CODE CHOICES BY THE TWO MAIN CHARACTERS
IN THE MOVIE ENTITLED “RUSH HOUR 2“
(Based on Socio-Pragmatics Approach)
THESIS
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Sarjana Sastra Degree in the English Department
By
WINDA ISTRINA
C0305060
English Department
Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts
Sebelas Maret University
Surakarta
CODE CHOICES BY THE TWO MAIN CHARACTERS
IN THE MOVIE ENTITLED “RUSH HOUR 2”
(Based on Socio-Pragmatics Approach)
By
Winda Istrina
C0305060
Approved to be examined before the Broad of Examiners Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University
Thesis Consultant
Drs. Sri. Marmanto, M. Hum NIP. 195009011986011001
The Head of English Department
of Regular Program
CODE CHOICES BY THE TWO MAIN CHARACTERS
IN THE MOVIE ENTITLED “RUSH HOUR 2”
(Based on Socio-Pragmatics Approach)
By
Winda Istrina
C0305060
Accepted and Approved by the board of examiners of Broad of Examiners Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University on January 2010
Position Name Signature
Chairman Dr. Tri Wiratno, M. A ( ) NIP. 196109141987031001
Secretary Dr. Djatmika, M. A ( ) NIP. 196707261993021001
First examiner Dr. Sri Marmanto, M. Hum ( ) NIP. 195009011986011001
Second examiner Drs. Sugiyarto Budi Waskito, M. Pd ( ) NIP. 195211081983031001
The Dean of Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University
PRONOUNCEMENT
Name : Winda Istrina
NIM : C0305060
Stated wholeheartedly of the thesis entitled Code Choices by the Two Main Characters in the Movie Entitled “Rush Hour 2” (Based on Socio-Pragmatics Approach) is originally made by the researcher. It is not a plagiarism nor made by others. The things related to other people’s works are written in
quotation and included in the bibliography.
If it is then proved that the research cheats, the researcher is ready to take
the responsibilities.
Surakarta, January 2010
MOTTO
“… surely with difficulty is ease. With difficulty is surely ease. So, when you are free, nominated. And make your Lord your exclusive object.”
(Holy Qur’an, 94: 7-8)
What do we live for
if it is not to make less difficult for each other? (George Eliot)
Don’t be worried about tomorrow because tomorrow has not come,
AND
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to:
My beloved “babe”and “ibuk”
My lovely ‘brother’ in heaven, my sister and my little cute
nephew, Ichal
My future groom
My lovely friends
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Alhamdulillahi rabbil ‘alamiin
All praises are just for the Almighty God, Allah SWT and the prophet
Muhammad SAW for the blessing so that I can have the capability to complete
this thesis. Many sides had given a lot of assistance from the beginning to
completion for this thesis. Therefore, I would like to express my gratitude to all
people as follow:
1. The Dean of faculty of Letters and Fine Arts, Sebelas Maret University, Drs.
Sudarno, M.A.
2. The Head of English Regular Program, Dr. Djatmika, MA.
3. My thesis consultant, Drs. Sri Marmanto, M. Hum for the guidance, patience
and critical advice to finish this thesis.
4. My academic consultant, M. Taufiq Al Makmun, S.S for all the guidance
since last four wonderful years.
5. All lectures in English Department who have enriched my knowledge.
6. My beloved “Babe” and “Ibuk” for your never ending love, support, pray, and
patience, devotion, affection and everything.
7. My ‘brother’ in heaven and my sister Anis Setyaningsih for giving me such a
great love and support.
9. My lovely friends, Napiz, Epha, Peya,and Benk-benk thanks for the love, fun
time, and wonderful companionship. Thanks to you all who never stop to
remind and support me to finish this thesis. Love you so girls.
10.The Chomskies 2005 (Pitria, Ratih, Dini, Anggi, Arif, Hesti, Lilis, Melon,
Chemitz, Sari, Irena, Dian, and so on) thanks for the cooperation in
Linguistics Study and for the nice jacket.
11.All my friends in English Department 2005 (Sony, Nunik, Yogi, Alwi, Intan,
Joe, Astri, Hemi, Wunendro, Ebsy and everyone whom I cannot mention one
by one). Thanks for our wonderful togetherness and keep our spirit by yelling
“2005 SEMANGAT”
12.My Black English consultant, Miss Sarah, for all the guidance and nice
meeting.
13.My Chinese consultant, Dek Putri, for the assistance.
14.All sides who give support and assistance directly or indirectly.
I have tried my best in conducting this thesis. However, I realize this thesis
is not perfect. Therefore, I expect some advices and supporting criticism to make
this thesis give contribution for everyone.
Researcher
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE………..……i
APPROVAL OF THE THESIS CONSULTANT……….…..ii
APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF THE EXAMINERS……….……iii
PRONOUNCEMENT………..….iv
MOTTO………..………v
DEDICATION………..…….vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT……….vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………..……ix
LIST OF FIGURE……….….xiv
LIST OF TABLE………..……xv
ABSTRACT……….…...….xvi
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION A. Research Background………...…………1
B. Problem Statements………..6
C. Research Objectives……….6
D. Problem Limitations ………7
E. Research Benefits………...………7
F. Research Methodology………...…………..8
G. Thesis Organization……….………….9
a. Definition of Sociolinguistics………...……11
b. Scope of Sociolinguistics……….……...…….…12
B. Pragmatics……….…….14
C. Socio-Pragmatics………15
D. Dimension of Sociolinguistics………...16
a. A social distance scale……….…….16
b. Status scale……….…..17
c. Formality scale……….…17
d. Functional scale………18
E. Language Variation……….………...19
a. Dialect……….……….21
b. Accent……….……….….22
c. Style……….….22
d. Register……….……23
e. Standard language………..…………..23
f. Non-standard language……….25
F. Bilingualism and Diglossia………26
a. Diglossia and bilingualism………...27
b. Diglossia without bilingualism………27
c. Bilingualism without diglossia……….28
d. Neither diglossia and bilingualism……….………..28
G. Language Choice………..…………..28
I. Domain of Language Use………..……….30
J. Code Switching and Code Mixing……….………32
a. Code switching……….32
1. Situational code switching……….32
2. Metaphorical code switching……….33
b. Code mixing……….33
K. Ethnography of Communication………34
a. Setting or scene (S)………..35
b. Participants (P)……….35
c. Ends (E)………36
d. Act Sequence (A)……….36
e. Key (K)……….………36
f. Instrumentalities (I)………. 37
g. Norms (N)………37
h. Genre (G)……….……….38
L. Communicative Competence………..….…..38
M. Rush Hour 2……….……….…….39
a. Synopsis of the movie………..……39
b. Character and characterizations………..………….……42
N. Review of Related Research………..………43
CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Research Type………44
C. Sample and Technique of Sampling……….………..45
D. Instrument of the Research……….46
E. Technique of Collecting Data………47
F. Technique of Analyzing Data………48
CHAPTER IV : ANALYSIS A. Introduction………49
B. Data Analysis……….49
a. The Code Choices by the Two Main Characters in the Movie Entitled “Rush Hour 2”………...….50
1. English………50
a) Formal English……….50
b) Colloquial English………52
c) Black English………...54
2. Chinese………...58
3. Switching between codes………...60
a) Switching from English into Chinese………..…….60
b) Switching from Chinese into English……….……..62
4. Mixing between codes………63
b. The Social Meanings in Choosing the Codes………...………65
1. English………66
a) Formal English……….66
1) Showing respect……….…………66
1) Showing intimacy………...67
2) To avoid misunderstanding………68
c) Black English………...69
1) Showing intimacy………...69
2) Showing anger………71
3) Showing surprise………71
2. Chinese………...72
1) Showing respect………...72
2) Showing solidarity………...73
3) To avoid misunderstanding………..74
3. Switching between codes………...75
1) To emphasize the message………...75
2) To avoid misunderstanding………..76
4. Mixing between codes………78
1) Showing joke………78
2) Showing incompetence………79
C. Discussion………..79
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS A. Conclusions………85
B. Suggestions………86
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1 Social Distance Scale………...16
Figure 2 Status Scale ……….17
Figure 3 Formality Scale………18
LIST OF TABLE
Table 1 Some Examples of Syntactic Differences between Standard and Non-
Standard English………...……….…………25
Table 2 The Types of Code Choices and the Social Meanings in Choosing the
Codes Employed by the Two Main Characters in the Movie Entitled “Rush Hour
ABSTRACT
Winda Istrina. C0305060. 2010. Code Choices by the Two Main Characters in the Movie Entitled “RushHour2” (Based on Socio-Pragmatics Approach).
Thesis: English Department. Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts. Sebelas Maret University. Surakarta
The research focused on the code choices by the two main characters in the movie entitled “Rush Hour 2”. It was conducted to find out the code choices by the two main characters in “Rush Hour 2” and reveal the reasons in choosing the codes which relate to the social meanings.
The research was a case study of sociolinguistics-pragmatics which employed descriptive qualitative method. In taking the data, the researcher used total sampling technique. The researcher took the whole part of dialogue containing codes used by the main characters in the movie entitled “Rush Hour 2”. The researcher found two results in this research.
The first result is that there are four codes used by the main characters in “Rush Hour 2”. The first code is English which is classified into three, Formal English used in formal situation, Colloquial English used in informal situation, and Black English used by a Black American people. The second code is Chinese. The researcher found Chinese Hanyu (Hanyu Sa) used in formal situation. The third code is Switching between codes which consists of two, namely Switching from English into Chinese and Switching from Chinese into English. The last code is Mixing between codes, i.e. Mixing between English and Chinese
The second result is the social meanings in choosing the codes employed by the two main characters in the movie entitled “Rush Hour 2”. Formal English has one social meaning, namely to show respect. Colloquial English interprets two social meanings, i.e. to show intimacy and avoid misunderstanding. There are three social meanings which are involved in Black English; they are to show intimacy, anger, and surprise. Chinese describes three social meanings, namely: to show respect, solidarity, and avoid misunderstanding. Switching between codes has three meanings, i.e. to show respect, emphasize the message, and avoid misunderstanding. Mixing between codes reveals two social meanings, namely to
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Research Background
Language is the most important means of communication among people in
social interaction. No human can live without language and language cannot be
used without society. The society depends upon and is shaped by language, and
vice versa (Chaika, 1982). Through language, people can express ideas, opinions,
feelings, experiences, messages, and so on easily. Thus, language in use has an
integral relationship with the society.
In a social interaction, the contact between one language and other
languages may happen. People in bilingual and multilingual society may choose
different languages which are used appropriately when they are communicating
each others. Chaika argues that “bilingualism is the term used to mention people
who speak more than one language. They may have different levels of proficiency
in each of language and they use both languages for very different social purposes
and in different social situations” (1994: 34). Multilingualism is a sociolinguistic
situation in which more than one language involved (Trudgill, 1992:53). It means
that in a multilingual nation one must choose between two or more different
languages. United States of America is one example of many countries where the
residents speak more than one language.
In America, there are many people who live as immigrants, such as
Chinese and African. These immigrants will try to make some adaptations to the
new condition of the new country. They have to learn new things like rules,
customs, social matters and especially languages. When the immigrants are in an
which come up in their daily conversation with their society. This combination of
differences then possibly creates such an interesting phenomenon.
The differences bring demands for two or more languages which make the
speakers need to use different codes in different situation. In choosing the codes,
people should choose which codes are appropriate used in certain occasion.
Therefore, they should pay attention to the important elements formulated in
speaking by Dell Hymes, they are setting, participants, ends, act sequence, key,
instrumentalities, norms, and genre (Hymes, 1992: 23). In addition, Janet Holmes
(1992: 26) states that there is a very general concept which draws on three
important social factors in code choice, namely participant, setting, and topic. It is
useful for capturing broad generalizations about any speech community. This is
often particularly useful for bilingual and multilingual speech communities.
According to Ralph Fasold, there are three possibilities in language choice.
The first possibility is to choose between two languages. It involves code
switching. The second one, more subtle than the previous one, is code mixing
where pieces of language are used while a speaker is using another language. The
last one is variation within the same language (1984: 180-181).
Related to all the explanation, the researcher is interested in exploring the
choice of codes. The researcher does a research on code choices employed by the
two main characters in “Rush Hour 2”. The movie tells about two personal agents
who work for America. They are inspector Lee (Chinese) and detective Carter
(Black American). It is started in Hong Kong where Carter wants a relaxing
vacation but Lee just wants to do police work. This contrast causes a dispute
between them. But in the end, they work together to raise the truth. Lee and Carter
are handling a case of American embassy bombing that kills two American
agents. Ricky Tan (Chinese) is the suspected. He plays an instrumental role in
Lee’s father death, who is now the leader of the Triads, the most deadly gang in
conspirator with Steven Reign who is rich man in L.A in money counterfeiting.
Lee and Carter are successful in clearing up this case.
This movie is very interesting because of the difference code choices
applied by the characters. There are several codes used in this movie, such as
English, Black English, and Chinese. The utterance employed by Carter is one the
example of code choices. Carter uses different code when he is speaking to
different participants in different social context. He chooses Chinese code to
address Chinese people. While he speaks in Black English code when he is
expressing his feeling, such as anger, joke, and surprise. Carter is Black man,
therefore, Black English code as his mother tongue includes in his speech
spontaneously. Another example is code choices employed by Lee. He uses
different codes when he is talking in different social context. It occurs since Lee
has his own reason in choosing the codes, for instance to show respect.
To give a little description of what the researcher put forward, some
examples as follows:
1. Hong Kong, on driving at night. Superintendent Chin gives information to Lee
about a bombing case.
Lee : Wei….! [Hallo….!]
Superintendent Chin : Lee, zai mei guo das hi guan you zha dan.
[There was a bombing at American Embassy]
Liang ge mei guo fan yi yuan shou hai.
[Two American translators were killed.]
Lee : You qi ta bao gao?
[Any leads]
[We think it’s Ricky Tan]
Ta he qi ta zai zhe ye zong hui de hei dang cheng
yuan.
[His entire of gang Triads is at the club tonight]
Ru guo ni bu yao jing shou zhe ge an jian
wo neng gou li jie.
[If you don’t want to take the case, I’ll understand]
Lee : Pu mei kuan si.
[No, it’s okay.]
2. Hong Kong, at day in the police office. Superintendent Chin introduces Agent
Sterling to Lee.
Lee : Good afternoon, Sir!
Superintendent Chin : Lee…..
Lee : Yes, Sir!
Superintendent Chin : This is Special Agent Sterling from the
United States Secret Service.
Lee : The Secret Service? Why?
In the first example, the conversation takes place in Hong Kong at day in
the police office. The dialogue above shows that there are two participants, Lee
and Superintendent Chin. Lee is on driving with his friend, Carter. They are on
is from his Superintendent, namely Chin. Superintendent Chin gives information
about an American embassy bombing case to Lee by phone.
While in the second example, the conversation takes place in the Hong
Kong police station. Superintendent Chin introduces Agent Sterling to Lee. Agent
Sterling wants to discuss about the American embassy bombing case that kills two
American agents.
The two examples above show that the same addressor (Lee) uses different
codes when he is talking to the same addressee (Superintendent Chin). Besides
that, he has similar reason in delivering the message, i.e. Lee interprets a social
meaning to show respect. In the first example, Lee chooses Chinese code when
he is talking to Superintendent Chin. He wants to give respect to Superintendent
Chin since Chin has higher position than Lee. Chinese code which is used by Lee
is Chinese Hanyu (Hanyu Sa). Hanyu Sa is a variety of Chinese code employed in
formal situation. Therefore, the conversation between Lee and Superintendent
Chin is in formal situation since talk about the important case about American
embassy bombing. While, the second example identifies that Lee chooses Formal
English code. Lee, here, wants to show his respect to Superintendent Chin by
giving greeting Good afternoon and addressing Sir. He likes to choose Formal English code better than Chinese code when Lee is speaking to Superintendent
Chin. It is caused by the existence of 3rd participant, namely Agent Sterling who is
a White man.
The different codes applied by Lee above reflect that a speaker has to
consider not only the structure of the language but also the context of situation or
the structure of the society. In other words, the code choices always correlate with
communicative competence of the speaker.
Based on the phenomenon above, the researcher is interested in analyzing
the code choices employed by the two main characters in “Rush Hour 2”. The
research’s aim is to find out the types of code choices and to reveal the social
2”. Hence the study going to be conducted is entitled CODE CHOICES BY
THE TWO MAIN CHARACTERS IN THE MOVIE ENTITLED “RUSH
HOUR 2”
B. Problem Statements
Based on the research background, the researcher proposes some problem
statements as follows:
1. What are the types of code choices employed by the two main
characters found in the movie entitled “Rush Hour 2”?
2. Why do the two main characters choose the codes in the movie entitled
“Rush Hour 2”?
C. Research Objectives
The research objectives are to:
1. Find out the types of code choices employed by the two main
characters found in the movie entitled “Rush Hour 2”.
2. Reveal the social meanings in choosing the codes used by the two
main characters in the movie entitled “Rush Hour 2”.
D. Problem Limitations
In doing the research, the researcher does not analyze code choices by
the all characters in the movie entitled “Rush Hour 2”. The problems in this
research will be limited to the code choices by the two main characters in “Rush
Hour 2” by using socio-pragmatics approach. This is because not all characters
speak in different codes and it will too large to be analyzed. It, therefore will
discuss about the types of code choices and the social meanings in choosing the
E. Research Benefits
There are two kinds of benefits that can be achieved in this research, they
are: theoretical benefits and practical benefits.
1. Theoretical benefits:
a. This research can describe the varieties of English code, namely
Formal English, Colloquial English, and Black English.
b. This research will give additional contributions to the development
of sociolinguistics and pragmatics especially code choices
phenomenon in the movie.
2. Practical benefits:
a. Film directors in comprehending the code choices in movie,
especially the movie which involved characters from different
social backgrounds.
b. All movie lovers to know further about the code choices in movie.
c. Sociolinguistics researchers in getting evidences or references for
further research about code choices.
d. Students of Sociolinguistics in comprehending code choices
analysis.
e. Sociolinguistics lecturers in getting further evidence in code
choices study.
F. Research Methodology
This research will be a descriptive qualitative research. By using this
method, this research will be conducted by collecting, classifying, analyzing data,
and then drawing the conclusion. The data source of this research is movie
entitled “Rush Hour 2". The researcher analyzes all code choices employed by the
two main characters; therefore, this research applies total sampling technique.
Further explanation about the research method of this analysis will be discussed in
G. Thesis Organization
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION that consists of Research Background,
Problem Statements, Research Objectives, Problem Limitations, Research
Benefits, Research Methodology, and Thesis Organization.
CHAPTER II : LITERATURE REVIEW that covers the Sociolinguistics,
Pragmatics, Socio-Pragmatics, Dimension of Sociolinguistics Analysis, Language
Variation, Bilingualism and Diglossia, Language Choice, Language and Code,
Code Switching and Code Mixing, Ethnography of Communication, Speech
Community, Communicative Competence, Rush Hour 2, and Review of Related
Research.
CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY that consists of Research Type,
Data and Source of Data, Sample and Technique of Sampling, Instrument of the
Research, Technique of Collecting Data, and Technique of Analyzing Data.
CHAPTER IV : ANALYSIS that covers Introduction, Data Analysis, and
Discussion.
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS that consists of
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, the researcher tries to study the background knowledge
from Sociolinguistics and Pragmatics to provide a clearer understanding about
Sociolinguistics-Pragmatics especially related to code choice. Here, the researcher
often quotes many Sociolinguists’ and Pragmatists’ arguments to keep its
originality. This chapter is composed into some subchapters namely
Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics, Socio-Pragmatics, Dimension of Sociolinguistics
Analysis, Language Variation, Bilingualism and Diglossia, Language Choice,
Language and Code, Domain of Language Use, Code Switching and Code
Mixing, Ethnography of Communication, Communicative Competence, Rush
Hour 2, and Review of Related Researches.
A. Sociolinguistics
a. Definition of Sociolinguistics
Hudson defines that sociolinguistics is the study of language in relation
to the society, implying (intentionally) that sociolinguistics is a part of the
study of language (1996: 4). Moreover, Holmes says that sociolinguists study
the relationship between language and society. They are interested in
explaining why we speak differently in different social contexts and they are
concerned with identifying the social functions of language and the ways it is
used to convey social meaning (1992: 1).
Sociolinguistics is a term used to describe all areas of the study of the
relationship between language and society other than these, such as
ethnometodology, which are purely social scientific in their objectives.
Sociolinguistics research is thus work which is intended to achieve a better
social context and or to achieve a better understanding of the relationship and
interaction between language and society. (Trudgill, 1992: 68)
Chaika (1994) defines that sociolinguistics as the study of the ways
people use language in social interaction of all kinds. It means that
sociolinguistics concerns with how people use language when they interact in
any kinds of situation.
It can be concluded that sociolinguistics is concerned with the
relationship between language and context in which it is used. It means that
sociolinguistics does not only discuss about the relationship between language
and society but also considers to who is talking to whom, the situation (the
context), the purpose of the interaction and the topic of conversation.
b. Scope of Sociolinguistics
According to Trudgill (1992: 52), sociolinguistics is divided into two
studies, namely: macro sociolinguistics and micro sociolinguistics. Macro
sociolinguistics refers to sociolinguistics areas involving the study of
relatively large groups of speakers. It concerns with the study of language
history and development in the scope of society in general.
Micro sociolinguistics is a term used to cover the study of face to face
interaction, discourse analysis, conversational analysis, and other areas which
involves a small group of speaker study. Moreover, micro sociolinguistics
concerns with the study of language in specific speech community with the
scope of discussion such as the behavior towards language, style of speech,
domains of language use, register, speech act, etc.
Fishman in Chaklader (1990) divides sociolinguistics into
subdivisions: descriptive, dynamics, and applied sociolinguistics. Descriptive
whom, when, and what end?” It deals with language and norms. Dynamics
sociolinguistics seeks to answer question “what account to different rates of
change in the social organization of language use and behavior toward
language?”. While applied sociolinguistics is concerned with significance of
the application of language in social setting. It studies the significance of
nature language teaching or second language teaching, language policy
decision, language planning, etc.
This research involves micro sociolinguistics since discusses the study
of conversation analysis in small group of speakers. It is about code choices
employed by the two main characters in the movie entitled
“Rush Hour 2”. It also uses descriptive linguistics since this research analyzes
code choice study which relates to the codes, participants, setting, and ends.
B. Pragmatics
Sometimes, people do not say what they mean explicitly. In interpreting
the meaning of utterances, the hearer should consider the situation in which the
utterances occur. The relation between context and meaning of utterances is under
the study of pragmatics. There are several definitions of pragmatics.
According to Yule (1996: 4), pragmatics is a branch of linguistics study
that focuses in meaning utterances. The study of meaning as communicated by a
speaker (or writer) and interpreted by listener (or reader) is known as pragmatics.
Thus, when people deal with pragmatics, they deal with utterances’ meaning. This
is a study that can help people to be able to figure out the meaning of particular
utterances.
Meanwhile, Levinson (1997: 24) states that pragmatics is the study of the
role of context that focuses in meaning of utterances. It means that this type of
study involves the interpretation of what people mean in a particular context and
to its possibility to give influence to the utterances’ meaning. Therefore, in order
to know and understand the meaning of speaker’s utterance, the hearer needs to
concern about the context of the conversation.
From those definitions, it can be concluded that pragmatics is a study that
discusses meaning of language by regarding the relation between language and
context. Thus, it can be clearly understood that the interaction between the context
and language becomes the main study in pragmatics.
C. Socio-Pragmatics
Socio-Pragmatics is the combination study between Sociolinguistics and
Pragmatics. Therefore, from several definitions of Sociolinguistics and Pragmatics
explained previously, it can be said that Socio-Pragmatics deals with the analysis
of significant patterns of interaction in particular social context. For example,
choice of codes may be realized differently in different social contexts.
Sometimes, people use the same code in their utterances to speak to different
participants. On the other hand, they speak in different code to the same
participants. This phenomenon is caused by the strategies used by the participants.
It is called dynamic feature. They have their own reasons which relate to social
meaning of the utterances.
Leech in www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/200305kawate_mierzejewska
states that Socio-Pragmatics is “the sociological interface of Pragmatics”
involving speakers’ and hearers’ beliefs built on relevant social and cultural
values.
From the definition above, it can be concluded that Socio-Pragmatics studies
the meaning of language used in relation to social and cultural values. This
research uses Socio-Pragmatics approach since it discusses the code choices
applied in a particular social interaction in which it considers the social relation
D. Dimension of Sociolinguistics
The subject matter of Sociolinguistics is linguistic diversity or variation. It
is also related to the social factors. It includes the participants, setting, topic, and
function. According to Holmes, there are four social dimensions reflected during
the communication, they are: a social distance concerning with participant
relationship, a status scale concerning with participant relationship, a formality
scale related to the setting or type of interaction, and the last one is two functional
scales related to the purposes or topic of interaction. (1992: 12)
a. A social distance scale
This scale is useful in emphasizing to know that someone is relevant
factor in linguistic choice. This scale concerns with participants’ relationship.
The intimate relationship will have higher solidarity and distance relationship
causes lower solidarity. This scale below may give a clearer understanding.
Figure 1
Social Distance Scale
Source: Holmes, 1992: 12
b. Status scale
This scale points to the relevance of relative status in some linguistic
choices. The other name for this dimension is the power scale of participants.
Participants communicate in such a way signal their status or power in society.
Intimate Distant
This dimension accounts for a variety of linguistic differences in the
way people speak. When people of lower status address to the higher status
people, it is often used Sir, Madame, Mrs., Mr., etc. In short, the linguistic
choice is relevant with the relative status of addressee.
Figure 2
Status Scale
Superior High Status Standard English
Sub-ordinate Low Status Non Standard
Source: Holmes, 1992: 13
c. Formality scale
This scale is useful in assessing the influence of the social setting or
type of interaction on language choice (Holmes, 1992: 13). It accounts for
speech variation in different setting or context. The language choice is in
accordance with the setting where communication takes place. In a formal
situation such as the communication between the employee and the boss in the
office, or at a ritual service in church, the language used will be influenced by
Figure 3
Formality Scale
Formal High Formality
Informal Low Formality
Source: Holmes, 1992: 13
d. Functional scale
This scale is classified into two, namely referential and affective
function scale (Holmes, 1992: 14). In these scales language are particularly
pervasive and basic. Language does not only convey the objective information
of a referential kind but it also expresses someone’s feeling. Referential and
affective meaning influences the kinds of information carried on interaction.
Because of these two functions, the information may be given in different
Figure 4
Referential and Affective Function Scale
Referential
High Information Low Information
Content Content
Low Affective High Affective
Content Content
Affective
Source: Holmes, 1992: 14
E. Language Variation
A variety is a broad term including different accents, different linguistics
styles, different dialects, and even different languages which contrast with other
for social reasons. Sociolinguistics talks about variation and searches social
relevant for regular patterns of variation in language use. Sociolinguistics studies
the connection between the variation within language and variation in the society.
In learning language research, having a well comprehension on the
acquisition language varieties is important. Slosberg (1992) explains that language
varieties consist of social class, ethnic, gender, and acquisition of register. Labov
such as postvocalic / r / (as in far, worm), unstressed – ing (as in sleepi [n] as opposed to sleepi [ ]), and substitution of a stop for fricative (e.g. realization of
medial / o / as / t / in nothing) differ the social and economic index of the
speakers. He also argues that a person from lower social status is less likely use
standard form. Thus, language varieties are across social classes such as upper
middle class, lower class, upper working class, and lower working class. Dealing
with ethnic variations, one of the examples is language use of Black people in
United States. They have a certain variety which is used only with their
community called Black Vernacular English (BEV).
Trudgill (1992:14) defines BEV as the name used by American
sociolinguists to refer to the dialect of English spoken, with relatively little
regional variation, by lower-class Black in the United States. In its phonological
and especially grammatical characteristics, such as copula deletion, this variety
differs from Standard English. Waren-Leubecker and Bohannan (Slosberg 1992:
39) give example of this, while speakers of Standard English mark negation only
once in a sentence, either on the verb or else by an indefinite pronoun as in “She
has said nothing”, speakers of Black English will doubly mark the negative as in
“She ain’t said nothing”. Another example is copula deletion; speakers of
Standard English say “He is angry” but speakers of Black English say “He angry”.
The research finding in accordance with gender-related variations states
that women are more likely to use standard phonetic forms than men. Women will
pronounce the final –ing in a word like ‘talking’, whereas men will pronounce it
as in ‘talkin’ (Slosberg, 1992: 41). Women also often use more polite forms like
tag question or request, while men are more likely to use commands. Moreover,
men tend to initiate a conversation whereas women tend to react it. Based on those
findings above, it can be said that the different characteristic between man and
women can emerge language varieties among them.
As a social being, many roles have to be done by human as a member of
employee or an employer), etc. the varieties occur when a speaker with his role
communicates with other speakers in different role in certain situation. An
employer commonly uses standard variety in an office. However, he will use a
different variety when he talks to his son at home. Here, register variation emerges
caused by the changing of speaker’s role, the characteristics of the addressee and
the situational of communication.
A variety of languages is a set of linguistic items (lexical items, sounds,
and constructions) with similar social distributions. Hudson (1996: 23) argues that
it includes languages, dialects, registers, and styles. Whereas, other Sociolinguist,
Trudgill (1992: 24) argues that a variety refers to any kind of language, dialect,
accent, sociolect, style, and register.
a. Dialect
Dialect is the varieties that initially and basically represent divergent
geographic origins (Ferguson and Gumperz 1960; Halliday 1964 in Fishman,
1972: 16). This dialect can be dialectology and dialect geography and also
social variety or sociolect. Hudson (1996: 38-41) also classifies dialects into
almost in the same way, namely regional (geographical) dialect and social
dialect.
Trudgill (1992: 23) explains that dialect as a variety of language is
differentiated grammatically, phonologically and lexically from others, and
associated with a particular geographical area and or with a particular social
class or status group. According to him, regional (geographical) dialect is
variety or dialect which is thought of as being related to geographical
background rather than its speakers’ social background. While, sociolect is a
variety or dialect thought of as being related to its speakers’ social
background.
From the definition above, the researcher concludes that everybody has
b. Accent
Trudgill defines accent as “the way in which people pronounce when
they speak” (1992: 7). Then, Yule in The Study of Language says that accent
when used technically is restricted to the description of aspects of
pronunciation which identify where an individual speaker is from, regionally
or socially (1996: 227). This definition is also supported by Chaika. She states
that accent refers to the way in which a speaker pronounces (1994: 7). All of
the definitions emphasize on the aspect of pronunciation of speaking that gives
identify for the speakers.
c. Style
Chaika (1994: 81) defines style as the selection of linguistic form to
convey social or artistic effects. It determines how social interactions will
proceed and continue, whether formally or informally. The situation of use
gives the impact to the conversation, whether the participants speak seriously,
ironically, humorously, angrily, lovingly, dubiously or other ways.
Trudgill (1992: 72) proposes style as a variety of language is
associated with social context and differentiated from others in terms of its
formality. Yule also states that style influenced by the situation of use. It can
be ranged from the very formal to the very informal (1996: 227).
From the definition above, the researcher concludes that style is a
variety of languages in terms of its formality. It can be contrasted into formal
style and colloquial style.
d. Register
Register is variation according to use in specific situations. It is used to
describe the specific vocabulary associated with different occupational groups
(Yule, 1996: 245). Trudgill (1992: 62) defines that register is a language
variety that is associated with particular topic, subject or activity. While
Holmes states that register tends to be associated with particular group of
sport commentators, disc jockeys, and politicians are the examples of it (1992:
276).
Those three definitions about register are almost the same, that register
is related with specific situation of speaking. Hence, register is to express
shared meanings concisely and precisely. Therefore, it is not easy for outsiders
to understand and to use them.
e. Standard language
Trudgill (1992: 70-71) defines Standard English as “the variety of
English that is usually used in print, and which is normally taught in school
and to non-native speakers learning the language. It is also the variety, which
is normally spoken by educated people and used in news broadcasts, and other
similar situation”. Then Hudson (1980: 32-33) proposes that the only kind of
variety, which would count as a proper language, is standard language. The
who share it in prestige. It affects many sectors of life.
2. Codification: The codification is done by some agency such as an
academy; they must have written grammar books and dictionaries to ‘fix’
the chosen variety, so that everyone can use the correct norms of that.
3. Elaboration of function: the selected variety is applied in all the functions
dealing with central government and with writing. But adding other
technical words and developing new conventions is still need.
4. Acceptance: the relevant population should accept the variety as the
standard language functions as a strong unifying force for the state, as a
symbol of its independence of other states and also as the marker of its
difference from other states.
(Hudson, 1980: 32-33)
Fishman (1972: 19) stresses that are not all languages have standard
varieties. However, where a standard variety exists it does not mean that it
displaces the non-standard variety from the linguistic repertoires of certain
speech community. Only the functions are different but non-standard variety is
a complementary to the standard variety. In other words, standard language is
a variety that is accepted, admitted, and used by everyone in many sectors of
life. Its functions are as the identity of the speakers, as a symbol of the
community, and even as the national language.
f. Non-standard language
Non standard language based on Trudgill (1992: 56) is widely
different from standard language at level of grammar. Non standard language
is often considered to be wrong, ugly, corrupt or lazy, different from standard
language that is held to be correct, beautiful, nice, pure, and so on. Non
standard language has lower status and prestige than standard language since it
mostly does not follow the language norms that are accepted and admitted in
standard language. It is variety used in informal situation and mostly spoken
by uneducated and lower class people. Slang is non-standard vocabulary used
in informal situation. The table below shows the syntactic differences between
Table1
Some Examples of Syntactic Differences between
Standard and Non- Standard English
Possessive Marker John’s cousin John…….cousin
Plural Marker I have five cents I got five cent
Third Person Singular
(Verb Agreement)
He lives in N.Y. He live in N.Y.
Past Marker Yesterday he walked
home
Yesterday, he walk home
“If ” Construction Statement: I asked if he did it
Statement: I ask did he do it
Negation I don’t have any I don’t got none
Use of ‘be’ He is here all the time He be here
Subject Expression John moved John, he move
Verb Form I drank the milk I drunk the milk
Future I will go home I’ma go home
Indefinite Article I want an apple I want a apple
Pronoun expressing
Source: Hall and Freedle 1973 in Bolinger & Sears, 1981: 199
F. Bilingualism and Diglossia
Diglossia was firstly introduced by a professor of English in Texas 1930’s,
Stanford Charles Ferguson. Ferguson in Fasold (1984: 34) argues that diglossia is
a phenomenon of situation when two distinct varieties of the same language are
In discussing diglossia, there are many relationships between diglossia and
bilingualism. Fishman (1972: 93-106) alludes the relationship between diglossia
and bilingualism, which evokes community characterized by diglossia and
bilingualism, diglosia without bilingualism, bilingualism without diglossia, and
neither diglossia and bilingualism.
a. Diglossia and bilingualism
It happens in Paraguay for example where two languages are spoken.
The distribution is distinguished according to its social function such as
Indonesian (High Language) and Javanese (Low language).
b. Diglossia without bilingualism
It is characterized by Fishman as an instance of political or
governmental diglossia in which two or more differently monolingual entities
are brought together under one political roof. Modern states such as
Switzerland, Belgium and Canada are included as the category.
c. Bilingualism without diglossia
It can be indicated in a country where the two languages are used in
the same function.
d. Neither diglossia and bilingualism
It is the rarest category since all members of the community use one
language for all domains, they are all monolingual. So, there is no distribution
of social functions for the language. It exists in isolated speech community.
G. Language Choice
Holmes (1992: 1) argues that “sociolinguists study the relationship
between language and society. They are interested in explaining why we speak
social functions of language and the ways it is used to convey social meaning”. In
a social interaction, different people in different social contexts should make them
use certain appropriate code. Fortunately, linguistic variation within the linguistic
levels (sounds, word structure (morphology), grammar (syntax), and vocabulary)
offers the speaker a choice of ways of expression.
Fassold in The Sociolinguistics of Society proposes three kinds of language
choices, namely code switching, code mixing, and variation within the same
language. In code switching, speakers should choose between two or more
languages. Code mixing occurs when they mix pieces of one language with
another language. While, variation within the same language is related to dialect,
register or accent. The speakers have to choose the appropriate variations to use in
a certain social situation. (1984:180)
There are certain social factors have been relevant in accounting for the
particular variety used. The first one is participants (the users of language),
considering who is talking to whom (e.g. wife-husband, customer-shop keeper,
boss-worker, etc). The second one is the setting or social context (e.g. home,
2. The setting or social context of interaction: where are they speaking?
3. The topic: what is being talked about?
4. The function: why are they speaking?
(Holmes, 1992: 12)
Fassold in his definition gives classification of language choices. He does
reveals its social factors. In studying language choices, all of the definitions can
be used because they support each other.
H. Language and Code
Code, according to Rahardi (2001: 21) is the use of a speech system
related to the background of the speaker and the hearer and also the speech
situation. Poedjosudarmo (1978) in Rahadi (2001: 22) states that code as a variety
of language used by the person for interaction with the society. Wardaugh (1988
in Rahadi 2001: 22) also gives a definition of code that code is a kind of system
used by two people or more for communication.
Trudgill (1992: 85) argues that language likes other forms of social
activity which the speakers have to use appropriately. This is why, in many
communities, man and woman speeches are different. He also states that language
needs appropriate occasions and situations. In other words, language varies not
only according to the social characteristics of speakers (such as social class, ethnic
group, age, and sex) but also according to the social context.
Therefore, it can be said that code is different from language since code
has wider term than language. Code has varieties, for example Javanese code
classifies into three, namely Krama Inggil, Ngoko Alus, and Ngoko. While
language is different system used by different people for communication (e.g.
English is different from Indonesian language).
I. Domain of Language Use
Domain, according to Fishman who is also the first person and has
developed the notion of a domain of language use, is a sociocultural construct
abstracted from topics of communication relationship in accordance with the
institution of a society and the spheres of activity of speech community on such a
way that individual behavioral and social pattern can be distinguished from each
This definition is also developed by Downes (1984: 49). He defines
domain as a grouping together of recurring situation types in such a way that one
of the languages or varieties in a repertoire, as opposed to the others, normally
occurs in that class of situations. The member of the speech community judge that
the use of that variety, and not the others, is appropriate to that domain. In short, a
domain involves typical interactions between typical participants in typical
setting.
Holmes states that domain is clearly a very general concept which draws
on three important social factors in code choice, namely participant, setting, and
topic. It is useful for capturing broad generalizations about any speech
community. The use of the domains in a community is possible to draw a very
simple model of the norms of language use for a community. For instance, the
information identifies four domains and describes the variety or code appropriate
to each. This is often particularly useful for bilingual and multilingual speech
communities (1992: 26).
Fishman (in Holmes, 1992: 24) mentions five domains, which can be
identified in many communities namely family, friendship, religion, education,
and employment. The use of a code of a language is different in every domain
because the situation in every domains also different. For instance, if the setting is
family domain, the participants will use vernacular language or non-standard
language because the situation is informal.
J. Code Switching and Code Mixing
a. Code switching
In a communication, speakers may change their language used if they
it to or need to. In that process of that changing, switching will occur. That
Code switching is the process whereby bilinguals or bidialectals switch
back and forth between one language or dialect and another within the same
conversation. Sridard (in McKay and Hornberg, 1996: 56) suggest that people
frequently switch from one language to another, when two or more languages
exist in a community.
Wardaugh (1976: 103) states that there are two kinds of code
switching, namely situational code switching and metaphorical code
switching.
1. Situational Code Switching
According to Hudson (1996: 52), situational code switching occurs
when the code change is caused by the change of topics or participants.
The switch of code follows the situational code switching, the change of
participants and also atmosphere.
Situational code switching usually has new persons or participants
in conversation so the situational code switching can change the choice of
language. It is also used for temporary need or immediate need.
2. Metaphorical Code Switching
Holmes states that each of codes represents a set of social meaning,
and the speaker draws on the association of each, just as people use
metaphors to represent complex meaning. The term also reflects the fact
that this kind of switching involves rhetorical skill. Skillful code switching
operates like metaphor to enrich communication (1992: 49).
Metaphorical code switching has an affective dimension to it: the
code as you redefine the situation—formal to informal, official to
personal, serious to humorous, and politeness to solidarity (Wardaugh,
b. Code mixing
The other term related to code switching is code mixing. It is a part of
language dependency in bilingual or multilingual society. It is the process
whereby speakers indulge in code switching between languages of such
rapidity and density, even within sentences and phases, that is not really
possible to say at any given time which language they are speaking (Trudgill,
1992: 16).
According to Sridhar (in McKay & Hornberg, 1996), code mixing
implies quite in multilingual communities around the world. People often use
and mix their languages. Therefore, it reflects sociocultural and textual
functions as an expression of certain types of complex personalities and
Trudgill defines ethnography of communication as the study of the norms
and rules for using language in social situations in different culture and is thus
important for cross-cultural communication (1992: 31).
Meanwhile, Fassold states that the essential concepts of ethnography of
communication are the speech community and the units of interaction, which
consist of speech situation, speech event, and speech act (1990: 39).
Speech community is a community of speakers who share the same verbal
repertoire and share the same norms for linguistic behavior. In this sense, a group
of people belongs to the same speech community if they speak the same language
The three units are a nested hierarchy in the sense that speech acts are part
of speech events which are in turn part of speech situations. Hymes (in Fassold,
1990: 42) describes speech situation as “situations associated with or marked by
the absence of speech”. It may be composed of both communicative and other
kinds of events, for instance in ceremonies, fights, hunts, and lovemaking.
Speech event, on the other hand, are both communicative and governed by
rules for the use of speech (Hymes in Fassold, 1990: 42). A speech event consists
of one or more speech acts. Several speech events can occur successively or even
simultaneously in the same situation, for example: a joke might be a speech act
that is part of conversation (speech event) which takes place at a party (speech
situation).
Whereas, speech acts are minimal term of the set. A speech act can have
forms ranging from a complex sentence or words (Hymes in Fasold 1990: 42)
There are certain components are strongly relates to three units of speech
that are proposed by Hymes. Those components are abbreviated in the form of
SPEAKING (Setting or Scene, Participants, Ends, Acts Sequence, Key, Instrumentalities, Norms of Interaction, and Genre) (Hymes in Fasold, 1990: 44-45).
a. Setting or Scene (S)
The setting refers to the aspect of place and time of the speech. It is
closely related to its psychological aspect. Setting can be a cultural definition
of an occasion as a certain type of scene. Therefore, setting is different with
scene. Setting is connected to the physical condition of a speech, while scene
is related to the psychological and cultural condition (Hymes in Fassold, 1990:
44).
b. Participants (P)
Participants relate to speaker/addressor, hearer/addressee, the subjects
on what is said and how it is said. Speaker or addressor means the person who
transmits a message. Hearer or addressee means the person to whom the
message is transmitted (ibid: 44).
c. Ends (E)
The purpose of an event is called ends. It consists of outcome and goal.
Outcome is explained as the purpose of the event from a cultural point of
view. While, goal explained as the purpose of the individual participant (ibid:
44).
d. Act Sequence (A)
Act sequence is about the message of event content. It comprises
message form and message content. Message form describes how something is
said. While, message content describes what is said in that speech event. Both
of them involve communicative skills that vary from one culture to another
(ibid: 44).
e. Key (K)
Key refers to the tone and manner in which an action is done (Fishman
1972: 52). Tone alludes to the general spirit of the scene, such as brave, fierce,
fearful, etc. Manner refers to the participants’ way of behaving toward others,
whether it is polite, impolite, intimate, formal, relax, serious, etc. It also refers
to the feeling, atmosphere, and attitude (Hymes in Fasold 1990: 44-45).
Feeling means the emotions that indicating happiness, terror, anxiety, anger,
shock, etc. While atmosphere brings up the feeling that affects the mind in a
place or condition such as good, evil, solemn, etc. Whereas attitude points to
the participants’ ways of thinking and behaving toward a situation whether it
is sympathetic, serious, optimistic, etc (ibid: 45).
The signaling of key may be non-verbal, for instance with a gesture,
conventional units of speech such as English aspiration and vowel length to
signal emphasis and also intonation (verbal) (ibid: 45).
f. Instrumentalities (I)
Instrumentalities are the comparisons of channels and forms of speech.
According to Hymes, channel is the way a message travels from one person to
another. Therefore, it implies the means or medium of speech transmissions.
Channel can be oral or transmitted by such means such as telegraph,
semaphore, smoke signal, drumming, etc. whereas, form of speech are
described by Hymes as language and their subdivisions, such as varieties,
codes, dialects, and registers (ibid: 45).
g. Norms (N)
Hymes divides norms of communication into: norms of interaction and
norms of interpretation. They are determined by the cultural background of the
community. Thus, it can be said that each community has certain norms of
interaction that different from other community. Every speech community has
certain rules for interpreting the messages conveyed verbally or nonverbally.
Hymes states that norms of interpretation implicate the belief system of
communication (ibid: 45).
h. Genre (G)
Genre includes some categories such as prayer, lecture, poem,
proverbs, myth, riddle, commercial, curse, editorial, form letter, and so on.
They often coincide with speech events since a speech genre can occur in
L. Communicative Competence
One significant aspect within the ethnography of communication is
communicative competence. It was firstly proposed by Hymes in 1966, and
defined as “what a speaker needs to know to communicate effectively in culturally
significant setting”. Thus, it involves knowing not only the language code but also
what to say to whom, and how to say it appropriately in any given situation.
Hymes (in Trudgill 1990: 17) points out that knowing the grammar, phonology,
and lexicon of a language is not enough. The speakers have to know how to use
the language appropriately in the society in which they live. They have to know
when to speak and when not to, which greeting formula to use when, which style
to use in which situation, and so on.
The socio and cultural knowledge are needed which enables them to use
and interpret linguistic forms (Saville-Troike in McKay and Hornberg, 1996).
Moreover, it relates to both knowledge and expectation of who may not speak in
certain setting, when to speak and when to remain silent, whom one may speak to,
how one may talk to persons of different statuses and roles., what nonverbal
behavior are appropriate in various context, what the routines for turn taking are
in conversation, how to ask for and give information, how to give commands, how
to offer or decline assistance or cooperation, how to enforce discipline, how to
request and so forth, everything involving the use of language and other
communicative dimensions in certain social settings.
Therefore, the speaker needs to know about how to communicate
effectively in cultural significant settings with not only use the language code but
M. Rush Hour 2
Writers : Jeff Nathanson (Screenplay)
Ross LaManna (Original Story)
Starring : Jackie Chan as Chief Inspector Lee
Chris Tucker as Detective James Carter
John Lone as Ricky Tan
Zhang Ziyi as Hu Li
Kenneth Tsang as Superintendent Chin
Alan King as Steven Reign
Roselyn Sánchez as Isabella Molina
Harris Yulin as Agent Sterling
Genre : Action, Comedy, Crime, Thriller
Distribution : New Line Cinema
Release date(s) : August 3, 2001
Awards : 10 wins & 17 nominations
“Rush Hour 2” is a 2001 martial arts film. This is the second
installment in the Rush Hour film series .A sequel to the 1998 film Rush Hour,
the film stars Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker who respectively reprise their
roles as Inspector Lee and Los Angeles police detective James Carter. The
