Frequency and Attitudes of Code-Switching and Code-Mixing in The ESP Classroom. This thesis was based on sociolinguistics study. The aims of the research were to find out the extent of CS/CM occur in the classroom, to find out the lecturers’ attitudes towards code switching and code mixing in the ESP classroom context, to find out the students’ attitudes towards code switching and code mixing in the ESP classroom context. In achieving the intentions of this researcher, the explanation about the attitudes towards CS/CM which developed by Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti Husin would guide the researcher. This research employed descriptive quantitative method. All of the data were taken from the statements which were given by the students in the form of questionnaires. It was found that lecturer English Language skill is usually sufficient enough in delivering lectures in that language. Otherwise, some students’ English Language skills are not sufficient enough to handle the curriculum.

Keyword: sociolinguistics, code switching, code mixing, extent, lecturers’ attitudes students’ attitudes

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA ABSTRAK

Skripsi ini berjudul Frequency and Attitudes of Code-Switching and Code- Mixing in The ESP Classroom. Penelitian ini didasari oleh ilmu sosiolinguistik. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menemukan tingkat alih kode dan campur kode yang terjadi dikelas, menemukan sikap dosen terhadap alih kode dan campur kode dikelas dan menemukan sikap mahasiswa terhadap alih kode dan campur kode dikelas. Untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut, penjelasan tentang sikap terhadap alih kode dan campur kode yang dikembangkan oleh Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti Husin telah membimbing peneliti. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif kuantitatif. Semua data diambil dari pernyataan yang diberikan oleh mahasiswa dalam bentuk angket. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa kemampuan bahasa inggris dosen cukup mumpuni untuk menyampaikan mata kuliah dengan bahasa tersebut. Sementara, kemampuan bahasa inggris beberapa mahasiswa tidak cukup baik untuk menerima kurikulum pembelajaran.

Kata Kunci: ilmu sosiolinguistik, alih kode, campur kode, tingkat, sikap dosen, sikap mahasiswa

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA TABLE OF CONTENTS

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION ...... v COPYRIGHT DECLARATION ...... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... vii ABSTRACT ...... ix ABSTRAK ...... x TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... xi LIST OF TABLES ...... xiii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ···························································· 1 1.1 Background of the Study ················································· 1 1.2 Problem of the Study ····················································· 6 1.3 Objective of the Study ···················································· 6 1.4 Scope of the Study ························································ 7 1.5 Significance of the Study ················································ 7

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ·············································· 8 2.1 Sociolinguistics ···························································· 8 2.1.1 Sociolinguistics in Brief ················································ 8 2.1.2 Relationship between Language and Society ························ 11 2.1.3 Speech Community ····················································· 12 2.1.4 Bilingualism and Multilingualism····································· 14 2.1.5 Diglossia (Diglosia) ····················································· 15 2.2 Code ········································································· 19 2.2.1 Code Switching ·························································· 20 2.2.2 Code Mixing ····························································· 21 2.2.3 Code-Switching and Code-Mixing in the Classroom ··············· 22 2.2.4 Functions of CS/CM in Classroom···································· 23 2.2.5 Attitudes towards Code-Switching and Code-Mixing ·············· 24 2.3 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) ·················· 27 2.4 English for Spesific Purpose (ESP) Class ······························ 29

xii

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ·························································· 31 3.1 Research Design ·························································· 31 3.2 Data and Data Source ····················································· 31 3.3 Data Collection····························································· 32 3.4 Data Analysis······························································· 32

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ············································· 34 4.1 Analysis ···································································· 34 4.1.1 The Extent of CS/CM in the Classroom ······························ 34 4.1.2 Student’s Attitudes towards Lecturer’s CS/CM ····················· 37 4.1.3 Lecturer’s Attitudes towards CS/CM ································· 40 4.2 Findings ····································································· 42

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ····································· 44 5.1 Conclusion ································································· 44 5.2 Suggestion ································································· 45 REREFENCES ···················································································· 46 APPENDICES

xiii

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: The Extent of CS/CM in ESP Classroom in the class of clinical ·················· 35

Table 2: The Extent of CS/CM in ESP Classroom in the class of science ··················· 35

Table 3: Less Proficient Students in both Clinical and Science Class························ 38

Table 4: Very Proficient and Proficient Students in both Clinical and Science ············· 39

xiv

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Language is a systematic way of combining smaller units into larger units for the purpose of the communication. It may refer either to the specifically human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, or to a specific instance of such a system of complex communication. Yet another definition sees language as a system of communication that enables humans to cooperate. This definition stresses the social functions of language and the fact that humans use it to express themselves and to manipulate objects in their environment. Language and human being are two things that cannot be separated.

Language used in societies functions in different ways and linguists have attempted to identified them. There are relationship between language and society, such as relationship to object, ideas, events, and actual speakers and listeners.

Platt in Siregar (1996:1) explained that every language express in some way or other how people think, perceive and act, in what state people, things and ideas are and how they relate to each other. Words which express action, states, perceptions, etc., the verbs occur in every language. However, there are many differences in the way they can be structures, what additional concepts they may express and what other words may occur with them.

There are some varieties of possible relationship between language and society, such as first is that social structure may either influence, second is directly opposed the first, third is that the influence is bi-directional, fourth is to assume

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA that there is no relation at all between linguistic structure and social. This variant view appears to be the one that Chomsky holds. He refers to develop a social linguistics as a preliminary to any other kind of linguistics.

In general, sociolinguistics is the study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used, and the effects of language use on society.

Hudson (1980:4) said that sociolinguistics is study of language in relation to society. Hickerson in Chaer and Agustina (1995:4) mentioned that sociolinguistics is a developing sub field of linguistics which takes speech narration as its focus, viewing variation or its social context. Sociolinguistics is concerned with the correlation between such social factors and linguistics variations social factors in this case are age, religion, sex, gender and occupation.

Appel et.al in Chaer and Agustina (1995: 4) defined sociolinguistics as a science which focuses on a language use in social and cultural aspects. In using language there are some capabilities needed. In daily conversation we also find some problems in using language. One of the most striking phenomena in a bilingual‟s linguistic performance is the occurrence of the seemingly random mixing of two languages, both within the two utterances, during a conversational exchange. This linguistic behaviour not only attracts scholarly attention but also raises questions about the various features which charecterize language-mixing.

As Troike in Wardaugh (1986:51) described that in every human being there are many codes and ways contained which is can be used by the people to do

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA their society play in role. On the whole codes and ways in speak called communication repertoire.

As Fasold (1984:208) clarified that people can use two languages in conversation by turns that depends entirely on the situation. There are two kinds of code. They are code switching where people can use two language in conversation by turns that depends entirely on the situation; and code mixing where some people either use the elements from one language in while they were spoken in one foreign language.

Gal in Wardaugh (2006:101) declared that code switching as a conversational strategy used to establish, cross or destroy grous boundaries, to create, evoke or change interpersonal relations with their rights and obligation.

Code switching also is the consequence of bilingualism or multilingualism.

Suwito in Chaer and Agustina (1995:114) devided code mixing into two types, they are:

a. Campur kode ke dalam adalah campur kode yang bersumber dari bahasa

asli dengan variasinya” (inner code mixing, it occurs if the speaker inserts

the elements of their own language into national language, the element of

dialect into own language).

b. Campur kode keluar adalah campur kode yang bersumber dari bahasa

asing” (outer code mixing, it occurs if the speaker inserts the element of

their own language into foreign language).

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Nababan (1993:33) pointed out bilamana orang mencampur dua atau lebih bahasa dalam suatu tindak bahasa (speech act atau discourse) tanpa ada sesuatu dalam situasi berbahsa itu yang menuntut pencampuran bahasa itu.

Dalam keadaan yang demikian, hanya kesantaian penutur atau kebiasaannya yang dituruti. Tindak bahasa yang demikian disebut campur kode.

Wardaugh (1986:104) defined that we can describe two kinds of code switching, situational and methaporical. Situational code switching occurs when the languages used change according to the situations in which the conversants find themselves.They speak one language in one situation and another in a different one. No topic change is involved. When a change of topic requires a change in the language used we have methaporical code switching.

Wardaugh (2006:103) elaborated that code mixing occurs when conversants use both languages together to the extent that they change from one language to the other in the course of a single utterance.

Code switching and code mixing present because of the impact of the ability and skill of people to speak more than one language. In many cases, if there are two or more languages used, caused the using of speaker in one community of same language, and the components certainly transferred from one language.

At present, most university in Indonesia have decreed that the language of instruction in content subject classrooms to be English especially in English for

Specific Purpose (ESP) class, which is become the main purpose of the subject. In other hand, English is also the most important another language beside Bahasa

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Indonesia (BI) in that country. The motivation behind the move towards using

English in teaching, or content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is first and foremost to improve the local students‟ English language competence as mastery in the language is an asset in seeking employment in the globalised economic world (Mahathir in Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti Husin (2011)).

In addition, the vast amount of information is currently available in

English. Thus, it is hoped that the availability of English and more exposure to the language in the classroom can contribute to the students‟ English language competence, which is the key to access information in a variety of fields and also to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge.

However, like other CLIL policy in other countries, the implementation of the CLIL approach in Indonesia especially in Medan city can pose a problem.

Lecturers not only have to master the content knowledge, they also need to have the ability to use English to deliver the content. Students, too, face challenges when the English is used as the medium of instruction.

The research was carried out to investigate the CLIL learning environment, in particular, the language use in the ESP classroom, in Faculty of

Pharmacy, University of Sumatera Utara - Medan. Although English has been prescribed as the medium of instruction, in practice, it has been observed that this policy has not been fully adhered to. A mixed code of English and BI, the latter being the mother tongue of most lecturers and students, is used extensively in most content-based lectures in the classrooms.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA This research explores the extent to which English and BI are mixed in the classroom instructions and both lecturers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards this communicative behaviour. In particular, it concerns with students‟ perspectives of the language use in the classroom and its impact on their study and language development.

1.2 Problems of the Study

Based on the background, thus addresses the following questions:

1. What extent does CS/CM exist in the language of instruction?

2. What are the lecturer‟s attitudes towards code switching and code mixing in the

ESP classroom context?

3. What are the students‟ attitudes towards code switching and code mixing in the

ESP classroom context?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The objectives as follow:

1. To find out the extent of CS/CM occur in the classroom.

2. To find out the lecturers‟ attitudes towards code switching and code mixing in

the ESP classroom context.

3. To find out the students‟ attitudes towards code switching and code mixing in

the ESP classroom context.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 1.4 Scope of the Study

The writer focuses on the sixth grade students at ESP class of Faculty of

Pharmacy (Clinical and Science Class) in University of Sumatera Utara, Medan.

The participants, both lecturer and students, were pre-determined and chosen based on their ability to provide opportunity to achieve the objectives of the study.

Thus, they were only selected if they responded positively to the invitation to take part in the study and consented to the data collection and analysis.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The research was carried out to investigate the CM/CS use in the ESP classroom. The present study attempts to highlight both the lecturers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards it. The findings can be of paramount significance to both content and language lecturers, students, and also policy makers in terms of the role of English in the university‟s instructional settings.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Sociolinguistics

2.1.1 Sociolinguistics in Brief

When people interact with others in society, anytime, anywhere they must be use a language. Without a language, people will find some troubles when they do their activities and toward the others. No people or no society without a language. The role of a language among the people in this life is very crucial.

A language is not only as a means of communication, but language also plays another role among the people in this life. Therefore, there are so many human behaviours deals with language. How the people speak, or write (active communication activity) or may be how the people listens and reads (passive communication activity), those cases are the study of sociology of language, (J.A

Fishman in Pier Paolo Giglioli, 1980:45).

Sociology of language is emphasizes its notice toward both of activities above, even active and passive communication activity and also studies about the language social organization which reflected in human‟s behaviour in communicate to others and language attitudes. From the explanation above we found the term of sociology of language. Since 1960 there was a new popular term to replace the term of sociology of language which called sociolinguistics.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The term of sociolinguistics for the first time was used by H. Curee in an article untitled A Various Language. However, J.A Fishman differentiates these two terms, sociology of language and sociolinguistics. According to Fishman, the term of sociolinguistics is more qualitative, while sociology of language is more quantitative. Sociolinguistics is qualitative deals with the using of a language among individuals in social context, while sociology of language deals with the language varieties as the impact of social stratification in society.

Some investigators have found it appropriate to introduce a distinction between sociolinguistics and sociology of language. In this distinction, sociolinguistics will be concerned with investigating the relationship between language and society with the goal of a better understanding of the structure of language and how languages function in communication; the equivalent goal in the sociology of language will be to discover how social structure can be understood through the study of language.

Hudson (1980:4-5) has described the differences as follows: sociolinguistics is the study of language in relation to society”, whereas sociology of language is the study of society in relation to language”. From that explanation we can say that in sociolinguistics, we study society in order to find out as much as we can understand about what kind of thing language is, while in sociology of language we reverse direction of our interest.

Sociolinguistics actually is not discussed about structure of a language, but it focuses on how a language is used, so it (language) could play its function well.

So from this statement we can get a description that people also face language

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA conflicts before sociolinguistics appears. So it is clear now that the role of sociolinguistics is to manage a language as its functions in society, or in other words sociolinguistics deals with a language as a means of communication.

In using a language, there are some factors which determine it in communicate with others. Those factors were described by D. Hymes (in Pier

Paolo Giglioli, 1980:22-23), they are:

1. Speakers (senders, addressors, spokesman)

2. Listener (receivers, addressers, interpreters)

3. Instrumentals

4. Settings

5. Message forms

6. Topic of conversations

7. Speech event

Sociolinguistics analyses the language and language use and its relationship toward social and cultural aspects. That is why we have to understand the role of a language in social interaction. It is clear now that sociolinguistics is a branch of linguistics that takes language and the relationship with society as the object of study.

This study explores the functions and the varieties of language, the contacts between different languages, attitudes of people toward the language use and language users, or language changes.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The term of “Sociolinguistics”, actually consist of two disciplines of knowledge; Sociology and Linguistics as the writer described at the beginning of this thesis about what linguistics is. Now we talk about sociology or society.

2.1.2 Relationship between Language and Society

There is a variety of possible relationship between language and society.

One is that social structure may influence or determine linguistics structure or human‟s behaviour. Certain evidence may be adduced to support this view: the age-grading phenomenon that young children speak differently from older children, and in turn, children speak differently from mature adults. Studies which show that the variety of language that the speakers use reflect such matters as their regional, social, or ethnic origin and possibly even their sex, and other studies which show that particular ways of speaking, choices of words, rules for conversing are determined by certain social requirements.

A second possible relationship is directly opposed to the first: linguistics structure or behaviour may either influence or determine social structure. The third possible relationship is that language and society may influence each other‟s.

We must therefore be prepared to look into various aspects of the possible relationship between language and society. It will be quite obvious from doing so that the correlational studies must from a significant part of sociolinguistics work.

Gumperz (1971:223) has observed that sociolinguistics try to find the correlations between social structure and linguistics structure and observe any changes that occur. Social structure itself may be measured by reference to such

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA as factors like social class and educational background, and behaviour and performance may be related to these factors.

2.1.3 Speech Community

Language is both an individual possession and a social possession. Form this statement we can conclude that a person or a society has their own languages which different with other. In fact, so many cases that show us the variations of language are something we cannot deny. Even, there are so many facts that show us this variety caused some problems or conflicts when someone interacts with others. It is because people have their own style in using a language, or in other words they come from different languages.

On the other side, however, sometime people able to build a good communication with people around us because we came from the same variety of language. So, there are two important points that can we get, first, languages in this world are not same, second, there is a term for the same language

(language variety) in a society, and the second point is most popular known as speech community.

There are so many definitions deal with speech community, Corder

(1973:50) defines speech community: “is a group of people who can understand each other when they speak”. From Corder‟s definition about speech community, it is clear for us that the same people who came from the same language and they understand each other in interact using a language called speech community.

While Fishman (1972:22) state that speech community;

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA “Is one, all of whose members share at least a single speech variety

and the norms for it appropriate use. A speech community may be, as

a small as single closed interaction network, all of whose members

regard each other in but a single capacity.”

From definition above we can conclude that speech community is a unit of a society who has at least one language variety, and all of whose members

(society) are in the same capacity in using a language. Then Bloomfield‟s opinion on speech community is as quoted “A group of people who use the same system of signals is a speech community”. (Bloomfield, 1933: 29). While Lyons (1970:

326) give a simple definition of a „real‟ speech community: „all the people who use a given language (or dialect)‟. So, Lyons emphasizes the speech community toward the dialect of a group of people, because one dialect must be different with other.

It is really quite easy to demonstrate that a speech community is not coterminous with a language, for example English language is spoken in many places throughout the world, we must certainly recognize that it is also spoken in a wide variety of ways, such British English which different with American

English, or English in Canada, Africa etc. In fact, they has own characteristic in speak in English especially even though they use the same language, that is English, however they are different in ways in speaking.

Different speech communities living in different regions normally speak different languages. However, the same language can be also spoken in different regions. When this situation takes place, the regional varieties of the

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA language then exist. The varieties mainly develop after the people speaking the same language leave their homeland and separate themselves from one another in the new regions. Regional varieties of a language have been referred to as dialects (Wardough,1976).

Just take for example the language of Malay; it has been growing into several different dialects, including the ones found in the southern provinces of Thailand, in East Timor, as well as among people living in the Cocos Keeling Island in the Indian Ocean. It is reported to be at least understood very well by some people in the Southern Philippines, in Sri lanka, South Africa and some other places. George Quinn (in http:/www.hawaii.edu/indolang/malay.html).

Each individual therefore is a member of many different speech communities. It is in the best interest of most people to be able to identify themselves on one occasion as members of one community. One of the consequences of such intersecting identifications is, of course linguistic variations: people do not speak alike, nor does any individual always speak in the same way on every occasion.

2.1.4 Bilingualism and Multilingualism

Bilingualism can be regarded as the ability to communicate in two languages, but with greater skills in one language. While the people which interrelated in, it called bilingual. In many parts of the world an ability to speak more than one language is not at all remarkable. In fact, a monolingual individual would be regarded as a misfit, lacking an important skill in society. In

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA many parts of the world it is just a normal requirements of daily living that people speak several languages, perhaps one or more at home, another in village, still another for purposes of trade, and yet another for contact with the outside world of wider social or political organization.

Nababan (1993: 27) differs bilingualism and bilinguality. According to him, bilingualism is a habitual to use two languages to interact with other people.

Bilinguality is an ability to use two languages. So, we can conclude that bilingualism is a habitual; bilinguality is ability and bilingual is the person.

Furthermore, Bloomfield (1933:56) defines the bilingualism as “ability of a speaker in using two languages, in case the using of first language as good as the second language”. According to Bloomfield, someone called bilingual if she/he able to use the first language as well as the second language. However, many arguments toward Bloomfield‟s concept about bilingualism. First it is not easy to measure the ability of the speaker in mastering two languages that they use, second, is there any speaker that using the second language as well as first language, and it is rarely to find someone who master in two languages as well.

2.1.5 Diglossia (Diglosia)

A diglossic situation exists in a society when it has two distinct codes which show clear functional separation; that is one employed in one set of circumstances ((H), i.e. has high prestige) and the other in an entirely different set ((L), i.e. has low prestige). For instance, Javanese language has

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA the form of diglossia since it has the (H), i.e. Krama Inggil and also the

(L), i.e. Ngoko.

Ferguson (1959:336) has defined diglossia as follows: Diglossia is a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech community, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any section of the community for ordinary conversation..

On the other hand, Fishman (1972: 136) defines diglossia as

“the phenomenon in which one language is considered higher than another”.

Fishman (1967) introduced the notion that diglossia could be extended to situations found in many societ ies where forms of two genetically unrelated (or at least historically distant) languages occupy the H and L norms, such that one of the languages (e.g. Latin in medieval Europe) is used for religious, educational, literacy and other such prestigious do mains, while another language (in the case of medieval Europe, the vernacular languages of that era) is rarely used for such purposes, being only employed for more informal, primarily spoken domains.

Furthermore, Hartmann and stork (1972:67) state that: Diglossia is the presence in a language of two standards, a „high‟ language used for formal

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA occasions and in written texts, and a „low‟ used to colloquial conversation, e.g. in Swiss German, Arabic, etc. In certain situations, a middle language between the high and the low standard may be appropriate.

From the explanation above we can conclude that diglossia is a matter between two dialects of one language. In a particular society, the speakers may use two or more language varieties in a particular situation.

Just take for an example in Java, there are two kinds of Javanese that show us diglossia‟s cases, kroma inggil and ngoko. In fact, krama inggil only used by the people who come from upper class (orang kerajaan) while ngoko is used by the people in Java who came from common people or the people out of the kingdom (lower class).

As the writer state above that diglossia is used to refer to a situation where a language is formally stratified into upper and lower class (variety). In addition to these varieties, there is also sometimes a middle variety. For the situation where more than two stratified varieties are found the term polyglossia may be applied.

(Donal Winford, 2003). The Balinese and Javanese vernaculars are two languages with polyglossia. Thus, in Balinese or Javanese the traditional speakers of the languages are socially stratified into social-classes and their language into the speech-levelled varieties. For example in Balinese an English phrase “come home” may correspond to three different words, namely mantuk, budal or mulih.

The first word „ matuk‟ and the second one „budal‟ are from higher variety and supposed to be used by lay people when addressing those who are socially respected or traditionally honored, whereas „mulih‟ is variety normally used

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA among common people or between close mates in everyday social encounters.

Actually sociolinguistics introduces two types of diglossia, they are the formal and non-formal one. A formal diglossia is associated with the formally stratified status of the users, as in the case Balinese or Javanese described above, while the non-formal diglossia is associated with the social and economic condition of the users. The formal diglossia is also sometimes referred to as the traditional diglossia and the informal diglossia as the modern diglossia.

Then Holmes (2001:30) states that “diglossia is a characteristic of speech communities rather than individuals”. Holmes also explains that individuals may be bilingual, societies or communities are diglossic. In other words, the term of diglossia is used to describe societal or institutionalized bilingualism. The criteria which identity diglossic communities were initially interpreted very stringently, so that few communities qualified as diglossic. Holmes (2001:27) has described three crucial features of diglossia, they are:

1. Two distinct varieties of the same language are used in the

community, with one regarded as a high or (H) variety and the

other as a low (L) variety.

2. Each of variety is used for quite distinct functions; H and L

complement each other.

3. No one use the H variety in daily conversation

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 2.2 Code

In a bilingual or multilingual society, it is normal for people to be in a situation where a choice between two or more codes has to be made. According to

Marjohan (1988:48), “code is a term which refers to a variety”. Thus a code maybe an idiolect, a dialect, a sociolect, a register or a language. A speaker has a linguistic repertoire which consists of various codes. Thus he usually has a set of codes, each code having certain functions or maybe some of them have similar functions.

In a monolingual situation, the use of different codes depends on the variability of the language. In a multilingual situation, the use of different codes depends on the variability of the languages and the specification of their uses as agreed upon by the people. When the speakers have two codes with each having specific functions, the speakers have a stable diglossia.

Holmes (2001:23) says “three important social factors in code choice – participant, setting and topic.” Holmes also states “three are other factors that contributed to the appropriate choice of code; they are social distance, status formality, and function or goal of the interaction.” The particular dialect or language one chooses to use on any occasion is a code, a system used for communication between two or more parties. People are usually required to select a particular code whenever the choose to speak, and they may also decide to switch from one code to another; or to mix codes even within sometimes very short utterances and thereby create a new code. The phenomenon in switch or mix the code called code switching and code mixing.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 2.2.1 Code Switching

Code switching is a situation where speakers deliberately change a code being used, namely by switching from one to another. Code switching can be generally defined as the phenomenon where in a bilingual or multilingual speaker shifts from one language to another in the course of a conversation. Gal in

Wardaugh (1998:100) says “code switching is a conversational strategy used to establish, cross or destroy boundaries; to create, evoke or change interpersonal relations with their rights and obligations.

Pietro in Jendra (1977:74) says “code switching is the use of more than one language by communicants in the execution of a speech act. Chaer and

Agustina (2004:115) states that “bila di dalam suatu peristiwa tutur terjadi peralihan dari satu klausa suatu bahasa ke klausa bahasa yang lain, maka peristiwa yang terjadi adalah alih kode.” (When there is a switching from one clause of a language to another clause of other language occur in a conversation, so it called code switching).

Wardaugh (1986:102-103) says “we can describe two kinds of code switching: situational and methaporical. Situational code switching occurs when the languages used change according to the situations in which the conversants find themselves: they speak one language in one situation and another in a different one. No topic change is involved. When a change of topic requires a change in the language used we have methaporical code switching”.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 2.2.2 Code Mixing

Code mixing is the mixing of pieces of a word or phrase from a language into the other language in a bilingualism or multilingualism. Code mixing refers to the mixture of two or more languages or language varieties in speech. Chaer and Agustina (2004:115) says that “campur kode adalah digunakannya serpihan- serpihan dari bahasa lain dalam menggunakan suatu bahasa, yang mungkin diperlukan dengan tanpa disadari, sehingga tidak dianggap suatu kesalahan atau penyimpangan.” (Code mixing is using pieces of another language, maybe needed unconsciously, so that it is not accepted as a mistake).

Wardaugh (1998:103) says that “code mixing occurs when conversant use both languages together to the extent that they change from one language to the other in the course of a single utterance”. While Nababan (1993:33) says that

“bilamana orang mencampur dua atau lebih bahasa atau ragam bahasa dalam suatu tindak bahasa (speech act atau discourse) tanpa ada sesuatu dalam situasi berbahasa itu yang menuntut pencampuran bahasa itu. Dalam keadaan demikian, hanya kesantaian penutur atau kebiasaannya yang dituruti. Tindak bahasa yang demikian kita sebut campur kode”.

Wardaugh (1986:103) says “Code mixing occurs when conversants use both languages together to the extent that they change from one language to the other in the course of a single utterance”. According to Wardaugh, there is one type of code mixing. It is conversational code mixing.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

2.2.3 Code-Switching and Code-Mixing in the Classroom

Empirical studies have demonstrated that it is quite difficult to find ESP classroom discourse fully in a single language. Even in a CLIL setting, other languages understood by the speakers may be used, thus, switching and mixing between the languages are common (Martin; Arthur & Martin; Mahadhir & Then;

Flowerdew & Miller; Mustafa & Al-Khatib in Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana

Susanti Husin (2011)).

Milroy and Musyken in Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti Husin (2011) define code-switching as “the alternative used by bilinguals of two or more languages in the same conversation.” The switching of languages can occur either at intersentential level (code-switching, CS henceforth), or intrasentential level

(code-mixing, CM henceforth). Garcia in Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti

Husin (2011), following her work on the validity of language boundaries prefers the term „translanguaging‟ to show that languages are not „hermetically sealed units‟.

Translanguaging goes beyond CS/CM as bilinguals use languages based on prestige, appropriateness, preference, ability and other factors. Thus, Garcia suggests that translanguaging is the normal practice of “bilingualism without diglossic functional separation” (2007, p. xiii). In this research, the term CS/CM is used to describe any kind of language alternation between the two languages,

English and Bahasa Indonesia (BI).

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

2.2.4 Functions of CS/CM in Classroom

Research has shown that speakers code-switch or code-mix for a variety of reasons. The CS/CM may be discourse-related or participant-related. For example,

Kamisah in Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti Husin (2011) in her study of content-based lectures found that CS/CM served some functions such as (1) signaling topic change, (2) giving and clarifying explanation, (3) enacting social relationships and (4) aggravating and mitigating messages.

Influence of science and high technology in education is also another factor contributing to CS/CM behaviour in the ESP classroom. El-Fiki in Ariffin,

Kamisah & Misyana Susanti Husin (2011) in her investigation of the CM phenomenon in a university teaching context in Libya found that despite the country‟s language policy which promotes the maintenance and purification of

Arabic, CM was a dominant feature in the discourse examined. The study reveals that there was limited resistance to the English language on technical and scientific topics among the speakers.

Even in ESP classrooms, CS/CM of English and a mother tongue can also be found. For example, Merrit et al. In Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti Husin

(2011) found that CS/CM between English and the mother tongue in three Kenyan primary schools occurred when teachers wanted to reformulate information, bring new content information, attract students‟ attention and substitute words.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

2.2.5 Attitudes towards Code-Switching and Code-Mixing

Luna and Peracchio in Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti Husin (2011) claimed attitudes towards CS/CM as the extent to which individuals perceive

CS/CM to be a desirable practice. Beside it, Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti

Husin (2011) in their journal explained that although in some communities

CS/CM has been the norm rather than the exception (Grosjean 1982), studies have shown that there are varying attitudes towards this communicative behaviour

(Kachru, 1978; Grosjean 1982; Gumperz, 1982). For example, Sanchez (in Cheng

& Butler 1989, p. 298) argued that CS/ CM could “take away the purity of the language”. On the other hand, Poplack (1979, p. 72) felt that it is “a verbal skill requiring a large degree of competence in more than one language, rather than a defect arising from insufficient knowledge of one or the other”.

Studies have revealed that attitudes towards these communicative behaviour can be formed by factors that are either community-specific such as the language status and appropriateness, or individual speaker such as the degree of proficiency and personal judgment on the language use. For example, some people accept CS/CM as a natural phenomenon that occurs in any scheme of bilinguality.

CS/CM is accepted as a style of communication and it is regarded as common speech behaviour among the speakers. The use of CS/CM, thus, is regarded neither better nor worse than a single code. On the other hand, in Ariffin,

Kamisah & Misyana Susanti Husin (2011) positive attitudes towards CS/CM has

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA been attributed to communicative strategy and a resource for effective communication (Koziol, 2000; Yletyinen, 2004), social group reinforcements

(Grosjean, 1982; Zuraidah, 2003) and social prestige brought by the value of the language(s) used (Gibbons, 1983; Asmah, 1992). Meanwhile, negative attitudes towards CS/CM are associated with bad manners, language pollution and linguistic incompetence (Grosjean, 1982).

In Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti Husin (2011) also explained about the CLIL classroom context, there have been arguments for and against the use of

CS/CM as bilingual pedagogy. Those who see CS/CM as a normal communicative behaviour in bilingual classroom claim that it can be a useful tool in teaching. For example, Rollnick and Rutherford (1996) contend that CS/CM helps the learners to explore their ideas. In their study of science classrooms, they claim that by CS/CM, learners are able to expose their alternate conceptions of the subject learned.

This is supported by Amin (2009) who put forward that CS/CM to students‟ own languages allow them to draw on useful sense-making resources.

This is in line with Hornberger‟s (2005, p. 605) earlier suggestion that

“bi/multilinguals” learning is maximized when they are allowed and enabled to draw from across all their existing language skills (in two+ languages), rather than being constrained and inhibited from doing so by monolingual instructional assumptions and practices‟.

In addition, (Lin (2005, p. 46) in Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti

Husin (2011)) claims the practice of CS/CM as “local, pragmatic coping tactics

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA and responses to the socioeconomic dominance of English in Hong Kong, where many students from socioeconomically disadvantages backgrounds with limited access to English resources struggled to acquire an English-medium education for its socioeconomic value”. Arthur and Martin‟s (2006) study on interactional patterns in CLIL in Brunei lends support to this. They found that CS/CM is employed to facilitate students‟ comprehension and to provide bilingual support.

Teachers in the study perceived the use of CS as hearer-oriented, that is, taking into account the students‟ competence in the target language. Other support for the “pedagogic validity of CS/CM” (Arthur & Martin, 2006, p. 907) are increasing students‟ inclusion, participation and understanding in learning process, as well as developing relationships between the participants, conveying ideas more easily and accomplishing lessons (Lin & Martin; Arthur & Martin in

Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti Husin (2011)).

Despite the pedagogical validity of CS/CM, there is a dilemma among teachers between “access to meaning and access to English” (Setati,et al., 2002, p.

140). This is because although they can reformulate the concepts in the students‟ mother tongue, students need to receive and produce the content in English as it is the language that they will be assessed. The practice of CS/CM in class might jeopardise students‟ ability to answer examination questions in pure English.

In addition, Payawal-Gabriel and Reyes-Otero‟s (2006) study shows another disadvantage of CS/CM in the classroom. The study claims that the practice of CS/CM by mathematics teachers in their instructions was said to

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA negatively affect learning. Their analysis reveals that teachers‟ CS/CM confused students and consequently affected their lesson comprehension.

The practice of CS/CM in the classroom has also been negative viewed by bilinguals themselves. Shin (2005, p. 18), for example, notes that “bilinguals may feel embarrassed about their code switching and attribute it to careless language habits”. Similar views on the practice CS/CM in Malaysia has also been reported by Martin (2005, p. 88), that “the use of a local language alongside the „official‟ language of the lesson is a well-known phenomenon and yet, for a variety of reasons, it is often lambasted as „bad practice‟, blamed on teachers‟ lack of

English-language competence … or put to one side and/or swept under the carpet”.

2.3 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

The topic of CLIL has been discussed in the literature on classroom instruction practices, although different labels have been used to describe the practice: content based instruction, theme-based language teaching, topic-based language teaching, discipline-based ESL instruction, teaching content through

English, English across curriculum, integrated curriculum, interdisciplinary teaching, just to name a few. The notion of CLIL and its goals seem to be

„diverse‟ (Sopia et al., 2010, p. 47), having „many faces‟ (Mehisto et al., 2008, p.

12) and is rather hard to obtain explicit statements regarding the exact goals pursued (Puffer, in press). However, the converging feature of CLIL is that the content of a subject/course is taught through a second/foreign language.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The curricular model of CLIL is based on five dimensions relating to culture, environment, language, content and learning (Marsh, Majlers & Hartiala,

2001). The cultural dimension aims at building intercultural knowledge and understanding, hence, developing students‟ intercultural communication skills.

The environmental dimension aims to prepare students for internationalisation, as students, having gone through the CLIL process of learning are supposed to be multilingual. As for the language dimension, by exposing the target language in learning, students‟ competence in the target language should be improved in terms of oral communication skills, multilingual interests and attitudes. On the other hand, the content dimension provides different opportunities in studying the subject content such as the target language terminology. Last but not least, the learning dimension practices various methods and forms of learning which allows students to use individual learning strategies.

In the light of these dimensions, Mehisto et al in Ariffin, Kamisah &

Misyana Susanti Husin (2011), (cited in Sopia et al., 2010, p. 48) suggest a 4C‟s framework as an underlying principle for the quality practice of CLIL: the inter- relationship among content (subject matter), communication (language), cognition

(thinking and learning) and community (co-existence within a learning group, classroom and community in local and global context). In short, for effective

CLIL to take place, the pedagogical practice needs to integrate learning (content and cognition) and language learning (communication and community).

This research focuses on the integration of content and cognition in pedagogical practice from the students‟ perspectives of the language use in the classroom since researches on this topic have been very scanty as opposed to

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA those that look into the CLIL students‟ academic performance and language performance (Varkuti, 2010; Wesche, 2002; Haunold, 2006).

2.4 English for Specific Purpose (ESP) Class

The most important difference lies in the learners and their purposes for learning English. ESP students are usually adults who already have some acquaintance with English and are learning the language in order to communicate a set of professional skills and to perform particular job-related functions. An ESP program is therefore built on an assessment of purposes and needs and the functions for which English is required.

ESP concentrates more on language in context than on teaching grammar and language structures. It covers subjects varying from accounting or computer science to tourism and business management. The ESP focal point is that English is not taught as a subject separated from the students' real world (or wishes); instead, it is integrated into a subject matter area important to the learners.

However, ESL and ESP diverge not only in the nature of the learner, but also in the aim of instruction. In fact, as a general rule, while in ESL all four language skills; listening, reading, speaking, and writing, are stressed equally, in

ESP it is a needs analysis that determines which language skills are most needed by the students, and the syllabus is designed accordingly. An ESP program, might, for example, emphasize the development of reading skills in students who are preparing for graduate work in business administration; or it might promote the development of spoken skills in students who are studying English in order to become tourist guides.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA As a matter of fact, ESP combines subject matter and English language teaching. Such a combination is highly motivating because students are able to apply what they learn in their English classes to their main field of study, whether it be accounting, business management, economics, computer science or tourism.

Being able to use the vocabulary and structures that they learn in a meaningful context reinforces what is taught and increases their motivation.

The students' abilities in their subject-matter fields, in turn, improve their ability to acquire English. Subject-matter knowledge gives them the context they need to understand the English of the classroom. In the ESP class, students are shown how the subject-matter content is expressed in English. The teacher can make the most of the students' knowledge of the subject matter, thus helping them learn English faster.

The term "specific" in ESP refers to the specific purpose for learning

English. Students approach the study of English through a field that is already known and relevant to them. This means that they are able to use what they learn in the ESP classroom right away in their work and studies. The ESP approach enhances the relevance of what the students are learning and enables them to use the English they know to learn even more English, since their interest in their field will motivate them to interact with speakers and texts. ESP assesses needs and integrates motivation, subject matter and content for the teaching of relevant skills.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

In order to count the number of attitudes both lecturers‟ and students‟, the writer uses quantitative method to complete the analysis. Descriptive quantitative methods emphasize objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques.

Quantitative method focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people or to explain a particular phenomenon

(http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/quantitative).

3.2 Data and Data Source

The data for this thesis are the questioners and interviews taken from some students in faculty of Pharmacy USU. The writer chooses the students randomly

(not all the students), because the rest was not available in class. Actually there are three classes available but the writer just chooses two of them.

Therefore, the writer focuses on the sixth grade students at ESP class of

Faculty of Pharmacy (Clinical and Science Class) in University of Sumatera

Utara, Medan. The participants, both lecturer and students, were pre-determined and chosen based on their ability to provide opportunity to achieve the objectives of the study. Thus, they were only selected if they responded positively to the

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA invitation to take part in the study and consented to the data collection and analysis.

3.3 Data Collection

In this research, the information on the extent to which CS/CM occur in the classroom and the attitudes towards the language situation in the classroom were gleaned using self-completed questionnaires and interviews. Students were reminded that their response to the questionnaires should be based on the lecture that they had just attended. The questionnaire items were adapted from El Fiki‟s

(1999) work on CS/CM in a university context. These items were set to gauge information on the students‟ views on the lecturer‟s language use and their attitudes towards the use. Interviews were carried out to complement the questionnaire data.

Lecturer was also interviewed to get some insights on their language use in the classroom. Although the interviews were carried out informally and did not take any form of structured interviews, they covered the focus of the study, that is, the lecturer‟s language use and the underlying factors of the use. Data from the questionnaire were analysed in terms of simple frequency counts and percentage.

These were complemented by data from the interviews.

3.4 Data Analysis

In analysing data, the writer uses descriptive quantitative method. As

Nawawi (1993:27) says that metode penelitian deskriptif adalah prosedur atau cara memecahkan masalah penelitian dengan memaparkan keadaan objek yang sedang diselidiki sebagaimana adanya berdasarkan fakta-fakta yang aktual pasa

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA saat sekarang. (Descriptive method is a procedure or manner in solving the problems of an analysis by explaining the object which is being investigated towards the factual facts). And it will be used in analyzing the data by counting a result of questioners and interviews from the students. The writer uses quantitative method in analysing data to support the result.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The research questions have clearly spelt out the main focus of the study:

1) the extent to which CS/CM occurs in the classroom, 2) the students‟ attitudes towards lecturer‟s CS/CM, and 2) the lecturer‟s attitudes towards their CS/CM behaviour in the classroom. Thus, the analysis of the data is reported and discussed under these topics.

4.1 Analysis

4.1.1 The Extent of CS/CM in the Classroom

The analysis of the data shows a clear pattern of language use by the lecturer. It seems that the extent to which CS/CM occurred in the classroom depended highly first, on the lecturer‟s competence in English, and second, the students‟ competence in English. The following tables show the students‟ perceptions on the frequency of their lecturer‟s CS/CM in the classroom.

Class : Clinical (N=29)

No. Statement Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 1. Mixing English and 13 11 5 0 Indonesian is a common phenomenon in the lectures I have attended in this class 2. The lecturer‟s main 11 9 6 3 language when delivering lectures is always English. 3. The lecturer frequently 7 9 5 8 mixes Indonesian with English in her lectures.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 4. The lecturer usually 9 7 6 7 maintains the English terminology but uses Indonesian to give further explanation 5. The lecturer doesn‟t have 12 13 3 1 any difficulty in delivering lectures in English 6. The lecturer always 10 14 5 0 switches to Indonesian when we do not understand the lectures. Table 1: The Extent of CS/CM in ESP Classroom in the class of clinical

Class : Science (N=31)

No. Statement Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 1. Mixing English and 17 10 3 1 Indonesian is a common phenomenon in the lectures I have attended in this class 2. The lecturer‟s main 11 10 3 7 language when delivering lectures is always English. 3. The lecturer frequently 11 11 4 5 mixes Indonesian with English in her lectures. 4. The lecturer usually 12 11 4 4 maintains the English terminology but uses Indonesian to give further explanation 5. The lecturer doesn‟t have 17 10 3 1 any difficulty in delivering lectures in English 6. The lecturer always 10 14 4 3 switches to Indonesian when we do not understand the lectures. Table 2: The Extent of CS/CM in ESP Classroom in the class of science

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The data reveal a clear pattern of lecturer‟s language use in the classroom.

More than half of the students claimed the use of both Indonesian and English for classroom instruction was a common practice in the institution. In fact, the interview data reveal that the mixture of Indonesian and English was very common in most of the lectures they attended that they barely realised the occurrence during the lessons. Some even claimed that it is expected since the mixing of both languages in communication is common among bilingual speakers in any context of communication.

The analysis also reveals that the amount of CS/CM in classroom was largely related to the lecturer‟s and students‟ English Language competence. It is found that the CS/CM phenomenon occurred more in the Clinical and Science

Class as the lecturers for these classes were less proficient in English. The data show that these lecturers normally maintained the English terminology and technical jargons related to the topics taught. The students also claimed that

English was used when these lecturers read directly from the notes or the power point presentation. However, when it comes to elaboration and explanation of the concepts, they tended to code-switch to Indonesian or code-mix both English and

Indonesian.

However, some of the students also admitted that the proficient lecturer insisted in delivering their lectures in English and encouraged students to improve their English Language competence in order to cope with any language difficulties they might face. This is clearly reflected in the low frequency of CS/CM by proficient lecturer as shown in both tables.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA However, it is very important to note that lecturer‟s own proficiency level could not account for the actual language use in the context of interaction. It is found that even the proficient lecturer were not able to maintain their speech in

English and have to resort to Indonesian because they needed to accommodate students who were not competent in English. This is reflected in tables that despite their proficiency in English, the proficient lecturer frequently mixed

Indonesian and English in their speech when they perceived students were not able to understand the lectures in English. Interviews with the lecturer reveal that they were aware of the institutional language policy.

However, their language choice and use were largely determined by their own competence in English and their students. This had led to their CS/CM behaviour in the classroom instruction. The less proficient lecturer normally uses both Indonesian and English in her lectures. However, they would maintain the referential items in English as these were the key words that students needed to know for the concepts learned. On the other hand, the more proficient lecturer both gave explanation in English first and then translated it into Indonesian when required, or straight away mixed both languages in their explanation. However, she also maintained the referential items in English. These claims concur with the students‟ perceptions on the language use in the classroom.

4.1.2 Students’ Attitudes towards CS/CM

The analysis of the data reveals mixed attitudes towards CS/CM behaviour in the classroom. These attitudes were largely influenced by the students‟ English

Language competence. It seems that the less proficient students held more

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA favourable attitude towards the lecturer‟s CS/CM compared to their more proficient counterparts. Their views are summarised in tables below:

No. Statement Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 1. I would like the lecturer 5 22 34 18 to minimise their use of Indonesian in her lectures. 2. I would prefer my 3 9 29 38 lecturer to use only English in her lectures. 3. I need the lecturer to use 39 27 13 0 both Indonesian and English to better understand the lectures. 4. I feel challenged if/when 41 24 14 0 the lecturer use English in her lectures. 5. I feel frustrated when the 4 18 41 16 lecturer uses both Indonesian and English during her lectures. 6. The lecturer‟s mixing of 42 21 11 5 English and Indonesian is not a problem to me. 7. When the lecturer mixes 3 14 26 36 Indonesian and English in her lectures, I tune out. Table 3: Less Proficient Students in both Clinical and Science Class (N=79)

No. Statement Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 1. I would like the lecturer 41 19 18 6 to minimise their use of Indonesian in her lectures. 2. I would prefer my 46 17 13 8 lecturer to use only English in her lectures. 3. I need the lecturer to use 3 18 42 21 both Indonesian and English to better understand the lectures.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 4. I feel challenged if/when 13 28 34 9 the lecturer use English in her lectures. 5. I feel frustrated when the 3 15 38 28 lecturer uses both Indonesian and English during her lectures. 6. The lecturer‟s mixing of 29 32 17 7 English and Indonesian is not a problem to me. 7. When the lecturer mixes 11 7 37 29 Indonesian and English in her lectures, I tune out. Table 4: Very Proficient and Proficient Students in both Clinical and Science Class (N=84)

The analysis of the data indicates that the students with less English

Language proficiency were more tolerant to CS/CM compared to the more proficient group. It seems that the former group favoured the lecturer‟s CS/CM behaviour due to their concern in comprehending the lectures. CS/CM was favoured due to its necessity to aid comprehension. Although it was agreed that most materials and references are available in English, this group of students felt that their low English Language proficiency hindered comprehension. Thus, the lecturer‟s language choice seemed to be a practical solution to the problem.

Although most of the students agreed that the use of Indonesian helped them to comprehend the lectures better, they also admitted that the use of English was also necessary to expose them to their subjects of studies. However, they were not concerned on how language was used in the classroom. This is because, in a content-based classroom, the focus is more on meaning rather than the structure.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA On the other hand, the more proficient group held quite unfavourable attitude towards the lecturer‟s CS/CM. They felt that the use of Indonesian should be minimised as students should be more exposed to the English Language since most references are available in that language. Thus, switching from English to

Indonesian to solve comprehension problems did not seem to be a long-term solution for less proficient students.

Comprehension problems might occur during self-study. This proficient group also claimed that any input received in English can prepare them not only for self-study, but also for their future career. It is very interesting to note that these students claimed that the lecturer‟s language of instruction can help them develop their English Language competence to enable them cope in their field of study. They further argued that if lecturer used mixed languages to explain a concept, the explanation would devoid of the correct structure.

In other words, they had not been provided with or exposed to the correct model of explaining the concepts in English. Thus, they certainly would face difficulties in the examinations where all answers are required to be written in

English. They further argued that understanding the concept would not be adequate if they were not able to give the answers in the correct way. Thus, in contrast, the more proficient group felt that lecturer should focus both on meaning and structure when delivering their lectures.

4.1.3 Lecturer’s Attitudes towards CS/CM

Despite the claim that CS/CM is typical language behaviour among bilingual speakers that often happened subconsciously (Blom and Gumperz, 1972;

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Wardaugh, 1998), the lecturer was aware of her CS/CM behaviour. The interview data have provided significant insights to the occurrence of this linguistic phenomenon and may be able to explain its persistence in the classroom.

The lecturer defended her CS/CM behaviour on the ground that knowledge should not be confined to any language. If English was the only language allowed in the classroom, students would not be able to acquire knowledge in the field.

Furthermore, she contended that there was no harm in her CS/CM as students were able to cope with it in the classroom. She argued that comprehending the lectures was more important than the language structure. In addition, she believed that students would have their own strategies in coping with their linguistic competence.

On the other hand, the lecturer strongly believed that CS/CM should be minimised, if not totally eliminated in classroom instruction. First, she was totally concerned with the institutional language policy with regards to classroom instruction. The policy has clearly stipulated that English is the language of instruction. Thus, by CS/CM, the policy has not been adhered to.

In addition, the lecturer felt that students should be exposed to the correct structure of English Language when dealing with the contents. She seriously claimed that students might have not realised that her explanation of certain concepts could become wrong or confusing because of the wrong language structure used. Thus, although content lecturer is not expected to take the primary role or language lecturer, she too should be responsible in providing the correct model of structure in the classroom. However, the lecturer also admitted that it was impossible to avoid CS/CM because of the students‟ low proficiency in

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA English. Thus, CS/CM might seem to be a strategy to promote fast and easy understanding among the students.

4.2 Findings

This study has established that CS/CM of English and Indonesian is a common communicative behavior in the classrooms despite the overt language policy of the use of English as the medium of instruction. The report on the lecturer‟s actual language use and her attitudes towards the language(s) used is important in determining whether to support or counterbalance the existing linguistic policy and regulation. The findings are particularly useful in understanding the extent to which the speakers adhere to the policy.

Although attitudes towards language cannot be easily measured, the study has several significant implications on language use in the classroom domain. As observed by Kamisah (2007), any regulation set by any language policy does not hinder language creativity and personal choice of the speakers in their context of interaction. This is because attitudes towards languages are „invisible societal pressures‟ that interact with „visible‟ plans organized by policy makers (Kachru,

1987). Thus, the information gleaned from this study on whether these two forces are in agreement or not can help to set further plans in treating any conflicts that may exist.

As reported by the findings, the occurrence of CS/CM is largely due to the linguistic competence of the participants in the interactional setting. It is found that lecturer English Language skill is usually sufficient enough to carry out the task of delivering lectures in that language. Otherwise, some students‟ English

Language skills are not sufficient enough to handle the curriculum. Thus, the

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA linguistic incompetence of both the lecturer and students need to be addressed.

The findings reveal an urgent need for the students to improve their English competence skills. A series of development courses on English Language proficiency and communication skills in English could be developed to help these students improve their skill. In addition, some specific courses need to be developed so that they are better prepared for the language demands of their study.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion

Language has given many advantages to us. It gives us comprehension that every people is really vary and different around the world in spite of the variation of language. Every language has meaning of course in every word or phrase has meaning between them.

This study has provided clear findings of the actual implementation of the institutional language policy on the medium of instruction in the classroom.

CS/CM in both Indonesian and English emerged as the lecturer‟s code choice in the classroom instruction. Such language behaviour seems not to only have undermined the role of English as the stipulated medium of instruction, but also underestimated the speech behaviour of bilinguals. There exists a conflict between the language policy and the actual use of English and Indonesian in the classroom.

There is also an indication that both lecturer and students are not totally linguistically equipped to support the policy. Lack of English Language competence on some students has been claimed as the major motivating factor for the CS/CM occurrence. This certainly has a significant implication on their

English Language development skills. As implied by the students‟ response, the language of teaching can affect the process of learning and acquiring knowledge.

Thus, there seems to be an important need for the lecturer to pay more attention to the language used in delivering the content of their lectures to benefit learning

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 5.2 Suggestion

CS/CM is interesting objects to study and to analyse. It is because the development of thought and technology force us to understand more about it.

Research has shown that speakers code-switch or code-mix for a variety of reasons. The CS/CM may be discourse-related or participant-related. It was found that CS/CM served some functions such as signalling topic change, giving and clarifying explanation, enacting social relationships and aggravating and mitigating messages.

The research shows that additional English courses for students are required in the implementation of ESP classes professionally. It can also be a support for students in improving their English skills even when they getting a job. It needs attention from related parties to solve the problems faced by the students.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA REFERENCES

Alwasliah, A. Chaedar. 1933. Pengantar Sosiologi Bahasa. Bandung: Angkasa. Appel, Rene and Musken, Pieter. 1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism. Great Britian: Edward Arnold.

Ariffin, Kamisah & Misyana Susanti Husin.2011. Code-switching and Code- mixing of English and Bahasa Malaysia in Content Based Classrooms: Frequency and Attitudes dalam The Linguistics Journal..Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang, Malaysia. June 2011 Volume 5 Issue 1.220.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt Rinehart, and Winston. Blom, J. P. & Gumperz, J. J. (1972/1986). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Codeswitching in Norway. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.). Directions in Sociolinguistics (pp. 407-434). New Yok: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Chaedar, Abdul. Dan Agustina, Leonie. 1995. Sosiolinguistik Perkenalan Awal. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Chaer, Abdul. 2007. Linguistik Umum. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. El-Fiki, H. A. (1999). Code-mixing of Arabic and English in a university science- teaching context: Frequency, grammatical categories and attitudes. Master Thesis. Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Fasold, R. 1984. The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Fasold, R.W. 1984. The Sociolinguistic of Society. New York: Basil Blackwell. Gardner, R. & Macintyre, P. (1991). An instrumental motivation in language study: Who says it isn‟t effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 57-72.

Gibbons, J. (1983) Attitudes towards language and code-mixing in Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 4 (2.3), 129-147).

Hanafiah, Ridwan. 2007. Sociolinguistics Theory An Introduction. Medan Hickerson, Nancy Parrot. 1980. Linguistic Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Holmes, Janet. 2001. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics Third Edition. New York: Longman

Hudson, R.A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. London: Cambridge University Press. Jendra, Made Iwan I. 2010. Sociolinguistics : The Study of Societies Languages. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Kachru, B. (1978). Code-mixing as a communicative strategy in India. In J. Alatis (ed.). International dimension of bilingual education. pp. 25-52. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Kamisah Ariffin. (2009). The Interaction of Language, Topic and Speakers: Code- switching in Classroom Discourse. In David, M.K., Mc Lellan, J., Rafik- Galea, S. & Abdullah, A. (eds). Codeswitching in Malaysia. pp. 81-95. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Kamisah Ariffin. (2007). Language choice and use in training sessions of selected Malaysian public organisations. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Universiti Putra Malaysia

Marjohan, Asril. 1988. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Nababan, Irene Adryani. 2005. An Analysis of Code Switching and Code Mixing in EI TU ZE Bukan Impian Biasa by Danni Junus. Medan: English Department of USU.

Nababan, J.W. 1993. Sosiolinguistik – Suatu Pengantar Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama

Nawawi, Hadari. 1993. Metode Penelitian Bidang Sosial. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada Universitu Press.

Siregar, Bahren Umar. 1996. Code Alternattion in Bilingual Speech Behavior – Bahasa Indonesia – English Language Mixing. Medan: Universitas Sumatera Utara Press.

Spolsky, Bernard. 1998. Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Wardaugh, Ronald. 1998. An Intoduction to Sociolinguistics Third Edition. Massachussetts: Blackwell Publisher Inc.

Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Great Britain: Hrtnolls Ltd, Bodmin..

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA APPENDICES

1. The list of questions to count the extent of CS/CM in ESP classroom :

No. Statement Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 1. Mixing English and Indonesian is a common phenomenon in the lectures I have attended in this class 2. The lecturer’s main language when delivering lectures is always English. 3. The lecturer frequently mixes Indonesian with English in her lectures. 4. The lecturer usually maintains the English terminology but uses Indonesian to give further explanation 5. The lecturer doesn’t have any difficulty in delivering lectures in English 6. The lecturer always switches to Indonesian when we do not understand the lectures.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The list of questions to count students’ attitudes towards CS/CM

No. Statement Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 1. I would like the lecturer to minimise their use of Indonesian in her lectures. 2. I would prefer my lecturer to use only English in her lectures. 3. I need the lecturer to use both Indonesian and English to better understand the lectures. 4. I feel challenged if/when the lecturer use English in her lectures. 5. I feel frustrated when the lecturer uses both Indonesian and English during her lectures. 6. The lecturer’s mixing of English and Indonesian is not a problem to me. 7. When the lecturer mixes Indonesian and English in her lectures, I tune out.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA