STUDY ON THE USE OF SELLER’S CODE CHOICE IN DEALING WITH VARIETY BUYERS

I live in Indonesia (eastern country); Javanese which consider society’s value is everything. They measure almost everything based on society’s value and politeness. It also influences the language use in society. In this case women tend to expect having better behavior than men. Thus, I find that women have role as a guardian of society’s value and I also find that it influences women as a Subordinate groups must be polite.
Women have higher position in the role as a guardian of society than men. I can connect it, in the first society (family) even from the early age. The parents teach either indirectly or directly that women/ girl must have better behavior than men/ boy. The parents will give more toleration when the boys do some misbehavior; on the other hand the parents will quickly correct the girl’s misbehavior. For example in my daily life: when boys/ men laugh out of loud; the parents will consider that it is fine; on the other hand, the parents will consider that it is taboo or “saru” when women/ girls laugh out of loud. On the larger society, I can find that most people will consider women who smoke as nasty, dirty, badly behaved. Nevertheless most people will be fine when men are smoking without considering men as nasty.
When the girl has grown up I could notice in my surrounding that women’s role as a guardian of society’s value influence the women’s language use. I find that women is Subordinate groups must be polite. The women tend to protect their “face “more than men. Women tend to use more standard and polite language choice. For example: there are not many women who swear in the dirty words such as; asu, bajingan, bajinguk, etc, because women are afraid to be considered as a nasty women by surrounding society. On the other hand, men seems to have more freedom to say or swear every words they want to say without being afraid to be considered as a bad behaved. Most people tolerate or “maklum” when the man say something rude or do something rough.

1. Introduction

Language is the main implement in communication. In daily life, we must use language properly; in language use we must consider the situation which consists of three main aspects, which are participant, setting, and topic (Holmes, 2001). It should be noted that different interactions between people will also impact to the variety of language use. We have to adjust our language/ code choice while we are talking. Moreover, we live in a multilingual society, that will be appear in form of style, dialect and formal-informal form of that language
One of the multilingual interactions in our daily life which is easily to find is the occurrence of trade, as local trade where people in different race, ethnicity, origin, status meet to make an agreement and deal in transaction. Here the language plays central role to set up successful transaction. Therefore, seller has to adjust code choice appropriately in dealing with the variety buyers in transaction. Generally, to set up a successful trade, there must be a shared language between seller and buyer. For example, in standard supermarket, take a look at the “Alfa-Mart” store, where the buyer and the seller use the language in Bahasa Indonesian, since it is the national language where all people (Indonesian) might share and understand the language. However, in another form of market, such as local market, store, warung, the language which is used among the seller and the buyer is more flexible and it is not always done in Bahasa Indonesia. Moreover it is done by using either the local language or informal form of national language. Take a look at many unanswered factors that influence the code choice, the writer is curious on what and how actually the factors persuade the code-choice in this circumstance. By doing this small research, the writer hopes for a logical justification behind this phenomenon.

2. Review of Related Literature

2.1. Language Choice/Code Choice
Code is such a concept to bring up linguistic variety, here the language variety could be seen in different form of language, accent, dialect, style, etc. Wardhaugh (1992) found that some particular dialect or language that a person chooses in certain situation. However, Boztepe (2003) add that code is a more neutral term to reflect on any variation of someone’s repertoire in their language or the language itself. In multilingual communities, we can find rich sources of codes. Even, between two people, we may find out different codes on accent, style and social dialect.
Stockwell (2002) sates that people need to adjust their language according to the purpose and situation in order to connect with their social life. Adjusting the code toward situation means that someone has to choose which code/ language to use in particular circumstances (Wardhaugh, 1992). Holmes (2001) mention that situation is such a condition which is included three main aspects, which are participant, setting, and topic. Holmes (2001) specify the three aspects above (participant, setting, and topic) are called ‘domain’
The main purpose of Code- choice is to communicate successfully. Wardhaugh (1992) state that code- choice is some system to use in formulating communication between two people (speaker and interlocutor). Stockwell (2002), saying that choice of code is meaningful structure of communication.
2.2. Social Factors affecting code choice
People perform code choice in particular condition are called domain. Stockwell (2002) said that the code-choice is considered by which the domain (participant, setting, and topic) the speakers are attending. Moreover, Holmes (2001) finds out 4 components in domain and names all these components as the social factors that affect the code choice:

• The participants, who is speaking and who are they speaking to (interlocutor)
• The setting or social context of the interaction: where are they speaking?
• The topic: what is being talked about?
• The function: why are they speaking?

2.3. Social Dimensions affecting code choice
Holmes (2001) concludes that it is not enough, as the components of domain do not always fit each other. People may select particular domain without considering where they are speaking. Therefore, Holmes suggests another aspects that contribute to people’ code choice, which are called as social dimensions. These consist of:

• a social distance scale concerned with participant relationships
• a status scale concerned with participant relationships
• a formality scale relating to the setting or type of interaction
• Two functional scales relating to the purposes or topic of interaction.

However Grosjean in Boztepe (2003) formulate some outline of factors that decide someone’s code choice.
Situation

• Location/Setting
• Presence of monolinguals
• Degree of formality
• Degree of intimacy Content of Discourse
• Topic
• Type of vocabulary Function of Interaction
• To raise status
• To create social distance
• To exclude someone
• To request or command
• Participants
• Language proficiency
• Language preference
• Socioeconomic status
• Age
• Sex
• Occupation
• Education
• Ethnic Background
• History of speakers' linguistic interaction
• Kinship relation
• Intimacy
• Power relation
• Attitude toward languages
• Outside pressure

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants
This research is aim to find out the code-choice between seller and buyer. The writer opt some local store (warung) to be the subject of the examination; it sells food, vegetables, and beverage. The local store is located at Rembes Village. It is very strategic, since it is on the bank of the main road, therefore many neighborhoods buy some vegetable in this store. The local store is also close to the school; it means that crowd of students often buy some meals or beverage after school at this store. Moreover the local store is also located at front of bus stop Java-Sumatra; it means that the bus crews have a lunch at this store.
This store is owned by a woman, 35 years old. She was born and raised up in Sumatra, but he has been living in this village for 7 years. As a result she is able to use Bahasa Indonesia in Sumatra dialect and Javanese as well.
Everyday, she deals with a lot and different kind of customers, old and young, male and female, neighbors, friends, relatives, bus crew and also travelers. However, the writer finds that the seller does not only utilize Indonesian language in her conversation with the buyers. Sometimes she prefers another variety of language, such as Javanese Ngoko and Krama or even Bahasa Indonesia in Sumatrans dialect. For the reason behind this choice, that is what the writer is going to examine in the next chapter
3.2. Instruments of the study
The writer use Observation to collect the data. The writer observes the language which is used by the seller in dealing with variety buyers. The writer was sitting at the place where the seller dealing with the buyers and wrote field-notes on the language used in the conversation, without disturbing the participants. The observation is conducted 3 times with different participants.
To analyze the data, the writer did these following steps. The first one was transcribing the conversations. The second, the writer coded the transcribe. This coding was done by highlighting the seller’s language used. The third step was classifying data; seller’s languages were classified based on the kind of language. After collecting the data, the writer use Interview to find out factors that differs their code-choice.

4. Data Analysis

In the review of literature, it has been explained that code- language is influenced by domain (participant, setting, and topic); Holmes (2001). In this case (Buyer & seller) we can not use these domains as references, the interaction held at the same place/ setting, and same topic (dealing the transaction). Here, we can only refer to the “Participant” which influences the Code-choice; which have different role in society.
In this study, the writer finds out some question to answer:
1. What are the languages used in this interaction (seller and buyer)?
2. What factors that differ their code-choice?
The First question: What are the languages used in this interaction?
From three different interactions, the writer finds out three different code-choices.
No Interaction Language repertoire (Seller) Participant
1. The 1st transaction Bahasa Indonesia in sumatranese dialects. Bus crew (sumatranese); 25 years old man.
2. The 2nd transaction Javanesse (Kromo Alus) Neighbor; 55 years old woman.
3. The 3rd transaction Javanesse (Ngoko) SMP students; 12 years old girl.
From the data above, we can simply see that the seller use different language according to the buyers. Therefore, whoever the seller is (interlocutor) must understand the language used in order to make agreement and deal the transaction. To make it simple, perhaps the seller can just use Indonesian all the time as the national language. However, expected condition does not happen, since other languages are also employed. Why? The next section will deal with the factor of code-choice specifically.

The second question: What factors that differs their code-choice?
A. The 1st Transaction
Language repertoire: Bahasa Indonesia in sumatranese dialects.
Participant: Bus crew (sumatranese); 25 years old man.
The First transcribe:
Seller : Beli apo?
Buyer : Nasi goreng, ado?
Seller : Ado, berapo porsi?
Buyer : Satu sajo, ndak pedes.
Seller : Ya, tunggu sajo.
Buyer : (After eating) Sudah, berapo ni ?
Seller : Lima ribu sajo.
The first, from social distance scale, it is because the interlocutors are strangers for the seller. This is the first time they meet, the seller try to use formal language style. At the other hand, the seller has grown up in Sumatra which means that the seller is able to use Bahasa Indonesia in Sumatranese dialect. Moreover, the seller uses Bahasa Indonesia in Sumatranese dialect in order to make the buyer (Interlocutor) feel safe/ homey.
The 2nd Transaction
Language repertoire: Javanesse (Kromo Alus)
Participant: Neighbor; 55 years old woman.
The third transcribe:
Buyer : Tuku janganane pur…
Seller : Nggih, ajeng pados nopo budhe?
Buyer : Tuku kangkung sak unting wae pur..
Seller : Niki budhe kangkunge
Buyer : Wah, kangkunge seger- seger iki, piro?
Seller : niku, setunggal ewu mangatus mawon (Rp. 1,500)
From social distance, the buyer is not stranger for the seller anymore. Moreover, they often meet in some occasion such as: pengajian, PKK, Mosque. Their social distance is really close. Here the seller is younger than the buyer. Even though their social distance is really close, but the seller still eager to respect the buyer by using Kromo Alus (the high degree formality of Javanese). Meanwhile, the buyer use Ngoko since the seller is younger.
Here the seller call the buyer “Budhe”, it does not mean that the buyer is a still relative but the seller assume that their social distance is really close and pretend that the buyer is her “Budhe/ Big mother”. At the other hand, the buyer just calls the seller directly her name by calling “Pur”, it also indicates that they have a close relationship. In this transaction there is also small talk such as: “Wah, kangkunge seger- seger iki” even though it is still related in dealing with the transaction, it shows their close relationship.
C. The 3rd Transaction
Language repertoire: Javanesse (Kromo Alus)
Participant: Neighbor; 55 years old woman.
The Second transcribe:
Seller : Tuku opo nduk?
Buyer : Tumbas es campur buk…
Seller : Piro nduk?
Buyer : Setunggal mawon, mboten mbeto kolang- kaling.
Seller : Iyo nduk, iki...
Buyer : Nggih, pinten buk?
Seller : Sewu nduk
Buyer : Niki buk artane, maturnuwun.
From social distance, the buyer is not stranger for the seller anymore; since the buyer often buy some beverage in the store after school. In this dialogue, we can see something interesting, where the seller use Javanese Ngoko (Lower level Javanese language) and the buyer use Kromo Alus (the high degree formality of Javanese). From Javanese language point of view, it is on the different level which is different aim for each level. Here, the seller speaks in Ngoko, because the interlocutor/ participant is younger. Therefore, the seller does not need to use higher level of Javanese language in order to show the respect for the interlocutor. At the other hand the buyer reply the seller speech in Kromo Alus (the high degree formality of Javanese)in order to show her respect, since the seller is older than she is.
5. Conclusion
From the complete data analysis which has been presented above, we can draw several important conclusions. First, it is true that people who live in multilingual communities do code choice, by selecting particular language to particular participant/ interlocutor. It is also true that the reason vary, involving many aspects, both from inside (participants) and outside (condition).
Second, one of the most common reasons is based on the social factor, which we know mainly in the term of ‘domain’, comprising three main aspects (setting, participant and topic). It is not enough to refer to domain only, as we can see in one setting of interaction; there can be also variation of language, like what happens in the interaction between seller and buyer.
Third, from the data analysis, we get important findings. The main finding is that social dimensions (focusing on social distance scale and status scale) are the factors that can explain code choice within a domain. Another significant factor that contributes is background of the interlocutors, can be age, status, education, occupation, etc. The speaker uses Indonesian to the people who are assumed as a stranger, while she will use Javanese Kromo Alus (the high degree formality of Javanese) to the older people she wants to respect and uses Javanese Ngoko (the lower level Javanese language) to people with lower status or the younger people. To get more comprehensive explanation, we can add Grosjean in Boztepe (2003) table, which show detailed division of what determines social distance scale and status scale. For example, status may be determined by age, education, occupation, etc.
Last, it should be noted that all the analysis above are the conditions that we can predict and observe by our senses. That is why we can not utilize all the factors that Grosjean in Boztepe (2003) proposes. There are still remaining factors unexplained in this research, such as language proficiency, history of language use, etc. To get the answer, an intensive examination must be conducted with the interlocutors.
6. Suggestion
When we live in pluralism which varies participants in society role, language use, language proficiency, different degree formality of language, etc. we have to determine code-choice properly, in order to keep our existence in the society or some other purposes. Otherwise, the interlocutor will consider us impolite, moreover in Javanese or at the other places where culture value is still considered as an important thing in life. Outside culture value we should determine code- choice properly by considering language proficiency of the interlocutor in order to keep the participant understands what we are talking about. Sometimes, we also determine code- choice for some other unique purpose, take a look at the case of this study when the seller determine code- choice in Sumatranese Bahasa Indonesia while she is talking to sumatranese in order to keep the interlocutor feel save and homey.

References

Boztepe, E. (2003). Issues in code switching: Competing theories and models. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, Vol 3, No 2.
Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
Stockwell, P. (2002). Sociolinguistics: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Wardhaugh, L. (1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics: Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Taken from Sociolinguistic Project