Call us on 44 7700 900693

Home » Essays » Code Switching in Communication Efficiency Text Message vs. Instant Message

Code Switching in Communication Efficiency Text Message vs. Instant Message

Code Switching in Communication Efficiency: Text Message vs. Instant Message
Andhina Patriana

The use of cellular phone that has spread widely in the last ten years can??™t be separated from Short Message Service (SMS) feature. Ever since the first text message sent for the first time in 1992, it has not experienced major changes; it still applies a 160-character limit. Cellular phone development itself has grown vast. Most of the cellular brands come up with the new model called smart phones which enable us to send messages not only through SMS feature but also through Instant Messaging services. This empirical study observed the differences of texting behavior by Indonesian Speakers of English during texting through SMS and IM service using descriptive qualitative design. The data were 100 text messages and 100 instant messages sent by the participants to the researcher within two weeks. The results of this study showed that both in text messages and instant messages texters switched their language mainly in order to increase communication efficiency and due to prestige or diglossic situation, where they strongly belief that English is better than Indonesian.

INTRODUCTION
Ever since the first text message was sent in 1992 and publicly used in 1994, SMS has become a popular means of communication among people all over the world because it is inexpensive and it affords the users (texters) to be able to keep in touch with their long-distance friends, relatives or families. Studies on people??™s behavior during texting have been done widely all over the world (Deumert & Masinyana, 2008; Benitez, 2009; Bautista, 2004; Apriana, 2006) mainly because texting itself is an interesting activity for texters are (forced) to express their primary functional orientation in 160 characters??”or they have to pay more. The 160-character limit on text messages encourages texters to be more creative, and it leads them to use shortenings and other variations of language such as code switching to address the limitation.
Code switching is the concurrent use of more than one language, or language variety, in conversation (http://www.wikipedia.com). Code switching is usually done by bilingual/ multilingual speakers or people who speak foreign language and as suggested by Deumert and Masinyana (2008) that bilingual speakers tend to continue their code switching behavior during texting. Furthermore, according to Bautista (2004), bilingual speakers could use code-switching to maximize their communication efficiency.
This implies that bilingualism somehow affects efficiency in creating text messages. Based on the assumption, Carrier and Benitez (2009) conducted studies aimed at investigating the benefits of having multiple languages during texting. Benitez is now lecturing at California State University??”San Bernardino. Specifically, the main purpose of Carrier and Benitez??™ study was actually to test Bautista??™s hypothesis, if code switching in texting could maximize communication efficiency in texting.
Carrier and Benitez conducted two studies in this subject. The first one was a naturalistic study observing text messages from bilingual texters while the second one was an experimental study where bilingual and monolingual texters are forced to produce messages during texting game which encouraged communication efficiency.
The first study of Carrier and Benitez involved 26 bilingual speakers of English-Spanish. Each of them was asked to provide their last 10 outgoing and incoming text messages. The messages collected were analyzed and categorized based on the language used, whether it was monolingual message (English or Spanish only), or mixed-language message (code switching using English and Spain). All messages from both groups then compared based on the length of the messages. The length of the message was determined both by word count and character count. The result of this first study by Carrier and Benitez showed that messages with code switching (mixed languages messages) were not more efficient as monolingual messages; whether efficiency was defined from word count or character count.
Carrier and Benitez then continued their study in examining the benefits of having multiple languages by conducting the second study. In this second study, 76 participants were asked to participate in texting game. This 76 participants were from two groups, monolingual and bilingual speakers of English-Spanish. Participants were paired; one of them was given list of words and asked to describe the word to the partner who was placed in a separate room by using text messages. Each pair was given 5 minutes to describe/guess the word and in this game, efficiency was highly emphasized. Completing the game, participants??™ mobile phones were collected to be examined and computed to analyze the effectiveness. Results of the second study showed no difference from the first study. Text messages from bilingual pairs were not more effective than from monolingual pairs. In general, the studies done by Carrier and Benitez here do not support Bautista (2004) findings where code switching was said to make the texting more efficient.
The results of Carrier and Benitez studies have triggered the curiosity for the researcher to do this present study. This study aims at finding out if Indonesian speakers of English who switch language (Indonesian-English and vice versa) during texting do so in order to increase texting efficiency or merely due to diglossic situation. It is said so because code switching phenomenon done by speakers of foreign language is somehow closely related to diglossic situation, where some topics or situations are better suited to one language over another. (http://www.wikipedia.com)
This present study is done in naturalistic environment without any manipulation to the participants. Basically, the method of this study is similar with Carrier and Benitez; however, there are some significant differences between this present study and the one carried by Carrier and Benitez.
As Carrier and Benitez involved bilingual speakers of English-Spanish in their research, this present study deals with Indonesian speakers of EFL. The participants are 10 Indonesian speakers of English who scored min 730 for their TOEIC test, have been in English speaking environment for at least 1 year and are used to make written reports in English. In addition to those criteria, the participants also have been considered as a regular receiver/ sender text messages in English language, and own BlackBerry handset. The last condition is applied because this present study is going to observe texting behavior by the participants when they are texting through SMS feature and IM service (in this case the participants use *BlackBerry Messenger?® service).
This study is done only in naturalistic environment, though there are two types of data that are going to be observed here. The first data is a collection of text messages sent by the participants by using regular paid feature in their mobile phone, SMS. The second data is a collection of instant messages sent by the same participants using the free application from their mobiles, Black Berry Messenger. This feature is commonly used by BB users to extent their communication throughout the world without paying anything. Unlike Carrier and Benitez study, no experimental study is done in this research.
Whereas Carrier and Benitez aimed at investigating if bilingualism increased text messaging efficiency, this study is done to see if code switching done by Indonesian speakers of English occurs during texting through SMS feature and BBM service is because they want to maximize communication efficiency or due to other reasons, like prestige or commonly diglossic situation.
Due to that reason, research problems for this study can be formulated as follows:
* What is the main language used by Indonesian speakers of English during texting
* Are messages with code switching more efficient than those in mono language
* Is there any significance difference in texting behavior when texters sent messages by using SMS feature and BBM service To what extent do they differ To what extent does code switching occur in text messages and in instant messages
* BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) is a proprietary Instant Messenger application included on BlackBerry devices. Messages sent via BBM are sent over the blackberry PIN system. In addition to offering text-based instant messages, BBM also allows users to send pictures, voice notes, files, locations and emoticons over the Blackberry network without additional charge.

METHODOLOGY
Participants
There are 10 Indonesian speakers of English participate in this study. The participants next are called texters, have minimum score of TOEIC test 730, have been in English speaking environment for at least 1 year, have been considered as regular text messages receivers/ senders, have owned BlackBerry handset for at least 1 year and are used to make written reports in English in their working environment. All texters have close relationship with the researcher and under no specific circumstances can merely contact the researcher by text and/ or phone call and vice versa.

Instrument of the Study
The instrument of the study is the researcher herself with her mobile phones as a means to collect the data.

Data of the Study and Data Collection
Data of the study are 100 text messages sent by using SMS feature and 100 instant messages sent by using BBM. 10 last text messages and 10 last instant messages from each participant to the researcher within 2 weeks from November 1, 2010 to November 15, 2010 are recorded and analyzed. There is no specific topic or discussion in the data collected; the topic is general and varies depending on the relationship of the texters and the researcher. Unlike Carrier and Benitez studies, this study only examines text messages and instant messages occur in natural environment which are sent to one person only, the researcher. By doing so, the result is expected to be more valid because it is believed that each message is created differently according to the function and the receiver??™s character and relationship with the senders.

Design
This research uses descriptive qualitative design.

Data Analysis
After being collected, set of data consists of 200 messages total from both text messages and instant messages are analyzed. The numbers of characters and words from each message from both groups are counted as to determine the basic language used by texters. It is done to see if the message is more efficient when using code-switched language. Efficiency here is defined by the numbers of character and word count. Results from both groups are then compared and contrasted. The final step is tabulating the messages based on the reasons of using mixed language as suggested by Apriana (2006).

RESULT
Language Used by Texters
Results of the study show that text messages sent by using both SMS feature and BBM use Indonesian (88%) as a main language then switch into English for certain phrases or words, though small percentage of the data (12% or 24 messages out of total 200 messages) reflects the use of English as the main language and Indonesian as the code-switched language.
The mean numbers of characters from text messages and instant messages per one time sending are 119 and 56, respectively. The mean numbers of the words from text messages is 22 words whereas from instant messages the mean numbers of the words sent in each text message is 13 words. However, after all of the messages are translated into mono language messages and calculated, the mean numbers of characters and words from text messages are 148 characters and 24 words. Whereas the mean numbers of characters and words from instant messages are 63 characters and 9 words.
The data can be tabulated as follows.

Table 1. The Distribution of the Numbers of Character and Word Count in Text Message and Instant Message in Switched and Mono Language Messages
| Text Messages | Instant Messages |
| Switched lg | Mono lg | Switched lg | Mono lg |
Character count | 119 | 148 | 56 | 63 |
Word count | 22 | 24 | 13 | 9 |

The next step is to count the frequency of occurrences of the reason why texters continue their code switching behavior when they are texting. Each messages from each group is analyzed based on the 10 reasons of why people code-switching in text messages proposed by Apriana (2006). Having the results, the tabulated data from text messages is compared and contrasted with the tabulated data from instant messages to see if there??™s any significant difference.

Reasons Why Texters Switch Their Language in Text Messages
There are 4 reasons why texters continue their code switching behavior: to make sentence fillers or sentence connector (10%), expressing group identity (20%), real lexical need (7%) and for efficiency (63%).
Efficiency
Efficiency here is defined as the length of the messages by word and character count. Example of text messages:
(1) Ndhin, gimana Still bz Sudah terima SMS ku yg kemaren blm Kabarin ya. M waiting.Ty.
(How are you, Ndhin Still busy Have u received my SMS Please let me know, I??™m waiting. Thank you)
(2) Wah, maaf ya. I shudda been more patient. Ini masalah yang kemaren itu lho, yang katanya kamu mau kenalin aku ke temenmu. Ada
(Sorry, I should have been more patient. It is about our previous conversation. U were gonna match making me with one of your friend. Any luck yet )
Those two messages show code switching into English for the sake of efficiency. When they switch into English, they can make ???new??? linguistic form of the word by using letter/ number homophones (bz = busy), acronyms (ty = thank you) and non-conventional spelling (I shudda = I should have). This so-called new linguistic forms, especially the letter homophones rarely occur in Indonesian for in Indonesian a word is pronunced as it is written so when they switch into English, they can shorten the message by doinbehavior in texting is due to the needs of expressing group identity. Below is the example of code switching to exg this. However, the new linguistic forms the texters use may not be understood easily by other people who are not used to receive those kinds of text.

Expressing Group Identity
The second biggest reason why texters continue their code switching press group identity:
(3) Jadi dia divorce atau Sorry kalo straight forward nanyanya. I??™m a blunt person. Tapi semuanya baik baik aja kan Dengan sertifikat lahirnya X (mentioning name of a child)
(So is she divorced or what Sorry for being straight forward. I??™m a blunt person. But everything dealing with the birth certificate of X is fine, right)
The need of expressing group identity can be seen as prestige reason. Texters feel more comfortable if they are regarded in an English speaking community.

Sentence fillers or Sentence connectors
One of the reasons texters switch their language into English during texting through SMS is because they want to fill the voidance or connect one sentence to another. Indonesian do not really have casual terms for this, therefore, they choose English to fill the void.
(4) Kamu sedang tidak berkeinginan untuk berhenti, kan Sayang banget soalnya kalo berhenti sekarang. Anyhow, aku rasa transfer adl pilihan yang baik.
(You are not just quitting, right Too bad if you quit now. Anyhow, I think transfer is also a good options.)
In above example, texter use ???anyhow??? to connect the two sentences without being awkward.

Real Lexical Need
Sometimes texters switch their language in texting due to real lexical needs. It is either they can??™t find the exact word in Indonesian or vice versa.
(5) Haduuuuh! You are pathetic. Terserah ya gw ga mau ikutan lagi. LOL.
(Haduuuuh! You are pathetic. I don??™t wanna get involved. LOL)
In the example above, it is clear that texter use ???You are pathetic??? and ???LOL??? which stands for Laugh Out Loud because there??™s no words in Indonesian that can best describe the lexical meaning. If it was written in Indonesian, pathetic means ???menyedihkan??? and it would be awkward to have that word in the middle of casual conversation. That also applies to LOL. Translated into Indonesian, LOL would sound ???tertawa terbahak bahak??? and there??™s no way texters would use the Indonesian version of LOL in the casual conversation.

Table 2. The Frequency of the Occurrence of the Reasons Why Texters
Switch Their Languages in Text Messages
Reasons | Frequency | Precentage (%) |
Talking about a particular topic | | |
Quoting somebody else | | |
Being emphatic about something | | |
Sentence fillers or sentence connectors | 10 | 10 |
Repetition used for clarification | | |
Intention of clarifying the speechcontent for the interlocutor | | |
Expressing group identity | 21 | 20 |
Softening or strengthening requestof command | | |
Real lexical need | 8 | 7 |
For the sake of efficiency | 68 | 63 |
TOTAL | 107 | 100% |

Reasons Why Texters Switch Their Language in Instant Messages
Texters treat SMS and BBM as two distinct features thus they have different reasons in switching language in texting using SMS feature and BBM service. Texters seem to have more various reasons in switching their language for they can express their goal freely.

Expressing Group Identity and Efficiency
Efficiency seems to fall to the second major reason after expressing group identity. Texters can convey their needs while at the same time expressing their superiority freely.
(1) Gw lg ga mood to entertain any1.
(I??™m not in the mood to entertain anyone)
(2) Haaah??¦.yasudah. As u were.
(Haaah??¦.Okay then. As you were)
Two examples above show that texters switch their language in order to show the receiver the ability to express their thought by using common phrase in English. Besides, texters also tend to use new linguistic forms, i.e. letter homophones (u = you) to increase communication efficiency.

Repetition Used for Clarification
Texters also switch language to give emphasis or to clarify their previous statement or to make sure that the first statement is correct.
(3) Ga percaya gw. Won??™t buy it.
(I don??™t trust you. Won??™t buy it)
(4) Lhoh, jadi ga Are we leaving at all
(Shall we Are we leaving at all)
Those two examples show that texters are sure with their first sentence, and repeat it again with different language to emphasis it and to ensure it is also understood by the receiver.

Being Emphatic About Something
In casual conversation, texters find difficulties expressing empathic feelings about a situation in Indonesian casually.
(5) Hah Berkelahi lagi Trus gimana Poor thing. Emang kucingnya itu segede apa
(What It caught in fight again What happened then Poor thing. How big was the other cat anyway)
(6) Gw bilang ga mau. No why no if no but.
(I told you I don??™t want to. No why no if no but)
In example (11), texter expresses her sympathy to the injured cat by saying ???poor thing???, whereas in example (12) texter expressed his rejection to the idea offered previously. Because the texter and the receiver are friends, the expression ???No why no if no but??? is considered powerful yet still in a jokingly manner.

Sentence fillers or Sentence connectors
Just like when texters create text message, they also tend to use English expression in instant messages when it comes to fill the void or connect the sentences. ???By the way??? (abbreviated as ???btw???), ???anyway??? and ???speaking of which??? become the most favorite phrases to connect sentences, in the respective order.

Real Lexical Need and Softening or Strengthening Request of Command
Although very few, texters sometimes switch their language because they can??™t find the lexical meaning in Indonesian or vice versa. Texters also switch language to soften or even strengthen their request.
(7) Kirim sekarang, ga Now ya!
(Send it right away. Now!)
The example above shows that texter use ???now??? to strengthen his request.

Table 3. The Frequency of the Occurrence of the Reasons Why Texters
Switch Their Languages in Instant Messages
Reasons | Frequency | Precentage (%) |
Talking about a particular topic | | |
Quoting somebody else | | |
Being emphatic about something | 14 | 12 |
Sentence fillers or sentence connectors | 10 | 8 |
Repetition used for clarification | 21 | 18 |
Intention of clarifying the speechcontent for the interlocuter | | |
Expressing group identity | 38 | 32 |
Softening or strengthening requestof command | 4 | 3 |
Real lexical need | 5 | 5 |
For the sake of efficiency | 26 | 22 |
TOTAL | 118 | 100% |

DISCUSSION
The result of this present study shows that 88% of text messages sent to the researcher are in Indonesian and the rest 12% use English as the main language in text messaging before they code switching. This shows that Indonesian still becomes the priority language when it comes to communicate effectively even by using text message as a media of communication. The choice of Indonesian mainly because texters are Indonesian though they are highly exposed to English speaking environment. Thus, their first choice of language is their mother language until and unless texters are under specific circumstances.
Text messages with English as main language occurs when texters can??™t find the expressions in Indonesian that best describes their feelings and emotions. For example:
(8) The only thing lamer than dating X (name of her boyfriend) is mourning him. Duh. Trus aku musti gimana ini
(The only thing lamer than dating X (name of her boyfriend) is mourning him. Duh. What should I do then)
Above example shows that texters use English as a main language because the expression ???The only thing lamer than dating X (name of her boyfriend) is mourning him.??? is best described in English because if it is stated mainly in Indonesian it would be awkward: ???Hal yang lebih payah daripada pacaran sama X itu ya sedih gara gara dia.??? Besides, it is less effective when it is seen from the word count and character count.
Second analysis regarding the mean numbers of characters in the data shows that the mean number of characters in text messages is 119 characters with approximately 22 words per sent, whilst in instant messages the mean numbers for characters used are 56 with approximately 13 words. It reflects that the length of text messages is significantly longer than the length of instant messaging. Texters tend to write longer sentence because they want to maximize what they write in text messages to avoid further text message sending for it requires credits/ payment. Carter (2004:6) states that the creativity in text messages is triggered by space constraints. Wordplay in SMS is not just for entertaining and intrinsic pleasure. There are social and critical purposes for it. (Taiwo:2008).
In instant message, where no credits are required to send the message, texters tend to write the messages as short and as efficient as possible. Considering that if the receiver is unclear, they can give further explanation without any space or credit constraints.
The significant difference in the length of the message sent through SMS feature and BBM is underpinned by Herring??™s (2001) theory, ???language will necessarily affected by technological (or medium) variables such as synchronicity (e.g. where instant messaging is synchronous, email is a synchronous), granularity (i.e. how long or short text may be) and multimodality (e.g. whether or not graphics, audio and video are included). ??? Text message (SMS) per se can be defined as asynchronous, text-based, technologically mediated discourse, and the longer response is highly expected from the kind of asynchronous communication afforded.
However, when the code-switched words/ phrase/sentences are translated into the main language of the message, the result shows that mono language messages are longer than messages with code switching seen from the numbers of characters; and negligible different in terms of word count. The results apply for both text messages and instant messages. This finding however, is not in line with Carrier and Benitez (2009) findings. Carrier and Benitez propose that messages with switched languages by English-Spanish speakers are not more efficient than monolingual messages. This difference happens because Spanish and Indonesian have different characteristic of language. Code switching done by Indonesian speakers of English in texting can increase communication efficiency; whether efficiency is defined by word count or character count.
Thurlow (2003) suggests three sociolinguistic maxims affecting texting: brevity and speed, paralinguistic restitutions and phonological approximations. These three maxims as well that somehow affects texters??™ choice of words. As Indonesian speakers of English, texters are able to choose the most appropriate words and phrases to be used, preferably the shortest ones thereof.
Unlike Carrier and Benitez who merit analyzing the efficiency of the mixed-languages messages, this present study also analyze reasons why texters switch languages during texting and the behavior differences during texting through SMS and BBM. Since texters carry different behavior when they are texting using SMS feature and BBM service, texters may as well carry different reasons in code switching when they are creating text messages and instant messages.

Reasons Why Texters Switch Their Language in Text Messages
Efficiency seems to be the major reason of why texters switch their language during texting through SMS feature. As SMS is asynchronous, it means that texters are trying to express their goal in such a way using the shortest form possible but long enough to make the receiver understood without needing to send further message. Asynchronous here means that communication occurs ???in postponed time??? (Crystal 2001: 11) such as SMS and e-mails. This latter type does not require the participants to be online and available at the same time or place in order to receive and send messages (Hard af Segerstad 2002; Baron et al. 2005; December 2005; Goggin 2004). Examples (1) and (2) show that the length of the messages would therefore seem instead to be a function of the needs for speed, ease of typing and perhaps, other symbolic concerns.
When conducting their study examining the efficiency of text messages by bilingualism, Carrier and Benitez took the data from the participants??™ mobile phones. The data were set of last 10 messages the participant sent and receives to. To whom the texts were sent and were received were not in their concern. This can somehow affect the analysis for the receiver of the message plays important roles in determining the language form used in SMS. In data (1) and (2), texters use some new linguistic forms for instance letter homophones (bz for busy) and non-conventional spellings (shudda for should have). An outsider who read the text may not understood the word if they are not used to communicate with the texter. ???(Text) messages often bear more resemblance to code than to standard language. A text filled with code language expressions is not necessarily accessible to an outsider. The unique writing style provides opportunities for creativity??? (Kasesniemi& Rautiainen, 2002:183).
The second major reason why texters switch languages during texting is because they want to express their identity as Indonesian speakers of English. In other word, this phenomenon is usually called prestige. This is closely related to the term diglossia. Diglossia, according to Ferguson (1972:232) refers to ???a specific relationship between two or more varieties of the same language in use in a speech community in different functions.??? The superposed variety is referred to as high (H) and the other is low (L). In this case, texters consider Indonesian as H and the local language is L. English per se, is considered to have higher status than Indonesian. This view is not related to geographical boundaries but more to the superior feelings the texters acquire whenever they use English in communication.
In relation to Carrier and Benitez study, the occurrences of this reason did not happen because they observed bilingual speakers of English-Spanish, where no language is considered more superior than the other. Due to that condition, code switching in their study was done not because of diglossia, but more to another reason such as topic of conversation.
Whenever texters want to change topic or to combine sentence or to avoid awkwardness, they tend to find words that express or means nothing. In this case they tend to use English words instead of Indonesian for Indonesian has very few casual words to combine sentences. The most common Indonesian words maybe, ???omong omong??? and ???anu..??? which obviously rarely used in casual messaging.
In examples (5), the use of LOL (acronyms for ???Laugh Out Loud???) fulfills one of the sociolinguistic maxims suggested by Thurlow (2003), the paralinguistic restitution. LOL is an English term which can hardly replaced by any Indonesian words to show that texters laugh really hard at that subject. As texters write as if they say it, real lexical is needed to express their emotion.

Reasons Why Texters Switch Their Language in Instant Messages
In instant messages, texters have more various reasons in switching their languages. This is because in instant messaging, there??™s no character limitation and as instant messaging is synchronous, it requires instant (prompt) replies from the receiver. In general, texters show similar reasons when they switch languages during texting through SMS feature and BBM service. However, they have slightly different priority of reasons to switch languages. In instant messages, the main reason why texters switch language is because they want to express their group identity as speakers of English. As it mentioned previously, this is closely related to prestige. The difference between a prestigious language and a non-prestigious heavily relies on key qualities that relate to the users of the language. In this case, texters are usually aware that in certain situations they can be more favorably valued by their interlocutors if they use more prestigious forms in their speech. In diglossic situation in Indonesia, English has a special status among the educated people. It is the language that can be used only by those who are highly educated (the educated elite). This shows that there is clear social prestige attached to English, particularly among the educated group of speakers. As texters believe that such use may enhance their prestige, they tend to use a significant number of expressions from English in their messages, especially when there??™s no character limit imposed. Texters can express their emotions and show their superiority when they are switching from Indonesia to English freely without any character constraints.
Efficiency falls to the second major reasons of why texters switch languages. Although there??™s no character limitation, brevity and speed (the first sociolinguistic maxim in text messages) also become consideration. Since instant messaging is synchronous??”meaning that both texter and interlocutor are expected to be available at the same time, the need for both brevity and speed that marks efficiency is highly motivated by the ease of turn-taking and fluidity of the communication. Texters try to write as efficient as possible so that the receiver do not wait too long.
The need to use real English lexical and the need to use sentence fillers or sentence connectors are also found in instant messages as well as text messages. As it mentioned before that texters have more various reasons when they switch languages, the other reasons that aren??™t found in text messages yet found in instant messages are repetition used for clarification and being empathic about something.

Code Switching and Communication Efficiency
From the previous brief discussions, it is clear that the two major reasons why texters continue their code switching behavior during texting through SMS feature and BBM service are for efficiency reason followed by the need to express their group identity which next to diglossic situation. Combined altogether, the efficiency reason (63% from text messages and 22% from instant messages) becomes the priority of why texters switch their language. Efficiency here can mean the length of message and speed and/ or ease of typing. These findings do not support Carrier and Benitaz findings when they state that messages with switched language are not more efficient than messages with mono language and that efficiency is not the reason why texters switch language, the topic of the conversation is.

CONCLUSION
Although it sounds cliche, it is necessary to find out the difference in texting behavior by Indonesian speakers of English when they are texting using SMS feature and BBM service. The choice of switching language into other language in text message is mainly due to increase communication efficiency followed by diglossic situation, the belief that English is better than Indonesian. Other factors that influence code switching in text message are the needs of real lexical and the needs of sentence connector/ sentence fillers.
Slightly different reasons occur in instant messages. The main reason why texters switch their language is to express their diglossia, followed by the need to increase communication efficiency. In instant messages, other reasons for code switching are: repetition to clarify sentence, being emphatic about something, real lexical need and to soften and strengthen commands.
The findings of the present study indicate that Indonesian speakers of English have strategic competence to calculate what language would provide the most appropriate way of saying something in the most efficient manner. This can be seen as an approach towards bilingualism for code switching is (a part of) bilingual performance and merits continuing study.

REFERENCES

Apriana. 2006. Mixing and Switching Languages in SMS Messages. Bahasa dan Seni, Tahun 34, Nomor 1, Februari.

Bautista, M. L. S. 2004. Tagalog-English Code Switching As A Mode Of Discourse. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5, 226-233.

Carrier, L.M.& Benitez, S. Y. 2010. The Effect of Bilingualism on Communication Efficiency in Text Messages (SMS). Multilingua ??“ Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication: volume 29, Issue 2, 15/June/2010, Pages 167??“183.

Deumert, A.&Masinyana, S. O. 2008. Mobile Language Choices ??“ The Use Of English And Isixhosa In Text Messages (SMS). English World-Wide, 29, 117-147.

Taiwo, R. 2008. Interpersonal Social Responsibility In The Context Of Sms Messaging In
South-Western Nigeria. In Tunde Babawale&Olukoya Ogen (Eds.) Culture and
Society in Nigeria: Popular Culture, Language and Inter-group Relations. Lagos:
Centre for Black and African Arts and Civilization (CBAAC), 165-199.

Thurlow, C. 2003. Generation txt The Sociolinguistics Of Young People??™s Text-Messaging. Discourse Analysis Online, 1. (http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003-paper.html).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *