Code Mixing in EFL Classroom: Views from English Teachers Side

The objectives of this research were to find out the category of code mixing used by the English teacher and the code mixing category dominantly used by the English teacher in teaching EFL (English as a foreign language) classroom based on the category of code mixing according to Muysken (2000). This research employed descriptive qualitative research design to analyze the teacher’s code mixing in teaching EFL at SMK Negeri 1 Makassar. The participant of this research was one of all the English teacher of SMK Negeri 1 Makassar, this participant was taken by using purposive sampling technique. The instruments of this research were observation and audio recording.The result showed that (1) The English teacher of SMK Negeri 1 Makassar used all of the categories that categorized by Muysken (2000, cited in Liu, 2008: 6) in teaching EFL classroom, they were: Insertion, Alternation and Congruent Lexicalization. There were seventeen examples of Insertion category, two examples of Alternation category and there were also two examples of congruent lexicalization category used by the English teacher; (2) The category of code mixing dominantly used by the English teacher of SMK Negeri 1 Makassar was insertion category in teaching EFL classroom.Therefore, it can be a positive input of the English teachers to enrich their English vocabulary to avoid using code mixing in teaching EFL classroom. the dominant categories and uses of code-mixing. Further is suggested to explore information on the reasons and motivation of English teachers doing code-mixing in the as well as its effect on students' English skills.


A. INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is Nowadays one of all multilingual and pluralistic societies in the world over. The development of English in this country is evolving rapidly in daily life.
Languages impact each other when they are in contact. Therefore variation or change in a language is a natural consequence. Code-mixing is the consequent phenomenon of language contact and a notable feature of a multilingual society. The research related to the significant linguistic phenomenon occurs not only in the conversation context of the society but also in the education context. Common bilingual people do not only do (Bokamba,1989:287) says "code-mixing is predominantly a communicative behavior of educated speakers."It shows that code-mixing has become a common tendency among bilinguals and multilingual. It's appropriate with (Hudson, 1996: 53) defines codemixing as a case "where a fluent bilingual talking to another fluent bilingual changes language without any change at all in the situation." He also says,"To get the right effect, the speakers balance the two languages against each other as a kind of linguistic cocktail. Both experts said that code-mixing in the bilingual or multilingual is educated speakers or between fluent bilingual conversations.
Code-mixing often occurs in the bilingual and multilingual society. (Wardhaugh, 1992: 106) stated that code-mixing occurs when conversant uses both languages together to the extent that they change from one language to the other in the course of a single utterance. It means that code-mixing occurs in a single utterance or even sentence. Code mixing is found when the speaker speaks in two languages, but it occurs in one sentence. It means that the speaker produces utterance in two languages, but these two languages occur in one sentence. In one sentence, there will be pieces or some words in other languages. Code-mixing is not only a common occurrence but also a communicational requirement. We can communicate in any language. But for clear and effective communication, code-mixing is necessary.
Naturally, while communicating feelings or messages exactly and effectively, the speaker makes use of code-mixing. It is, therefore, not the weakness of the speaker who makes use of code-mixing; on the other hand, it is the strong point of the speaker who uses such a code-mixed word, which conveys his meaning more effectively. But sometimes, the speakers use the code-mixing when the speaker has restricted vocabulary. When the speaker uses a particular language, he/she finds himself/herself in such a position that he/she does not have an appropriate word to express in that language. Therefore, he/she uses code-mixing because of his restricted vocabulary.
Besides, code-mixing occurs when code-mixing is the most important feature and wellstudied speech processes in multilingual communities. Definitions vary, but both utilize the term "code" adopted by linguists from the field of communication technology (Gardner-Chloros, 2009:11). On the other hand, code-mixing refers to "embedding of various linguistic units such as affixes (bound morphemes) words (unbound expert, the researcher is interested in searching for and finding out the code mixing used in the multilingual society. But this time, the researcher restricted the code-mixing used by the English teacher in EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classroom. Brock-Utne and Holmarsdottir (2002) observe that teachers who have been trained in subjects than language subjects are normally more concerned about teaching the subject matter to students. They often do a code-mixing to make students understand the content. Besides that, it is similar to (Appel and Muysken, 1987: 118) said that one of the functions of Code mixing is 'referential' which implies that the motivation behind Code mixing is the lack of an appropriate word or item in a language. They also delineated 'directive function' which presupposes to include or exclude the interlocutor using a particular code, 'expressive function' to exhibit identity, 'phatic or metaphorical function' to manifest change in the talk. They also discussed 'meta-linguistic codeswitching,' which has its function of impressing the interlocutors. Using Jacobson's (1960) and Halliday's (1964)  Makassar and this research discusses the learning and teaching process context in the EFL classroom. The second researcher is namely Japhet Johannes (2017). His dissertation entitles, "The Influence of Code-Switching and Code-Mixing on Learning English Language in Secondary Schools." His study focuses on two terms; they are code-switching and code-mixing. He found that code-switching and code-mixing influenced student's failure to learn the English language, and the teachers were the main cause of code-switching and code-mixing because they were the ones that could have limited the situation.
Furthermore, ways to avoid code-switching and code-mixing were discussed, such as teachers not engaging in code-switching and code-mixing for students to emulate.
The similarity of his study and this research is that both discuss the learning and teaching context, particularly in the English classroom. Still, this research focuses on the code-mixing term.
Some universal factors can motivate or trigger code-mixing in all contexts; therefore, Kim (2006) found out why bilinguals switch on so many factors, including interlocutors, situations, messages, attitudes, and emotions towards a particular code (Kim, 2006). According to Bhatia and Ritchie (2013), a code-mixing choice is also determined by the interlocutors' relationship. This solely determines when, where, and why a bilingual will switch code. Either to include or exclude the interlocutors for one code is more appropriate for a certain situation. In EFL classrooms as well as Code mixing is led by specific motivations and to fulfill specific functions. The studies in EFL classrooms have highlighted that Code mixing performs the functions which prove fruitful for the learning process. In this research, the researcher observes one of SMK Negeri 1 Makassar's English teacher while learning and teaching process in the EFL Classroom. The English teacher of this school uses English while teaching English in the classroom. This school is located at Jl. Andi Mangerangi No. 38, Bongaya, Makassar City, South Sulawesi.
The objectives of this research were to find out the category of code-mixing used by the English teacher and the code-mixing category dominantly used by the English teacher in teaching EFL (English as a foreign language) of SMK Negeri 1 Makassar based on the category of code-mixing according to Muysken (2000). Hopefully, the gathered data can answer the objectives of this research to give a little contribution to the research world, particularly in the EFL classroom context.

B. RESEARCH METHOD
This research employed a descriptive qualitative research design to analyze the teacher's code-mixing in Makassar's EFL classrooms. The qualitative research method was used in the condition of a natural setting, and the researcher is the main instrument (Sugiono, 2009:15). The researcher applied a descriptive method to answer the research questions. Nevertheless, this research's main purposes were to find out the category of code-mixing are used by the teacher and the code-mixing categories are dominantly used by the teacher in teaching English as a foreign language of SMK Negeri 1 Makassar. This research participant was one of all the English teachers of SMK Negeri 1 Makassar. This participant is taken by using the purposive sampling technique. It is appropriate for Sugiono to say that "purposive technique sampling is one of the technique used to determine the participants by using considering something (Sugiono,2009:124)." So the participant of this research was just a person.
The instruments of this research were observation and audio recording. In this research, the researcher used passive participation observation. Passive participation is one of the participant observation. According to Sugiyono (2009: 312), passive participation is the writer present at the scene of actions, but the writer does not interact or participate in it. Besides, the researcher also conducted a data recording by using a handphone to record the participant's voice while teaching and learning process during five meetings in the classroom. The procedures of collecting the data, firstly, the researcher asked permission to the teacher concerned. After getting permission, the researcher recorded the learning-teaching process and took some pictures of the teacher in the classrooms many as five meetings based on the teacher's schedules that were considered adequate for representing the code-mixing used by the teacher in teaching EFL. Finally, the data gathered were transcribed, classified, translated, and analyzed based on the participant's code-mixing.

Findings
This section comprises of result and discussion. The context of this section derived from the instruments were used by the researcher, they are observation and also audio recording. Both of these instruments conducted by the researcher while learning and teaching process in EFL classroom start from the beginning until the end of the meeting as many as five meetings at SMK Negeri 1 Makassar. The data gathered about code mixing category used by the teacher in teaching EFL classroom are as follow: According to Muysken (2000, cited in Liu, 2008: 6) establishes three major categories of code-mixing: "(a) Insertion: the insertion of well defined chunks of language B into a sentence that otherwise belongs to language A; (b) Alternation: the succession of fragments in language A and B in a sentence, which is overall not identifiable as belonging to either A or B; (c) Congruent lexicalization: the use of elements from either language in a structure that is wholly or partly shared by language A and B". This research was conducted based on the expert above regarding with the categories of code mixing.

Extract 1
Based on the extract one, the first language is used by the participant and the participant mixes the code by adding the target language (English) "you know" in the conversation.

Extract 2
In the extract two, the participant looks like describes the meaning of the sentence into Indonesian to the students but the participant still uses a word "translate" as belongs to English in the sentence.

Extract 3
In Extract three, the participant uses two words in the sentence, one word is two times as belong to Indonesian are inserted in the sentences.

Extract 5
In the extract five, the participant uses the word "ada" as belongs to Indonesian in the sentence. So the participant mixes the code of the first language into the target language.

Extract 6
Teacher :Okey, ada yang mau bertanya bagaimana cara mengurutkan benda-benda atau hal-hal yang berhubungan dengan describing .Apa sudah mengerti semua, okey we just remember the formula okey. The word "bisa" is inserted by the participant as belongs to Indonesian in the sentence.

Extract 7
In the extract seven, the participant uses the first language in the sentence. But, the participant mixes the code by using the word " birth place" as belongs to the target language in the sentence.

Extract 8
In the extract eight, the first language is used by the participant in the sentence.
But,there are two words in the target language "from" and "until" are inserted in the sentence as a code mixing. mixed in the sentence of the target language.

Extract 10
In the extract ten, the participant uses the first language in the sentence but the participant mixes the the code by using "five minutes" as belongs to the target language in the conversation.

Extract 11
In the extract eleven, the participant translates the meaning of the sentence into the first language but during the translation, the participant still using English as the target language in the sentence.

Extract 12
Teacher participant explains well in English but mixing the code between the first and the target language in the sentence.

Extract 13
In the extract thirteen, The participant uses English as the target language. But the word "menjadi" as belongs to the first language is inserted in the sentence. So, the code is mixed in the conversation.

Extract 14
In the fourteen extract, the participant inserts the first language in the target language. The words " satu benar" as belongs to the first language is mixed with the target language in the sentence.

Extract 15
In the extract fifteen, the participant uses the first language (Indonesian) in the sentence but the participant mixes "exercise" as the target language (English) in the sentence.

Extract 16
In extract sixteen, the participant uses the target language in the sentences, the words " ayoo" as belong to the first language are mixed in both of sentences.

Extract 17
In extract sixteen, the participant uses the target language in the conversation but the participant adds the word "yang" as belongs to the first language in the sentence.

Extract 1
Based on extract 1, the participant/the teacher mixes the first language (Indonesian) into the target language (English) in one sentence. The participant often adds "ya" in the end of the sentence as belong to the first language. In the extract 1, as :Okey ya eeee. We start our lesson today ya. Okey like this. Ya when we describe eeee something eeee like age or people okey. There are something we must know okey and next week we study about how to describe something okey and there are something that we must know the basic how to describe. The first, we study about eeee okey weeee how to mention about color ya, what is this, (?), material, profession, physical of experience. And today we eeee study how to make eeee sentences using them ya okey. There are three times to describe ya. Like this ya. Okey.

Students
:Jadi bagaimana sir? (So, How is that, Sir) Teacher :Jadi yang benar, please empty the basket in the kitchen.
(So, the true one, please empty the basket in the kitchen) Students :Owh,,, Teacher :Yang di thirty seven like tidy, rack, living room

Students :Halaman enam delapan sir? (Page sixty eight sir) Teacher
: Ayoo open on page sixty eight. And exercise thirty four,,, There are ten numbers and then you move to... conversation during the meeting the participant uses "ya" in the end of the sentence.

Extract 2
There are two sentences in extract two. In the first sentence, the participant inserts the first language "nya dia" into the target language and the participant uses the target language "please" to mix the first language in the sentence.

c. Congruent Lexicalization
Extract 1 Based on the extract one, the participant mixes the words "okey ya" in the target language or English sentence. The word of "okey ya" as a code mixing here is not clear in the sentence whether its belong to the first language or the target language.

Extract 2
In the extract two, the participant commands to the students in ordert to translate the first language into the target language. But in the sentence, the participant uses an abbreviation "TV", The word is not clear, whether the word is abbreviation from "Television" as belongs to the target language or just abbreviation from "Televisi" as belongs to thefirst language.

Discussion
In this part, discussion deals with the interpretation of findings derived from the result of findings are based on the research questions of this research. The research questions are regarding with the code mixing category according to Muysken (2000, cited in Liu, 2008. He said that "there are three major categories of code-mixing: "(a) Insertion: the insertion of well defined chunks of language B into a sentence that otherwise belongs to language A; (b) Alternation: the succession of fragments in language A and B in a sentence, which is overall not identifiable as belonging to either A or B; (c) Congruent lexicalization: the use of elements from either language in a structure that is wholly or partly shared by language A and B". words of "okey" and the abbreviation of "TV". The word "okey" here is not clear weather "okay" in English or "oke" in Indonesian and also the abbreviation of "TV" it's not clear also that "TV" here the abbreviation of "Television" in English or "televisi" in Indonesian.
Both of examples of congruent lexicalizations are not clear weather it belongs to Indonesian or the target language (English).
This study is relevant to the findings of Huang (2004) in which he reported that the possibilities for categories such as alternation and congruent lexicalization to occur are limited. The findings of alternation and congruent lexicalization are limited in learning EFL classroom context because both of them need a high skill in speaking, it's relevant with Ritchie and Bhatia (2013) state that code-switching and code-mixing are marked by 'creativity and complexity' and 'innovative multi-functions' thus leading to the idea that there might be some societal basis for mixing language. This is in contrast with the strongly held perceptions of people who regard any type of language mixing a threat to the purity of the concerned language and think that it is due to linguistic difficulty and lack in lexical treasure that leads bilinguals to switch or mix code. Such a perception attributes 'language-mixing' a negative light and bilinguals are merely seen as incompetent speakers who are not better in any of the languages. Ritchie and Bhatia (2013) dismiss such a view and conclude that there might be other motivations behind 'language mixing'.

D. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the research findings and discussions, the researcher concludes that he English teacher of SMK Negeri 1 Makassar used all of the categories that categorized by Muysken (2000, cited in Liu, 2008  classroom. The use of Insertion category is the highest number than others. At the same time, the type of alternation and congruent lexicalization need a creative and innovative speaker to produce some sentences like that. However, Ritchie and Bhatia (2013) dismissed such perception that the code-mixing occurs because of the incompetent of the speakers. The category of code-mixing dominantly used by the English teacher of SMK Negeri 1 Makassar is insertion category in teaching EFL classroom. This finding is similar with Huang (2004) reports that the insertion category is the highest number of category in chatting from the email and this research in learning EFL context also found that this category is the first level among others.
The results of this study are limited to the dominant categories and uses of codemixing. Further research is suggested to explore information on the reasons and motivation of English teachers doing code-mixing in the classroom as well as its effect on students' English skills.