Codemixing on the Language of

the SMS Code

Samuel Gunawan
Universitas Kristen Petra

Introduction

A close scrutiny of the SMS texts on cellular phones may lead to the obvious recognition of the
very nature of spoken rather than written characteristics of language forms. People who exchange
messages over cellular phones have in their mind of the extended spoken mode of discourse;
consequently, whatever codes to be written on cellular phones, they are in fact a further extension of the
speech habits of both the people who encode and people who decode the SMS.
That spoken language has different forms compared to written language is widely accepted (Brown
and Yule, 1983, 15-19). The Spoken characteristics of the SMS language are further characterized by
some growing conventions of peculiar written representation of the SMS language such as abbreviated
words, vowel or consonant deletion, homophonous substitution, not to mention the growing popularity of
the use of emoticon – which is beyond the scope this short paper.

Theoretical Preliminaries

Theoretical inquiries since the late 1970s into the very nature of both linguistic as well as functional
phenomena such as code-mixing and code-switching have thrown much light to our current
understanding of the dynamic interplay between existing language varieties. Such lights are expected to
assist our understanding of the dynamic nature of the SMS language in this paper.
Communication by means of the SMS code between closed friends may also reflect the working of
their speech repertoire, i.e. the totality of the (major) language(s) and language varieties at their disposal.
This may reflect the whole range of linguistic behavior among members of bilingual or multilingual
speech communities that indicates that speakers may have options for the use of the linguistic resources
in the forms of (a) an adherence to the the exclusive use of a single (usually major) variety or code, (b)
codeswitching and/ or (c) codemixing (Grosjean, 1982) depending on the demand of the social situation
and context.
Pfaff (1979) uses the conceptual term of codemixing as a cover term to include mixing phenomena
from single lexical items, morphological adaptations as well as (intrasentential) codeswitching. This use
of the term is taken to include the linguistic phenomena when a speaker speaks in one language, he or she
incorporates the use of any linguistic item(s) coming out of single lexical items such as noun, verb,
adjective, phrases such as NP, PP and VP up to clauses (coordinate, subordinate, relative) from another
language.
Kachru (1978) proposes the use of the term codemixing as “…the use of one or more languages for
consistent transfer of linguistic units from one language into another” (p. 28).Kachru (1982) identifies the
three criteria of codemixing such as (1) the existence of a transfer of the units of code A into code B at
intersentential and intrasentential levels, (2) the existence of an “absorbing code” and an “absorbed code”,
and (3) the trasferred units that can be in the forms of morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences and
the so-called idioms. Kachru’s identification of codemixing (1982) is more or less his revisit of the same
subjet that he discusses earlier (1978). In this previous paper he classifies the formal properties of code
mixing in South Asia into 5 different types as follows :
(a) Unit insertion
This refers to the introduction of a grammatical unit above a word (a noun phrase
or a verb phrase) from another language to the base language.
(b) Unit hybridization
This refers to the use of linguistic elements from another language within a unit

1
 (e.g. a noun phrase, a verb phrase, or a compound verb) of the base language.
(c) Sentence insertion
This refers to an insertion of a sentence from another language into the language
base of the discourse.
(d) Idiom and collocation insertion
The use of idiom and collocation of one language in another language.
(e) Inflection attachment and reduplication
The inflectional and reduplication processes of one language that are introduced
to another that does not have such a grammatical system.

In the same vain, Muysken (2000) has further clarified and highlighted (intra-sentential) code-mixing
which could be attributable to three different processes at work, i.e. :
• Insertion
Materials (lexical items or whole constituent) from one language is inserted into the structure of
another language.
• Alternation
Structures from different languages are used alternately.
• Congruent lexicalization
Lexical items from different languages are used in shared structures.

In the mean time, the increasingly stabilization of form-function relationships, a further development
of linguistic mixing has been recognized by Auer’s term as ‘fused lect’ ( Auer, 1998). In the light of this
theory, the more stable characteristics of the SMS language can be better understood.

Methodology

Data used for this research were collected in Surabaya from a single subject who acted naturally to his
closed friends as many as 5 different people by means of their SMS texts on their cellular phones. The
subjects are educated people who without any doubt have often activated the range of their speech
repertoire involving Indonesian, English, Javanese resulting in texts mostly characterized as having
Indonesian (and its varieties) as the base language. Thus the data used in this paper reflected the
exchanges of the SMS codes between these 6 people.

Findings and Discussion

Code-mixing for the Activation of the speakers’ Speech Repertoire

A close scrutiny of the exchanges of the SMS codes between speakers under study indicate that they
activated the major codes (languages) or the minor codes (language varieties) at their command for the
expression of both content , known as transactional function and / or that of social relations or personal
attitudes – known as interpersonal function (Brown & Yule, 1983, p. 1).

• Transactional Fuction
Code-mixing is used for the kind of language that functions solely for the expression of the
content :

(1) Bsk pagi aq ada technical meeting.

(2) No doubt pestany rame n meriah.
(3) Pkkny di kls mrk hrs speak up kalo ingin lulus
(4) di show itu U isa liat mode yg lg ngetrend
(5) Yg jelas lgny Yuni Sr gak lg ngetop
(6) E-swordnya udh diinstal blm ?
(7) Gmn gak mahal susah buate

2
 (8) Textbook2 di tk itu lbh murah mnrt aq
(9) Santai ae jo ngoyo

• Interpersonal Function
Code-mixing is used for the kind of language that functions for the expression of social relations
and social attitudes holding between speakers :

(10) Gmn2 pokoke enjoy aja

(11) Mnrtq dia the most perfect match utk U
(12 ) Ma ksh 4 ur attention
(13 ) beli ato nggak up to U
(14) Ya bayar businesslike gitu lho.
(15) Aq udh ksh tau dia join kita nggak
(16) Ingat U hrs rest at least 3 hr.
(17) Nasibmu ya pikiren sendiri.

It is self-evident from the examples above that the speakers under study manipulate their speech repertoire
involving Indonesian, Javanese and English skillfully for both functions, interpersonal as well as
transactional.
Data of the SMS texts being studied may be described in terms of the linguistic characteristics of
code-mixing as outlined by Kachru’s terms such as unit insertion, unit hybridization, idiom and
collocation insertion, inflection attachment and reduplication as follows (IND = Indonesian, JV =
Javanese, E = English) :

• Unit Insertion :

IND E
(1) Bsk pagi aq ada technical meeting
IND E IND
(2) Pkkny di kls mrk hrs speak up kalo ingin lulus
IND JV E IND
(3) Gmn2 pokoke enjoy aja
IND E E
(11) Mnrtq dia the most perfect match utk U
IND E
(12) Ma ksh 4 ur attention

• Unit Hybridization :

IND E IND E IND IND+E

(4) Di show itu U isa liat mode yg lg ngetrend
IND IND+E
(5) Yg jelas lgny Yuni Sr gak lg ngetop
E+IND IND IND+E IND
(6 ) E-swordnya udh diinstal blm ?
IND IND+JV
(7) Gmn gak mahal susah buate

• Idiom and Collocation Insertion :

E IND E IND
(2) No doubt pestany rame n meriah
IND E
3
 (13 ) beli ato nggak up to U
IND E IND
(14 ) Ya bayar businesslike gitu lho.

• Inflection Attachment and Reduplication :

IND
Trims bnyk buat usahany
IND E+IND IND
Sjk di Sby kerjanya shopping2 mll
E+IND IND
Textbook2 di tk itu lbh murah mnrt aq

Understanding Fuzzy Grammatical Forms of Codes Involved

At some occasions the boundary of the linguistic forms of the involved codes may not be clearly
established. However, some clues as described below sometimes may be used to minimize the fuzzy
grammatical forms.

JV E
(18) Warnane gak matching
Questioned whether the word “warnane”, which on the surface level looks like a mixing of the Indonesian
and Javanese element, belongs to Indonesian + Javanese , Indonesian or Javanese, the text maker
convinced the researcher that it belongs to Javanese on the reason that its following word “gak” is
pronounced /ga? / in contrast to Indonesian “nggak”, thus establishing it as belonging to Javanese (East
Javanese subdialect, to be more precise) ; otherwise, it may be considered as a mixing between Indonesian
and Javanese.

JV IND JV
(19) Gak seneng ya cpt ditukerno
The word ”seneng” on the SMS text (19) is categorized as belonging to Javanese, not (informal)
Indonesian on ground of its previous negation form “gak” is pronounced as /ga?/ by the text maker.
However “cpt” could be encoded either as “cepet” or “cepat” depending on the fact whether the text
maker encodes something that should be done quickly in an informal manner or something that should be
done quickly in a more imperative manner. These seems to be related to the different positions of these
two lexical items : “cepat” belongs to formal variety of Indonesian, whereas “cepet” belongs to either
informal variety of Indonesian or Javanese. Checking the deeper level of the coded word “cpt” according
to the text maker, a further refinement of what it means may be elucidated that it belongs to Javanese on
account of the whole stretch of the SMS text that has Javanese as the language matrix / base.

E IND
(20) U lagi apa skrg ?
The whole stretch of the SMS text (20) has the language matrix in Indonesian, so the word “lagi” could
only be interpreted as belonging to (informal) variety of Indonesian, not Javanese.

JV IND
(21) Wah lek mampir jadi repot
The whole stretch of the SMS text (21) may be elucidated on a deeper level using the text maker’s
explanation that it is more or less equivalent to :
JV IND
Wah lek ndekne mampir, kita jadi repot.
Therefore the word ”repot” may belong more obviously to Indonesian rather than Javanese.

4
 IND JV
(22) asal cpt tak garapno
The word “cpt” may aptly be decoded as “cepet” as belonging to ( informal variety of ) Indonesian rather
than Javanese as on a deeper level it is equivalent to “asal kamu cepet” as stated by the text maker who, on
a wider context of the this short stretch of the SMS text, tends to be on the spoken mode of Indonesian.

Code-mixing as as Stylemarkers

The employment of code-mixing such as in the SMS language of the subjects may often be indicative
of the designated type of style being used. Since the subjects are on friendly terms with each other,
consequently the exchanges of the SMS text messages between them may also reflect the existing
relationship holding between them. Such social constraints may undoubtedly gear up to the use of less
formal styles as follows :

(2) No doubt pestany rame n meriah.

(3) Pkkny di kls mrk hrs speak up kalo ingin lulus
(4) Di show itu U isa liat mode yg lg ngetrend
(6) E-swordnya udh diinstal blm ?
(7) Gmn gak mahal susah buate
(10) Gmn2 pokoke enjoy aja
(12 ) Ma ksh 4 ur attention
(13 ) Beli ato nggak up to U
(15) Aq udh ksh tau dia join kita nggak

The reduction of diphthong to become monophthong in the words such as ”rame” in (2), ”kalo” in (3),
“ato” in (13), and consonant deletion in words such as ”isa ” in (4) ) “aja” for “saja” in (10) and
consonant and vowel deletion “udh” that stands for “sudah” in (6,15), “Ma ksh” that stands for “Ma
kasih” in place of “terima kasih”, “kasih tahu” (equivalent to formal form of “memberi tahu”) are
stylemarkers of informal variety of Indonesia. Since the SMS texts are mostly in informal variety of
Indonesia, it therefore comes as no surprise that good examples of hybridization such as ”buate”,
“ngetrend”, “E-swordnya” and “diinstall” may appear on the SMS texts as found in (4) and (6). In
addition, the use of the Indonesian negation “nggak” (13, 15)may also be indicative of the use of informal
variety of Indonesia.

Conclusion

The research report as presented in this paper can therefore be summed up as follows :
1) Previous researches on code-mixing may assist to understand the dynamic interplay of language
varieties on the language of the SMS codes.
2) Kachru’s categories of code-mixing are capable of capturing the mixed language of the SMS codes.
3) Deeper level of inquiry into the mixed language by considering the larger text and the language /
variety and the spoken mode of the text maker may elucidate fuzzy grammatical forms.
4) The employment of code-mixing such as in the SMS language may often be indicative of the
designated type of style being used, i.e. the informal variety of language.

Reference

Auer, P. (1998). From code-switching via language mixing to fused lects : toward a
dynamic typology of bilingual speech. Interaction and Linguistic Structures, InList no 6.
Konstanz : Univesität Konstanz.
Brown, G. & Yule, G.(1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge : Cambridge UP.

5
Grosjean, F.(1982). Life with two languages. Massachusetts : Harvard UP.
Kachru, B.B. (1978). Toward structuring code-mixing : an Indian perspective. In Int’l
Journal of the Soc. of Lang., No 15. The Hague : Mouton.
__________. (1982). The bilingual’s linguistic repertoire. In Issues in International
education : the Role of the Vernacular. Ed. Beverly Hartford, Albert Valdman
and Charles R. Foster. N.Y.: Plenum Press.
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual Speech : A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge : Cambridge
UP.
Pfaff, C.W. 1979. Constraints on language mixing : intrasentential code-switching
and borrowing in Spanish/English. In Language, Vol. 55, Number 2 (1979).