Abstract
This qualitative study will investigate English Education students’ opinion towards code-switching and code-mixing; both in everyday and classroom use. In this study, it will employ an open-ended (short-answered questionnaire) with 13 questions that mainly focus students of English Education class of 2016-2018. The populations were chosen because the students of 2016-2018 have attended Sociolinguistic Course during semester 3. Moreover, to gather the population, the researcher spread the link of questionnaire written in Google Form by personally contacting several people via Whats App. Based on the findings obtained from the questionnaire, it can be inferred that the 20 respondents mainly spoke 3 languages (national: Indonesian, local: Javanese, foreign: English). Furthermore, it can be concluded that 11 respondents find code-switching and code-mixing of national, local and foreign languages acceptable to be used in everyday life and classroom situation. On the contrary, 3 respondents also see code-switching and code-mixing of national, local and foreign languages annoying and disturbing to be implemented in daily communication. Meanwhile, 6 respondents perceive code-switching and code-mixing of national, local and foreign languages as neutral to be executed in everyday and classroom situation. 
 
 Keywords: Sociolinguistic; Code-Switching; Code-Mixing; English Education Students
Highlights
The Oxford English Dictionary Supplement (1986) first noted the term sociolinguistic as contact linguistic (Gardner-Chloros, 2020)
It can be concluded that 11 respondents find code-switching and code-mixing of national, local and foreign languages acceptable to be used in everyday life and classroom situation
This study aims to fill the gap in order to know English Education Major Students’ opinion towards both code-switching and code-mixing in every day situation and classroom atmosphere by using a short-answer questionnaire
Summary
The Oxford English Dictionary Supplement (1986) first noted the term sociolinguistic as contact linguistic (Gardner-Chloros, 2020). Based on Campoy and Manuel (2016), in the process of producing meaning, it progresses in terms of the linguistic differentiation which resulted from geographical (location of certain society groups), socio-demographic (ethnicities included in the area) and stylistic factors (the result from both factors). These factors will construct an identity that is meaningful and is unique to each ethnic and racial group, in bilingual and multilingual society (Campoy & Manuel, 2016; Podesva 2012)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: EDULINK EDUCATION AND LINGUISTICS KNOWLEDGE JOURNAL
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
