Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Sarjana Sastra Degree in the English Department By WINDA ISTRINA C0305060

110  Download (0)

Teks penuh




(Based on Socio-Pragmatics Approach)


Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Sarjana Sastra Degree in the English Department




English Department

Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts

Sebelas Maret University





(Based on Socio-Pragmatics Approach)


Winda Istrina


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




(Based on Socio-Pragmatics Approach)


Winda Istrina


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



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Code Choices by the Two Main Characters in the Movie Entitled “Rush Hour 2” (Based on Socio-Pragmatics Approach) is originally made by the researcher.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



“… 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,




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



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


12.My Black English consultant, Miss Sarah, for all the guidance and nice


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.













LIST OF TABLE………..……xv


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



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


B. Suggestions………86




Figure 1 Social Distance Scale………...16

Figure 2 Status Scale ……….17

Figure 3 Formality Scale………18



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



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




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


[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



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


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


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






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


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

states that Socio-Pragmatics is “the sociological interface of Pragmatics”

involving speakers’ and hearers’ beliefs built on relevant social and cultural


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


High Information Low Information

Content Content

Low Affective High Affective

Content Content


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


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


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:


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



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


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


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


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


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:


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:


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


Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 2 Status Scale

Figure 2

Status Scale p.30
Figure 3 Formality Scale

Figure 3

Formality Scale p.31
Figure 4

Figure 4