Mixing the Code in the Speech of the Community of Ulunambo Village, Menui Islands District
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59525/gej.1702Keywords:
Community, Mix Code, SpeechAbstract
In the development of contemporary linguistics, the study of syntax focuses not only on the relationships between words in sentences, but also on how the syntactic structure represents the thinking patterns and characteristics of a language community. This study aims to describe the form and causes of code mixing in the speech of the people of Ulunambo Village, Menui Islands District. This research uses a qualitative method. This study uses primary data as the main type and source of data. The primary data was obtained directly from the people of Ulunambo Village through the process of collecting data in the field. The data in question is in the form of natural speech that appears in daily interactions. The research data was obtained through observation, listening, recording, and recording techniques with the research subjects of the community of Ulunambo Village, Menui Islands District. Data analysis is carried out through three stages, namely data condensation, data presentation, and conclusion drawn. The results of the study showed that the form of code mixing found included a mix of word, phrase, and clause level codes. The mixing of the code occurs due to speaker factors and linguistic factors. Speaker factors include language habits and social closeness in daily interactions, while linguistic factors include the need for accuracy and efficiency of meaning in speech delivery.
References
Abdurrachman, A., Sari, R., & Putri, D. (2025). A syntactic analysis of noun phrase and verb phrase structures in English sentences. Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.31004/jptam.v10i1.36345
Chiblow, S., & Meighan, P. J. (2021). Language is land, land is language: The importance of Indigenous languages. AlterNative, 17(2), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/19427786211022899
De Costa, P. I. (2021). Indigenous language revitalization: How education can help reclaim sleeping languages. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 20(5), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2021.1957684
Esfandiari, R., Ahmadi, M., & Karakoç, A. I. (2023). Syntactic complexity and communicative moves of applied linguistics research article abstracts: A function-first approach. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 10(3), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2023.18384.2176
Jing, Y., Widmer, P., & Bickel, B. (2021). Word order variation is partially constrained by syntactic complexity. Cognitive Science, 45(10), e13056. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13056
Kim, Y., Crossley, S. A., & Kyle, K. (2023). Text length effects on the reliability of syntactic complexity indices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100085
Koplenig, A., Wolfer, S., & Meyer, P. (2023). A large quantitative analysis of written language challenges the idea that all languages are equally complex. Scientific Reports, 13, 15351. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42327-3
Lan, G., & Sun, Y. (2023). Mapping out the disciplinary variation of syntactic complexity in student academic writing. System, 113, 102974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102974
Li, Y., Zhang, X., & Chen, H. (2023). Reconsidering the syntactic complexity measures on L2 spoken English: A multidimensional perspective. Heliyon, 9(6), e16856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16856
Mansfield, J., & Barth, D. (2021). Clause chaining and the utterance phrase: Syntax–prosody mapping in Matukar Panau. Open Linguistics, 7(1), 323–347. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2021-0023
Olko, J., & Sallabank, J. (Eds.). (2021). Revitalizing endangered languages: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press.
Overfelt, J. (2021). Stripping and VP ellipsis in reduced temporal adverbs. Syntax, 24(4), 462–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12222
Sallabank, J., & Austin, P. K. (2023). Endangered languages. In The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 362–373). Routledge.
Shen, C., Guo, J., Shi, P., Qu, S., & Tian, J. (2023). A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in academic writing of L1 and L2 English students across years and disciplines. PLOS ONE, 18(10), e0292688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292688
Wang, H., & Hatoss, A. (2024). Language policy and planning for heritage language maintenance: A scoping review. Current Issues in Language Planning. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2024.2341203
Zeng, X. (2021). Comparing syntactic complexity: Research papers written by undergraduate researchers and published research papers. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(5), 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1975090
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Putri Nurul Fadilah, Syamsuddin Syamsuddin, Arum Pujining Tyas, Mohammad Tahir, Idris Patekkai
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
