Malay-English Code-Mixing Alternation Insertion at Morphological

MALAY-ENGLISH CODE-MIXING ALTERNATION INSERTION AT MORPHOLOGICAL
LEVEL IN FACEBOOK AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Azu Farhana Anuar, Bahiyah Abdul Hamid
School of Language Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
43600 UKM, Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan
Abstract
This study examined the occurrences of code-mixing insertion of English morphemes into Malay lexical
items in Facebook postings by university students from a few universities in Malaysia. A collection of 144
postings dated between January 2012 and January 2013 were analyzed to identify: 1) the patterns of
code-mixing alternation insertion at morphological level utilized by the University students on Facebook;
2) reasons for utilizing Malay-English code-mixing alternation insertion at morphological level on
Facebook among university students; and 3) the functions of the code-mixing alternation insertion at
morphological level patterns utilized. The findings suggest that the two areas where Malay and English
grammar display lack of congruence are pluralization of nouns (-s) and continuous tense (-ing). There are
certain patterns invented which the insertion of English suffixes into Malay lexical items were identified.
In addition, the most dominant reasons and functions for this code-mixing insertion among the students
are to amplify the content of this study. Using the responses gained from interview sessions, data then
was interpreted according to Alams (2006) 9 reasons of students code mixed and 8 functions of codemixing among students by Kanthimathi (2005). The reasons and functions found were according to the
context of the data collection; in socialnetworking, Facebook and among certain universities students.
Out of Alams 9 reasons, 5 reasons were identified to be the main factors of this code-mixing of insertion
occurrence which are; spontaneous, to draw the attention of others, to show off, to take the advantage
of knowing a separate language and lack of translation equivalent. However, one new reason was
identified from a respondent that is to follow the current language trend While out of Kanthimathis 8
functions, 4 functions were identified which are; attitudinal, directive, socializing and referential
functions. Conclusions and suggestions for further research are provided.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Since The Education Act 1961 which granted for the use of the Malay language, Bahasa Malaysia, to
substitute English as the main medium of instruction, Malaysians have been utilizing both languages in
their daily life. English became a second language with the implementation of Bahasa Malaysia to
substitute English as the official language and the medium of instruction in all government schools in
Malaysia. According to Wee (2009), this change in policy resulted in the deterioration in the standard of
English among Malaysians in the 1970s onwards. In the 1990s, English recovered its significance as
Malaysia aims 2020 as the year to achieve a fully developed status, in which English is the language of
science, trade, communication and technology. Bahiyah (2003: 3-4), stated that English is legitimately
renowned as the second language, and observed as a lingua franca, but as well as a code for
Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014
(E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by
worldresearchconference.com
72
international and regional acquaintances in the spheres of science and technology, international and
regional finance, trade, diplomatic and economic affairs.
Seeing that the bilingual system of education is in place, with some subjects studied through the
medium of Malay and others through the English-medium, Malaysian university students are keen to
apply both languages in their interaction. University students in the early twenty-first century, as well,
are using home computers and notebooks for communication at unprecedented rates in ever-expanding
virtual communities (Tagliamonte, 2008). Taking into consideration the largest virtual community
Facebook, has become one of the main communication media university students utilize to keep in
contact with friends and acquaintances. This makes it an appealing medium of spoken-written language
to identify trends of code-mixing among university students in informal social domains for this type of
trend is much observed among the young generation in Malaysia of late.
This study aims to examine the patterns of code-mixing alternation insertion at morphological level that
exist in socialnetworking, namely Facebook, among university students, hoping to identify the reasons
Malay lexical items have been code-mixed with English morphemes and the functions of their
occurrence. This is in contrast to previous research, which has mostly studied language alternation in
face-to-face informal conversations (Chan, 2004; Muysken, 2000; Myer-Scotton, 1992; Wei, 1998) with
few studies in the context of computer mediated communication (Danet & Herring, 2003; Durham,
2003; Goldbarg, 2009; Ho, 2006; Huang, 2004).
Code Alternation
Language alternation describes the alternating use of two languages, recognizable grammatical systems
(Nilep, 2010). Language alternation as well concerns linguistic form. Most alternations are codeswitching but code switching concerns on the contextualization of communication (Gumperz, 1992).
According to Nilep (2010), change in linguistic form (language alternation) signals a change in context
(contextualization) the practice may be described as code switching. However, this alternation concerns
on linguistic patterns of code alternation (grammatical forms), where the relationship between the
contributing languages is not necessarily asymmetric, and that both languages can play an equal part in
contributing to the morphosyntax of code-mixed texts (Bentahila and Davies, 1998). The distinction
between code-switching and code-mixing is one of the most perplexing debates in the study of language
alternation (Crdenas-Claros and Isharyanti, 2009; Myers-Scotton, 1993). Clyne (1991 as cited in
Crdenas-Claros and Isharyanti, 2009) claims that code-switching and code-mixing refer to the same
phenomena in which the speaker stops using language A and employs language B (p.161). Wei
(1998) clarifies that if language alternation occurs at or above clause level, it is considered codeswitching, but if it occurs below clause level then it is considered code-mixing. Thus, in addition,
according to Bahiyah (2003: 35), code-alternation is employed as a resource for the construction of
interactional meaning between two codes.
Code-Mixing (Insertion)
Code-mixing occurs when lexical items and grammatical features of two or more languages exist in the
same sentence (Muysken, 2000). According to Li (1998; 2000), code-mixing refers to any admixture of
linguistic elements of two or more language systems in the same utterance at various levels:
phonological, lexical, grammatical and orthographical. It has already been found that the phenomenon
of code-mixing not only exists in conversations among language users in Malaysia but also occurs in
sentences used in on-line social networks such Facebook.
73
According to Ho (2007), code-mixing is the mix of one language with another within the same utterance
or in the same oral or written text. It is a common phenomenon in societies in which two or more
languages are used. According to Bokamba (1989), code-mixing is the embedding of various linguistic
units such as affixes (bound morphemes), words (unbound morphemes), phrases and clauses from a cooperative activity where the participants, in order to infer what is intended, must reconcile what they
hear with what they understand.
In addition to code-mixing patterns, according to Musyken (2009), insertion happens when lexical items
from one language are incorporated into another. He added insertion also occurs when the string of
words is preceded and followed by elements from the other language, which is structurally related. He
further added that the idea of insertion is elucidated as insertion of material such as grammar
morphemes, lexical items or entire constituents from one language into a structure from other language
and it happens in well defined chunks of language B into a sentence that otherwise belongs to language
A. However, in this study, the direction of this code-mixing of insertion happens in morphological level
where Malay lexical items are inserted by English grammatical morphemes.
In this study, the narrow focus will be on the code-mixing alternation of insertion; English grammatical
morphemes into Malay lexical items where patterns of language choice are investigated through the
medium of Facebook (e.g. lepaking, makaning, bajus, kakaks). Language choice of this study will be
mainly English and the code-mixing lexical items are Malay, whilst morphemes insertion is English.
Statement of the Problem

According to Crystal (2001; as cited in Crdenas-Claros and Isharyanti, 2009), this type of communication
through the internet has prompted new concepts of language contact. This has attracted many
researchers to study language contact via computer-mediated communication (CMC) especially in
bilingual communities (e.g. Paolillo, 1999, 2001; Su, 2003; Hinrichs, 2006 as cited in Huang, 2009). She
further adds that the language contact phenomena includes code-switching and code-mixing.
Code-mixing is a common phenomenon in Malaysia (McLellan, 2009) in present days, especially among
university students. Thus, problems might occur in accordance to these circumstances. Since many
universities in Malaysia use English as the medium of instruction while the students use Malay as their
mother tongue in daily conversation of informal domains, the occurrence of code-mixing is rapidly
spreading. Hence, this study investigates the occurrence of code-mixing insertion of English morphemes
into Malay lexical items. As the patterns are being concerned, the population of people utilizing them is
being alarmed as well. The language alternated might lead the students to using Manglish, instead of
Malaysian English. According to Kim (2008), Manglish is Malaysian Bazaar English where Malaysians
apply it daily in the form of Bahasa Rojak, whilst Malaysian English is Standard Malaysian English,
where the domain applied always is academic wise. Moreover, according to Guardian (2010), the cyber
speak could hamper ones spelling ability and grammatical competency as communication that takes
place in socialnetworkings does not conform to the traditional ways of spelling, as people do not seem
to bother if they have spelled incorrectly or committed grammatical errors.
There are only few studies on code-mixing (e.g. Muthusamy, 2009; Bahiyah, 2003; Kim, 2006) of
insertion among university students (Musyken, 2009; Alam, 2006), especially the insertion of English
74
morphemes into Malay words. Hence, the aspects of morphological level of this code-mixing insertion
are still lacking in Malaysian context, especially in spoken-written form among students. Thus, what are
the patterns utilized by the students to this morphological level? What are the reasons and functions
behind the utilization based on the context of spoken written form in Facebook? Mixed language
created might only be comprehended by their sociocultural members (friends etc), but not by others. A
particular way to code mix can only be considered as a style of speaking when it is in contrast with other
ways of speaking in a system which are meaningful to the participants. The contrast is meaningful
because it helps participants to identify in-group members, in contrast to out-group people who codemix differently or who do not code-mix at all. Hence, it can bring misinterpretation and
misunderstanding to the audience or viewers.
Despite the debate of this ruin of the language, this code-mixing culture still thrives in the pages of
Facebook. Thus, this study aims to investigate English-Malay code mixing patterns of language
alternation used by Malaysian university students and the reasons why this code-mixing occurs among
them.
Purpose of the Study

The smallest analytical feature of code mixing, which is at the word level, is investigated as to observe
whether there are new patterns of code mixing alternation insertion at morphological level. This can be
considered as a new phenomenon in code mixing alternation of insertion as the patterns that occur are
novel in this area of code-mixing study. This study aims to examine the patterns of code-mixing of
insertion that exist in socialnetworking, particularly Facebook, among university students, hoping to
identify the reasons of Malay lexical items that have been code-mixed with English morphemes and the
functions of their occurrence. The first objective is to classify patterns of Malay code-mixed lexical
items; Sebbas (1998) areas of lack of congruence and Musykens (2000) categories of code-mixing of
insertion will be employed for this purpose. The second objective is to investigate the reasons university
students code-mix using data collection from interviews guided by Alam (2006): 9 reasons of students
code mixed. The third objective is to investigate the functions of code mixing by applying Kanthimathis
(2005) 8 functions of code-mixing among students. The second and third objectives will be further
operationalized by the combination of Halliday, Kachru and Firthian for this sociolinguistic study
following the "socially-realistic linguistics".
Research Questions
This study addresses three research questions:
1) What are the patterns of code-mixing alternation insertion at morphological level utilized by the
university students in Facebook?
2) What are the reasons for utilizing Malay-English code-mixing alternation insertion at
morphological level in Facebook?
3) What are the functions of the code-mixing alternation insertion at morphological level patterns
utilized?
Literature Review

75
Code-mixing Alternation (Insertion)

There are numerous studies were being done on the spoken or written form of code-alternation of
switching and mixing in Malaysia (see Bahiyah , 2003; Muthusamy, 2009; Kia, L. etl, 2011). For instance,
as according to Muthusamy (2009), code-switching refers to the change from one language to another
not in the same utterance; but in the stretch of conversation. The study focuses on the spoken form of
code-switching, resulted to some reasons and functions of code-switching among Indian students
speaking Tamil and English. It emphasizes on spoken code-switching form of Tamil school students to
the usage of English. In addition, Bahiyah (2003) in her study stated that code-alternation is a verbal
interaction where two or more codes are used alternatively and this alternation is employed as a
resource for the construction of interactional meaning between two codes, where the study focuses on
spoken code-alternation in meeting agenda. In the study of code-mixing of English in the entertainment
news of Chinese newspapers in Malaysia, English words most commonly interleaved into the Chinese
entertainment news in Malaysia are common nouns, followed by proper nouns, adjectives, verbs, and
abbreviations (Kia, L. etl, 2011). These instances introduce the phenomena of code-mixing and codeswitching in the spoken and written forms but never the spoken-written form.
Nevertheless, only few studies were investigating on the spoken-written interaction. Spoken-written
form of interaction can be observed greatly on social networkings presently, namely Facebook.
Facebook is a new form of language; a spoken-written language (Wittkower, 2010; Jettka, 2010). In
addition, many studies have been conducted in the area of code-mixing and code-switching in both
linguistic and sociolinguistic areas. This study will examine the code-mixing innovation of spoken-written
interaction on Facebook in sociolinguistic area.
The patterns observed through this study are basically on the insertion of English grammar morphemes
into Malay lexical items, which are:
a) Malay verb + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = gerund
i) Perfect tiduring time.
Tidur + ing = tiduring
(see Appendixes: Code-mixing Alternation (Verb Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 3)
ii) Cant wait to kumpul-ing duit raya! :D
Kumpul + ing = kumpul-ing
(see Appendixes: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 64)
b) Malay verb + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = verb
i) Since I am bored today, I am maining game nad menyanyiing in the room
Main + ing = maining
ii) Watching olympics games and makaning pizzahahahaha
Makan + ing = Makaning
(see Appendixes: Code mixing Alternation(Verb Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 70)
c) Malay prefix + Malay verb + English suffix pluralization (-s) = verb
i) When you try, you berharaps.
76
Ber + harap + s = berharaps

(see Appendixes: Code-mixing Alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 71)
d) Malay adjective + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = verb
i) Gelojoh-ing @Pasta Zamnai with Fatin
Gelojoh + ing = Gelojoh-ing
ii) Seronoking with best pal
Seronok+ ing = Seronoking
e) Malay noun + English suffix pluralization (-s) = noun
i) Survey bajus for raya! Yeay!
Baju + s = bajus
f) Malay prefix + Malay verb + + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = verb
i) Ber-fikir-ing to buy some desert.
Ber + fikir + ing = Ber-fikir-ing
ii) Lecturer sedang menguliahing subjek sejarah
Meng + kuliah + ing = menguliahing
Malay vs. English Grammar

Currently, the English language behavior in Malaysia has been expended by the locals. As Malay
language is the language of government, commerce, and education in Malaysia, (Robison, 2008), English
is as well widely utilized by Malaysians. Thus, the tendency to mix both languages (Malay and English) is
highly recognized in Malaysia. There are at certain levels where the grammatical significances and
differences between Malay and English which may cause difficulties and ease for English language
learners. Thus, the possibility of both languages to be code-mixed in Malaysian context, to be specific, is
exceptionally high.
As students code-mixed according to domains, this occurrence is observed to be appeared when they
were socializing with their peers, particularly on spoken-written language, namely Facebook. This trend
is perceived as a new language innovation created by the students not due to low proficiency of
students, in fact, based on McLellan (2009), the students possess high proficiency of English that lead to
this language alternation. In addition, Hudson (1996:53) defines code-mixing 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. Thus, there are certain similarities and differences shared between both
languages that lead to the usage of both languages in mixing, not only on sentence level but to the
extent of word level.
77
Firstly, in Malay, nouns are not inflected for number. Reduplication of a noun can be used to signify
plurality, though this does not take place after numerals. Malay demonstratives also do not have diverse
singular and plural forms. For instance, according to Sneddon (1996, p. 129), the phrase of buku ini
can mean this book or these books. Thus, to differentiate the pluralism of a Malay noun, students
inserted English grammar morpheme of pluralization s to the Malay lexical to emphasize on the
plurality of the nouns mentioned. For instance, the word baju which means cloth; the students added
the English morpheme pluralization of s to indicate the plural form of the Malay item bajus.
Next, English verb tenses are principally complicated for Malay because verbs in Malay are not manifest
for tense or number. These are expressed through context, auxiliary (aspect) markers, or temporal
adverbs (Prentice, 1987, p. 931). Thus, learners might over-use temporal adverb markers, have trouble
with auxiliaries, or having difficulty choosing the right tense construction in English. According to
Sneddon, (1996, p. 237), Malay has several copulas, but these are not actually verbs, and their use is
optional and especially infrequent in short constructions. Hence, to show that they were doing
something at a particular time, the insertion of English grammar morpheme of continuous tense ing
was being utilized by the students. For example, the word lepak, which means hang out, has been
added by English morpheme of continuous tense ing to indicate the performing action lepaking. The
morpheme of ing can be actually inserted in verbs which Bahiyah and Basils (1998) as action verbs.
Nonetheless, some of the Malay lexical items used were not nonstandard Malay language (Bahasa
Malaysia), for instance, membutaing, which supposed to the standard of tiduring (sleeping).
Membutaing literally conveys the state of blindness where you close your eyes completely, that carries
to the similarity of tiduring (sleeping). Subsequently, to some extent, both languages identically share
the same rules of pluralization only occurs to nouns. Nevertheless, the students tend to insert the
pluralization of English morpheme s into the Malay verbs, for example, berharaps and gerams.
Perhaps, it was to emphasize on the verb acted. This phenomenon signifies the innovation was not only
accommodated to standard Malay but as well the nonstandard Malay lexical.
In consequence, the lack of congruence in both languages created a novel level of code mixing of
insertion. The grammatical structures of both languages appeared to be able to merge to one another as
where the students inserted the English grammatical morphemes into the Malay lexical items.
Derivational Vs. Inflectional Morphemes

For this study, the code-mixing insertion found is on the morphological level where English morphemes
are being inserted into Malay lexical items. Thus, this carries the interest on the types of morphemes
found in the data collection.
In English, there are two types of morphemes which are derivational and inflectional morphemes.
Derivational morpheme changes the roots class of words or its meaning, or both. For instance, the word
unhappy derives from the root happy added with a prefix un-. Both happy and unhappy are
adjectives. The meaning, however, is completely diverse. I am unhappy is thoroughly diverse from I
am happy. In this case, the prefix un- is called derivational morpheme.

78
Inflectional morpheme, on the other hand, does not change either the roots class of words or the
meaning. For instance, the word books, derives from the root book added with a suffix s. Both
book and books are noun. The meaning is still the same. The suffix s only indicates the plural form.
In this case, the suffix s is inflectional.
In this study, the morpheme found in the data collection is inflectional morpheme where the English
suffixes added to the Malay words do not change the meaning of the words, even though they change
some of the word forms. For instance, the word tidur (sleep). The insertion of morpheme suffix ing
changes the form from verb to gerund. However, the word tiduring still indicates sleeping, which
shows the identical action of to sleep. In addition, the word kawan (friend) was added with English
suffix s, to form the pluralization of kawans (friends). This does not change the meaning of the word.
Methodology
Scope of Study
A total of 144 postings dated between 2012 and 2013 were collected through participants Facebook
profile pages based. Hundred and forty four postings were collected to show the frequent phenomenon
of the new pattern of code-mixing. The postings are going to be from the students of Universiti
Teknologi MARA and Universiti Kuala Lumpur age ranging from 18 to 24 years old. Due to ethical issues,
the employment of the data collected for the research purpose was being granted by the students as
researcher asked for permission to exploit the data. Interviews were conducted to 10 respondents as it
has reached a point of data saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and its purpose was to attain data for
selective research questions.
Conceptual Framework
In terms of the definition from Bhatia and Ritchie (2004), code-mixing refers to the mixing of various
linguistic units (morphemes, words, modifiers, phrases, clauses and sentences) primarily from two
participating grammatical systems within a sentence, but in this case, within a word. In order to achieve
the objective of the present study, the features of English morphemes inserted into Malay lexical items
were observed. In the bilingualism literature it has been found that Muyskens (2000) typology quite
similar to the pattern found in this study. In his case, Muysken attempts to generalize a current vast and
confusing discussion of code-mixing into an economical typology. He describes three structures of codemixing:
(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 or B (p. 6).

79
However, the first type is only found between two related languages that share a lot of structural
similarities; it is relevant to the data found in this study, which is insertion. Based on Musyken (2009),
insertion occurs when lexical items from one language are incorporated into another, which what this
paper focuses on based on the data collected on Facebook. When the switched string is preceded and
followed by elements from the other language, which are structurally related, it is a case of insertion
(Musyken, 2009).
According to Musyken (2000) as cited in Kim (2006), the notion of insertion is clarified as insertion of
material such as grammar morphemes, lexical items or entire constituents from one language into a
structure from the other language. Here the process of code-mixing is conceived as something similar to
borrowing: the insertion of an unfamiliar morpheme of phrasal category into a given lexical. The
difference would simply be the size and type of element inserted, e.g. tenses and pluralization.
However, in this study, the insertion detected was only on the morphology level. Thus, this comes to a
new phenomenon of code-mixing insertion where English grammar morphemes were inserted into
Malay lexical items. This can be categorized as insertion, but going into deeper as the focus will not be
on the chunk but the word level, which Malay lexical items were being inserted by English grammatical
morphemes. Hence, this could be considered as a new category of code-mixing insertion.
For more detailed investigation, English morphemes on grammatical items are examined at the level of
the Malay lexical items. Sebbas (1998) areas of lack of congruence in both languages were used as the
conceptual framework in interpreting the data. This analysis focuses on areas where there is lack of
congruence between Malay and English which has been defined by Sebba: noun phrase structure,
pluralization of nouns and verb inflections. This study only focuses on two of these elements which are
pluralization of nouns and verb inflections since patterns of the data collected were only in these two
areas, which are the insertion of English plural morpheme s into Malay nouns and English verb
(continuous tense) morpheme ing into Malay verbs.
A set of interview questions will be conducted to only 10 respondents it is based on the point of data
saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), as answer the second research question which is the reasons of
students code-mixing. The questions were adapted from Conversational Code-mixing of Cantonese
Speakers in Hong Kong by Katherine Hoi Ying Chen, 2005, University of Michigan. The data collected
then will be interpreted using Alam (2006), 9 reasons of students code mixed, which are spontaneous,
to draw the attention of others, to show off, to impress for professional purpose, to impress the
opposite sex, to alienate a particular group/to take the advantage of, knowing a separate language, lack
of translation equivalent, medium of education or training in English and euphemisms. Students are
provided with these 9 reasons but they could emerge with any reasons that apt to the situation of their
code-mixing.
The data then will be further interpreted on the functions of code-mixing. According to Kanthimathi
(2009), there are 8 functions of code-mixing among students, which are:
a) Attitudinal functions: Students perceive mixing of English with other language is an issue of prestige,
a symbol of education, urbaneness and sophistication. It is a smattering of English of educated and
broad minded person.

80
b) Register Identification functions: English is to a degree associated with the registers of science and
technology, administration, education.
c) Expressive functions: Code mixing is performed to express emotions, particularly for tension relief.
English of affection such as love are favored more than their language equivalents. The employment of
code mixing avoids the negative connotation allied with certain Malay words.
d) Directive functions: Students are engaged in code mixing to direct their interlocutors attention.
Looking for the listeners' directive impression as to showing off his abilities.
e) Repetitive functions: Provides definitions of terms and expressions, quoting others, paraphrasing
ones own words in another language.
f) Socializing functions: The signal of friendship or solidarity to a group. It emerged as a college lingo in
more vernacular style.
g) Referential functions: To express referential functions in the following categories: lack of readily
available Malay equivalents, terms with which the speakers are more familiar in English than in Malay or
vice versa. As well when the speaker cannot find fitting expressions in the base language.
h) Instrumental functions: As the matter of aspiration for a good living and of promotion of good
education. They code mix to attain proficiency in English as a passport to success and to have sound
knowledge and fluency in this language.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study is based on the assumption of language is best interpreted in its
sociocultural context. Data will be further examined using combination of Firthian, Halliday and Kachru
sociolinguistic theories called Socio-realistic linguistic theory as this research aims to study the current
phenomenon that happens to the changes of patterns of language used in this era on the linguistics and
sociolinguistics level.
Halliday (1975) refers to his functions of language as metafunctions where there are many functions
that language conveys as it develops. The identical prototype happened to this current language
development where code-mixing of insertion has been leveled up to the morpheme level according to
certain functions. In sociolinguistic literature, Firth (1957), Hymes (1977), Kachru (1981) and others use
the idea of social context, or, context of situation. According to Firth (1957), the historical context of the
language must be taken into consideration as it brought the success of the changes of dominant
outlooks in the linguistics work during this century. Hence, not only looking at the current phenomenon,
the historical pattern of this code-mixing of insertion needs to be observed initially.
Malinowski (1941), states that the main character of languages is as a mode of action and not an
instrument of reflection. This analysis emphasizes the function of language in practical action and as a
relation in concentrated human activity, as a piece of human behaviour. (Ogden & Richards, 1949). It
suggests that languages do play functions in human action. Thus, language reflects not only in linguistics
form but as well, in the form of behaviourism. Hence, the comprehensibility of a language involves the
context of situation of both linguistics and sociolinguistics form of a language.
81
Knowledge is transmitted in social contexts, through relationships, like those of parent and child, or
teacher and pupil, or classmates, that are defined in the value systems and ideology of the culture. And
the words that are exchanged in these contexts get their meaning from activities in which they are
embedded, which again are social activities with social agencies and goals. (Halliday, 1985). This is said
that language can be comprehended amongst a society, not by others. Hence, the utilization of codemixing of insertion can only be understood by or within a society where it signifies the respondents
who utilized it. The need of wide and complex considerations into an attempt to give an adequate
analysis of meaning is vital in understanding the whole context of situation. Thus, the root of history of
the words mixed needed to be considered (Maybin, 1994).
According to Maybin (1994) as well, the difficulties were not encountered in only a single word, but the
whole context of the structure as the origin of both code-mixing words and morphemes should be
identified. As Hymes (1977) emphasizes on the functions of language and the importance of context to
its meanings where there will be a new linguistics rooted from the daily conversation events, which
would take into account the social and cultural values. Thus, the new pattern of this code-mixing of
insertion phenomenon occurred as it rooted from the everyday conversation event where students
inculcate their own culture and values to form the current pattern of code-mixing of insertion.
The employment of the above approaches to language as the theoretical framework for this study stems
from the fact that code-mixing is used by bilingual speakers in context-bound situations and are best
interpreted in terms of the socially-realistic linguistics context in which they are employed. These
theoretical models will help in understanding the sociocultural and situational context of the data.
Findings
Various studies employ written texts as a source of data for research on code-mixing, nonetheless, some
studies confirm that code-mixing is not limited only to oral communication between bilingual speakers,
but that it is also a strategy of interactions that bilinguals use for diverse reasons as well. Thus, this study
focuses on the spoken-written interaction which the data obtained was from a socialnetworking,
Facebook.
The findings of this study propose that the patterns of code-mixing of insertion are as well occurred in
the form of morphemes level, where the English grammatical morphemes are inserted in Malay lexical
items. This leads to a new phenomenon in code-mixing of insertion. The students created code-mixing
words by inserting the English morphemes into Malay words.
Findings suggest that code-mixing does occur in spoken-written discourse and the reasons and functions
for mixing codes are similar to those of verbal communication for code-switching as some models used
are based on spoken discourse models. The language alternation among university students achieved is
as an innovation in areas where Malay and English grammar display a lack of congruence. As stated by
Gal (1979), a number of instances in which a mix at the end of an argument not only helps to end the
interaction but may serve to emphasize a point.
Patterns of Code-Mixing of Insertion
a) Malay prefix + Malay verb + English suffix pluralization (-s) = verb
When you try, you berharaps.
82
(When you try, you hope too much!)

Ber + harap + s = berharaps (verb)
(see Appendix B: Code-mixing Alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 71)
The root word of berharap is harap which means hope (verb). Thus, berharap indicates hoping
(verb). The prefix Malay of ber- means the state of doing something. ber- can be translated as the
continuous tense of ing in English. The insertion of pluralization of English morpheme s indicates that
the emphasis was on the verb where putting too much effort on performing the action. From the
grammatical point of view, the insertion of pluralization of English morpheme s into the Malay verb
lexical is incorrect or inaccurate. However, the respondent seemed to insert the morpheme s as she
realized that the morpheme indicates pluralization which brings the emphasis to the action of putting
too much hope. Thus, the result is still a verb.
Dont wear clothes that will mengundangs leering looks from men.
(Dont wear clothes that will provoke leering looks from men.)
Meng + undang + s = mengundangs (verb)
(see Appendix B: Code-mixing Alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 33)
The prefix Malay of meng- indicates the condition of future action. The word mengundangs derives
from the word undang which means provoke (verb). Hence, mengundangs is defined as will provoke.
It again shows the emphasis on the verb by inserting the English morpheme of pluralization of s into
the Malay verb lexical. It signifies that if you perform the action, this will surely lead to an act by others.
Once more, the insertion of pluralization of English morpheme s into the Malay verb lexical is incorrect
or erroneous. Nevertheless, the respondent appeared to insert the morpheme s as he identified that
the morpheme indicates pluralization which he wanted to emphasize on the effect on the action
performed. Hence, the result shows the word as a verb.
b) Malay noun + English suffix pluralization (-s) = noun
Survey bajus for raya! Yeay!
(Survey clothes for raya! Yeay!)
Baju + s = bajus (noun)
(see Appendix B: Code-mixing alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 38)
The word baju (noun) means cloth. Here, the insertion of English morpheme of pluralization s is
acceptable as the insertion is done to a noun where grammatical rule of English language is not being
violated where singular turns to plural, which is bajus (noun). Thus, the insertion of the English
morpheme into Malay lexical is grammatically acceptable in English. Hence, the word is considered as a
noun.
Dinner. Atuk with the bujangs
(Dinner with grandpa and the bachelors)
Bujang + s = bujangs (noun)
(see Appendix B: Code-mixing alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 56)

83
The word bujang (noun) means bachelor. Again, at this point, the insertion of English morpheme of
pluralization s is tolerable as the insertion of s, as in bujangs, is performed to a noun where
grammatical rule of English language is not being violated where it shows pluralism. Hence, the insertion
of the English morpheme into Malay lexical is grammatically acceptable in English. Thus, the word shows
the result of a noun.
Based on all the instances above, the usage of Malay nouns and verbs inserted by English morphemes s
resulted to form nouns and verbs as well. The students seemed to identify the roles of pluralization of s
by inserting the morpheme to the lexical nouns even though in some of the cases, the insertion rather is
inaccurate. Rather than using the Malay grammatical rules of pluralization, they employed English
grammatical morpheme of s to create a new phenomenon of code-mixing of insertion.
Verbs in Malay do not inflect for tense, which is marked adverbially (Cumming, 1991; Svalberg &
Fatimah, 1998). In this study, there are seventy two examples where the English continuous tense ing
morpheme is retained on Malay verbs in language-English context. The verb English morpheme is
present, hence resulting in the occurrence of modified Malay verbs. The insertion of English morphemes
ing could only actually being inserted in verbs which Bahiyah & Basils (1998) called as the
categorization of action verbs (for example, take, made, gave, and look).
The lack of congruence in Malay and English grammar rules of continuous tense -ing leads to the
occurrence of these patterns as well. In Malay Language, in order to identify the continuous tense or
state of performing an action, the verb lexical should be inserted with prefixes such as me-, men-, meng, men- and ber-, depending of the verbs themselves. The rules stated that the indication of Malay
prefixes of continuous tense is depending on the Malay verbs. For instance, the word lepak. The
continuous tense of this word should be melepak where the indication of Malay prefix is me-. However,
the insertion of English morpheme of continuous tense ing to the verb has made the Malay word to be
lepaking. The insertion of English morpheme of continuous tense ing has made the Malay verb to be as
still in the identical meaning but being mixed with English grammatical structure. Nevertheless, both
Malay and Englsih languages share the same grammatical rules where continuous tense can only be
done to verbs when the indication is action performing. In this study, students inserted the continuous
tense of ing not only into verbs but as well as adjectives. Hence, this also leads to the curiosity of the
students braveness and creativeness in doing so.
Examples of Malay lexical with English morpheme ing
a) Malay verb + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = gerund
Perfect tiduring time.
(Perfect sleeping time)
Tidur + ing = tiduring (gerund)
(see Appendix C: Code-mixing Alternation (Verb Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 3, pg. 140)
The word tidur means sleep (verb). The insertion of English morpheme ing (tiduring) may lead to the
formation of continuous tense. However, the insertion of English morpheme ing does not imply the
state of sleeping but is a non-finite verb form used to make a verb phrase that can serve in place of a
noun phrase. Thus, the result of the code-mixing insertion leads to the formation of gerund.
84
Cant wait to kumpul-ing duit raya! :D

(Cant wait to collecting Raya money!):D
Kumpul + ing = kumpul-ing (gerund)
(see Appendix C: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 64)
The word kumpul means collect (verb). Thus, the word kumpul-ing defines collecting. To some extent,
the students inserted the English morpheme of ing, without realizing that they have transformed the
Malay verb into a gerund. They perhaps inserted the morpheme of ing to indicate the future action or
action that is currently performed by them. Here, the code-mixing of Malay lexical verb and English
morpheme -ing has resulted to gerund.
b) Malay verb + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = verb
Since I am bored today, I am maining game and menyanyiing in the room
(Since I am bored today, am playing game and singing in the room )
Main + ing = maining (verb)
The word main means play (verb). The insertion of English morpheme ing guides to the pattern of
maining which means playing (verb). This insertion formulates a verb into a verb as well but in the form
of continuous tense, showing that the respondent was in a state of performing the action. Hence, the
action performed shows that it is currently happening. Thus, the code-mixing word is defined as a verb.
Makaning with my family.
(Eating with my family)
Makan + ing = Makaning (verb)
The word makan means eat (verb). Therefore, makaning is defined as eating (verb). Here, the
employment of English morpheme ing was accurately inserted into Malay verbs (makan + ing =
makaning). The students acknowledge the roles of English morpheme ing, which is to indicate the verb
of continuous tense (the state of currently performing an action), therefore, the insertion of the ing
morpheme stands for the indication of current situation that is happening. Thus, the code-mixing shows
that it is a verb.
c) Malay adjective + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = verb
Gelojoh-ing @Pasta Zamnai with Fatin
(Greedy-ing @Pasta Zamnai with Fatin.)
Gelojoh + ing = Gelojoh-ing (verb)
The word gelojoh means greedy (adjective). Here, the insertion of English morpheme ing was being
exaggerated, where the adjective was being inserted with the suffix of ing morpheme. In English
grammatical structure, an adjective cannot be inserted with any suffixes excluding ly, as to form
85
adverb. In this case, the word gelojoh (greedy) was inserted with ing, indicating that the respondent
was performing the action of eating greedily, where it becomes gelojoh-ing. Although from the point of
view of grammar it is incorrect, the message was still conveyed, where it turned out to be a verb as the
person was performing the adjective. Hence, the code-mixing guides the word to become a verb.
Seronoking with best pal
(Having fun with best pal)
Seronok + ing = Seronoking (verb)
The word seronok means fun (adjective). For this instance, the students inserted the English
morpheme of ing into Malay adjective as to form verb to show that they were performing the action of
the adjective mentioned. The respondent changed the adjective of seronok (fun) to the verb of
seronoking (having fun). This condition is against the English grammatical rules but the message can
still be understood by the readers. Hence, the code-mixing word constructed becomes a verb.
d) Malay prefix + Malay verb + + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = verb
Since I am bored today, I am maining game and menyanyiing in the room
(Since I am bored today, am playing game and singing in the room )
Me + nyanyi + ing = menyanyiing (verb)
The word menyanyiing means singing (verb). It derives from a Malay verb nyanyi which means sing.
The Malay prefix me- indicates the state of performing the action as the same indication was done by
inserting the English morpheme of ing to the Malay lexical verb. Here, the insertion of English
morpheme of ing has being redundant where the Malay prefix me- has been used initially. It tells that
the respondent was emphasizing to the state of performing the action in both ways (me- and ing). The
usage of these affixes result to the utilization non-standardizes words of both languages. However, this
code-mixing has formed a verb.
Ber-fikir-ing to buy some desert.
(Thinking to buy some desert)
Ber + fikir + ing = berfikiring (verb)
The prefix ber- indicates the state of performing the action. It signifies the English morpheme ing. The
word fikir means think (verb), while berfikir is defined as thinking (verb). The usage of Malay prefix
ber- and English morpheme ing has led to redundancy of continuous tense. Thus, the word is a verb as
well. However, the utilization of both affixes pilots to the non-standardization of both languages. The
meaning is still being conveyed but the formation of the word is considered as inaccurate.
Lecturer sedang menguliahing subjek sejarah
(The lecturer is revising on History subject!)
Meng + kuliah + ing = menguliahing (verb)
86
The Malay prefix meng- indicates the English morpheme continuous tense of ing. The word kuliah
means study (verb), while the word menguliah means studying (verb). In Malay language itself, there is
no such word of menguliah. However, the application of English morpheme ing leads to the
formation of performing the action. The action has, in a way, being emphasized by the respondent to
show that he was studying hard on History subject. Hence, the code-mixing formed a verb.
According to all the examples above, the usage of Malay verbs and adjectives inserted with English
morphemes s resulted in the form of almost verbs and gerunds additionally. The students tend to
recognize the roles of English morpheme of ing by inserting the morpheme to the Malay lexical items.
The students are aware of the usage of the English morpheme of ing by inserting it, although not all are
considered as appropriate, in a morphological sense. It produces a new phenomenon of code-mixing of
insertion.
Reasons of Code-Mixing of Insertion
Alam (2006), comes out with 9 reasons of students code-mixing; spontaneous, to draw the attention of
others, to show off, to impress for professional purpose, to impress the opposite sex, to alienate a
particular group, to take the advantage of knowing a separate language, lack of translation equivalent,
medium of education or training in English and euphemisms. Among these reasons, there are 5 reasons
identified in the context of CMC, specifically Facebook, which is aligned with the patterns of code-mixing
of insertion created by the students. The reasons identified are spontaneous, to draw the attention of
others, to show off, to take the advantage of knowing a separate language and lack of translation
equivalent. Speakers or writers might apply code-mixing according to own reasoning and same applies
to the findings of this study.
For spontaneous reasoning, two respondents indicated that they code-mixed in such way
spontaneously. They spontaneously posted in Facebook without thinking of the grammatical rules of
both languages as they already recognized the grammar systems of both languages. They only did the
code-mixing in very little amount which is the morphemes. This could be apt to Chan (1998), where
code-mixing of English always occurred in single words and surrounded by other words of other
languages. This happens because English words are commonly being considered as content words,
rather than purpose words, where it was done spontaneously by the students. It was formed
linguistically, rather than sociolinguistic rationale.
Besides that, one respondent stated that she code-mixed such way as to draw the attention of others.
As it has been said that code-mixing serves to who are well-articulated, it involves central aspects of
grammatical competence (Singh 1981:92). Thus, to show off or brag of discerning both languages well
could be a valid reason to this code-mixing of insertion occurrence. Sridhar & Sridhar (1980) and
Woolford (1983) indicate that a bilingual who is able to use different codes in a speech situation is called
the bilinguals grammar. This shows the capability of the students to create a new style of
communication and to be bragged of it is necessary to them. Additionally, the respondent is a female.
According to psychological needs of a woman, one of them is attention. Thus, the possible implied
reason of to draw attention of others is the respondent is female.
However, according to two respondents, they code-mix because they are lack of translation Grumperz
(1982) remarks that when bilinguals are aware of their mixed language, they blame a lapse of
87
attention for their poor linguistic performance and assure improvement by the eradication of language
mixing. Hence, this displays that code-mixing occurred not only because of high proficiency level of both
languages; nevertheless the lack of translation equivalent could be one of the reasons too. However,
Poplock (1980) and Nortier (1990) presume that people who code-mix fluently and effortlessly are apt
to be fairly competent bilingually. This says that it is not because the respondents are incompetence but
they are competence enough to substitute the lacking translation to other languages.
As stated by certain respondents (Respondent 5 and 7) in this study that the reason of them codemixing was to show off when they are on Facebook, nevertheless, according to Ho (2007), students in
Hong Kong use English lesser as they do not want to be regarded as snobbish or showing off and observe
English as a prestige language. Thus, they do not want to be alienated since the social sanction against
English in Hong Kong among Chinese is very sturdy (Gibbson, 1987; Luke, 1998). Meanwhile, in this
study, the respondents confessed themselves that the reason of the code-mixing is to show off where
they indicated that due to high possession of both English and Malay. In addition, according to Luke
(1998), people code-mixing to differentiate between high and low variety between two languages. He
states that people code-mix because they do possess both languages well. This would be a strong
support to the respondents reason to show off.
Besides, two respondents (Respondent 6 and 10) code-mix to alienate a particular group. They only
wanted certain group of people to be involved in the conversation. They posted certain posts according
to the complexity of the social relations they are engaged in with the certain other users (ibid, p. 12).
They used jargon relating to or used in online communications, called cyberspeak (Merriam-Webster,
2012), to alienate themselves from others. According to Huang (2004), code choice and language use in
the emails used for interpersonal communication. Significantly, the communication is rigid to only
interpersonal clan but in this case; it is openly read by others compared to emails. In the students
communication cluster, the conversation is severe to only on the relationship between the particular
language use and individual values, communicative strategies, language attitudes and functions within
particular socio-cultural contexts (Boeschoten, 1998 and Azuma, 1998).
Finally, one respondent indicated that the reason of her code-mixing is to follow the current language
trend. She indicated that such code-mixing is considered as language fashion. Kachru (1989) and
Kamwangamalu (1989) state the other causes of code-mixing comprise modernisation, westernization,
efficiency, professionalism and social advancement, where the language is being utilized by the current
modern generation. Alam (2006) indicates that this type of code-mixing of insertion happens to the
young generation. Irvines (2001) commencement of code-mixing represents that people code-mixing to
display different styles of speaking. This shows that code-mixing exists in some styles created by the
users of the languages. As the time goes, the development of language goes along with it and it expands
its styles and molds into a trend or fashion.
Some reasons and motivations are also highly related to messages alone. According to Bhatia and Ritche
(2004), there are some factors which generate code-mixing such as quotations, reiteration, topiccomment/relative clauses, hedging, interjections and idioms and deep-rooted cultural wisdom.
According to Grosjean (1982), in bilingual societies, it is normal for speakers to code-mix. Bilinguals
usually clarify that the reason why they code-mix is that they lack facility in one language when talking
about a certain topic. Grosjean (1982) states that in some societies, members of a community are
reported to code-mix frequently based on certain topics discussed with particular people. In addition,
88
Fishman (2000) affirms that one of the first controlling factors in language choice is group membership.
Therefore, there are various reasons identified in accordance to the occurrence of code-mixing.
Moreover, all respondents agreed that they code-mixed most on the time when they were online. Thus,
this code-mixing of insertion patterns seemed to occur on CMC related postings where the occurrence
was based on the variety purposes of the respondents. Surprisingly, the respondents inserted the
English morphemes correctly into Malay words. They were not afraid to insert the English morphemes
into the Malay words and confidently posted them in their Facebook. This considered as individualism
reasoning ahead the interpreted code-mixing of insertion words performed by the respondents.
Functions of Code-Mixing of Insertion
There are 8 functions of code-mixing among students, which are attitudinal, register identification,
expressive, directive, repetitive, socializing, referential and instrumental functions (Kanthimathi, 2005).
Based on data collected in CMC context, out of 8 reasons, 4 reasons were being identified which are;
attitudinal, directive, socializing and referential functions.
According to two respondents, they perceived their code-mixing as the attitudinal functions. They
believe language mixing is an issue of prestige, a symbol of education, urbaneness and sophistication.
Widdowson (1994) claims that for the reason that of their communicative redundancy that certain
grammatical traits occasionally attain another function, explicitly that of a marker of social identity and
prestige. The functions show that having the knowledge of both languages could be the icon of
urbanism and prestige where it leads to critical and creative thinking. As stated by Alam (2006), such
code-mixing are made by the young generations where the symbol of education development is
displayed through such code-mixing invention. The students seem to reject the feeling of fright to insert
the English morphemes into the Malay words and yet, perceive this as a stage of high reputation.
In addition, one respondent indicated that her function of code-mixing serves directive functions which
to direct her interlocutors attention. As according to Khaddage & Bray (2011, p. 3797), a lot of teenage
Facebook users are extremely enthusiastic to this socialnetworking, thus making it a powerful dynamic
social network environment preferred by students the world over. This is the most influential current
channel for the students to make themselves visible. Thus, the respondent posted such way to direct
peoples attention so that she is notified by other Facebook users regardless the English grammatical
form inserted into the Malay words. In fact, it is believed that ones identity is prominent through
perception, meaning and language (ibid, p.39). This is accordingly how the respondent molds her
identity through her usage of language via Facebook.
Besides that, two other respondents categorized their code-mixing as socializing functions. They posted
such way to socialize to only certain group of Facebook users. Based on Byod (2007), the internet users,
or any user connected through an electronic network can be considered as a community. Thus, they
need to speak the same lingo in order to be connected and the code-mixing alternation functions within
this community to mold their identity. Ure (1974) also declares both code-switching and mixing are
feature of social, not individual behavior a register in the communitys register range, learned as part
of linguistic socialization (p. 227). The respondents posted the code-mixing of insertion without having
the fear of inserting the English morphemes into Malay words, and intended to create a clan by using
these patterns of code-mixing. Ultimately, this helps building relationship through particular
conversation and vice versa, it could lead to jeopardizing relationship as well. For instance a study by
89
Pandharipande (1983: 102-106), remarks that a Hindi-Marathi writer might apply the certain linguistic
markers to identify his/her characters:
(a) Persianized Hindi kinship terms and vocabulary into Marathi; is used to mark the religious identity of
the character.
(b) Bound morphemes from Hindi into Marathi; is used to mark an uneducated person's speech.
(c) Nativization of syntactic patterns from Hindi into Marathi; it serves to mark the character's regional
identity.
This could be relate to the findings of Respondents 6 and 10, the code-mixing words serve as socializing
functions where it as a signal of friendship or solidarity to a group.
Besides, two respondents declared that their code-mixing serves up as referential functions. They
referred to the original language to substitute the other language used. However, this occurs not
because of the users are incompetent, yet they recognized the correct form to substitute the lacking
morphemes of target words used. Pennington (1998b, p.9) claims that the term lexical bilingualism is
to exemplify this pattern of code-mixing and proposes that the association of English is more a subject
of familiarity with a definite number of words and phrases than fluency in a second language. The
students eventually substituted the correct English grammatical morphemes into the Malay words as
referential functions. Moreover, the respondents might feel that using English morphemes in Malay
words was more appropriate (Urbck, 2007) in the context they were in.
Further, two respondents claimed that the expressive functions served their code-mixing of insertion.
They posted the patterns spontaneously to express emotions and to avoid negative connotation of
certain words. According to Nababan (2000), the feature of code-mixing is informality, where in such
formal circumstances; it is infrequently found the phenomenon of code-mixing. Thus, any code-mixing
patterns could be created and served as expressive functions, despite the grammar rules of both
languages. However, astonishingly the code-mixing created is grammatically acceptable even the
respondents inserted the English morphemes to complete particular Malay words, and they are fearless
and daring to invent such patterns.
Finally, the finding found that one respondent asserted that her code-mixing pattern served as
instrumental functions where the matter of inspiration for a good living and of promotion of good
education. It could be assumed that depending on the context of situation, code-mixing may provide
clues about the education, socio-economic status, regional provenance, register, religion. (e.g., Pillai
1974, Sridhar 1978, Dabke 1983, Pandharipande 1983). She perceived the functions as a development of
her life, particularly in English usage. However, the motion of against the usage of English was fairly
strong once in certain countries, namely Hong Kong. However, it has been reported (Ho, 2007) that
parents themselves use code-mixing despite their own limited knowledge of English to achieving their
childrens academic success. They have perceived this towards the instrumental functions where codemixing is language of education and modernization.
Based on the findings, code-mixing does bring functional elements in it, depending on the context. Thus,
it is apparently showed that code-mixing could bring the diverse identity significance functions to the
writer or even the speaker; which is in this case a spoken-written form. It is measured as individualism
functioning upon the purposes code-mixing of insertion words did by the respondents.
90
Conclusion
The positive impact of this phenomenon is that it is clearly an innovation to the language where the
users creatively inserted and mixed the English verb morphemes into Malay lexical items. This language
alternation exists not due to low proficiency of students; in fact, McLellan (2009) explains that high level
of proficiency in both Malay and English is a requirement for this language alternation to happen. This
phenomenon shows how the users are in the process of adapting the use of English in daily and informal
conversations yet still maintaining close relationship with the native language.
Celik (2003) states that code-mixing can be functional to vocabulary teaching in EFL/ESL classes as this
study shows that vigilant and sensible use of code-mixing can direct to appropriate successful teaching
and learning of new vocabulary in classes.
Khnert, Yim, Nett, Kan, and Duran (2005; as cited in Kim 2006) mention that the other way to view this
language alternation other than corruption to language is to recognize the cultural, social, and
communicative validity of the mixing of two traditionally isolated linguistic codes as a third legitimate
code. Kim (2006) adds that this phenomenon may influence bilinguals language positively. This can be
seen through the usage of the language alternation when users intelligently insert English verb
morphemes into Malay lexical items. The users understand greatly how both languages work.
However, as interesting and innovative as it can be, this phenomenon might be viewed by the linguists
of both languages as corruption to the language as asserted by Thomas (1991) purism is an aspect of
the codification, cultivation and planning of standard languages (as cited in Cser, 2009). Other than
corruption to the language, this phenomenon might worry academicians if students apply this language
alternation in academic domains. It would be much better for other people to know about certain
bilingual phenomena and try to accept the bilingual phenomena naturally, so that they could see how
much social and cultural aspects affect bilinguals language and learn how bilinguals and their
monolingual interlocutors should lead to smooth conversation.
This study is purposed to add to the limited studies in language alternation of code-mixing of insertion
between English and Malay in Malaysia. This study will help future researchers in conducting further
studies apart from clarifying to the public about this current language culture among university students
in language alternation.

91

Malay-English Code-Mixing Alternation Insertion at Morphological

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malay-English Code-Mixing Alternation Insertion at Morphological

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MALAY-ENGLISH CODE-MIXING ALTERNATION INSERTION AT MORPHOLOGICAL

LEVEL IN FACEBOOK AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Statement of the Problem

Purpose of the Study

Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014

Code-mixing Alternation (Insertion)

Ber + harap + s = berharaps

Malay vs. English Grammar

Derivational Vs. Inflectional Morphemes

Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014

Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014

Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014

(When you try, you hope too much!)

Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014

Cant wait to kumpul-ing duit raya! :D

Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014

You might also like