Page 193

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Exploring Code-Switching Practices in Verbal Communication

among University Students in the Klang Valley: A Case Study

Nur Zafirah Binti Zainol,

Amy Sofeena Binti Kamarulzaman,

Nur Faiqah Binti Mohamed Ismail,

Farhanah Syazwani Binti Md Safian,

Khaleda Alia Binti Mohamad Jamil,

Nur Hanani Binti Nordin

Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia,

Centre of Foundation Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Selangor, Kampus Dengkil,

43800 Dengkil, Selangor, Malaysia.

Centre of Foundation Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Selangor, Kampus Dengkil,

43800 Dengkil, Selangor, Malaysia.

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.922ILEIID0019

Received: 22 September 2025; Accepted: 30 September 2025; Published: 22 October 2025

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the use of code switching among university students in verbal communication within

the Klang Valley. The objectives of this study are to investigate the language varieties used in verbal

communication, the forms of code switch used, the reasons for the use of code switch, the differences of

reasons to code switch between universities,and the perception of university students towards the use of code

switching. The theoretical framework used in this study is based on the social functions introduced by Holmes

(2013) and the data collected was analysed with Holmes (2013) framework. The respondents consisted of

university students from UiTM, MSU and UNISEL responded to a questionnaire survey consisting of question

items related to the forms of code switching and reasons for the use of code switching. Some of the

respondents were then chosen and interviewed to gain depth into their perceptions of the use of code

switching. The results show that the majority of the students are inclined to using intra-sentential code

switching in verbal communication and the students thought that the use of code switching in verbal

communication was beneficial and helpful for both the speakers and listeners to establish better

communication.

Keywords: Code-Switching, Verbal Communication, Code-Switching Practices.

INTRODUCTION

Code-switching is common in daily interactions in Malaysia and these language shifts create a shared code that

conveys meaning and serves various communicative purposes (Serip Mohamad, 2022). Myers-Scotton (1993,

cited in Rose, 2006) defined it as the use of more than one language within the same utterance or conversation.

In Malaysia, the practice has roots in British colonial rule, which established English as both a medium of

instruction and a tool of informal communication (Thirusankul & Yunus, 2014). The multilingual environment

created by ethnic-based schools in Malay, English, Tamil, and Chinese further reinforced this practice. Today,

mixing languages in daily speech is a natural feature of Malaysian communication, as seen in examples like:

“wei macha, you want to makan here or tapau?”

Page 194

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Code-switching also allows speakers to address lexical or grammatical gaps in one language by incorporating

features of another (Nazri & Kassim, 2023). For Riparip (2024), it is argued that code-switching in classroom

links towards limited English proficiency. However, Amanda et al. (2024) shows teachers in vocational health-

education settings use code-switching strategically to help students understand complex subject matter when

English proficiency is limited. Similarly, Nawaz (2023) found that code-switching in urban ESL classrooms

improves comprehension and increases student participation by bridging language gaps.

Findings across studies remain inconsistent, creating space for further investigation. This study therefore

examines the types, forms, and functions of code-switching among Malaysian university students in Klang

Valley, with attention to institutional differences.

While many studies have focused on school contexts, less is known about its role at the tertiary level. In

Malaysian universities, where English dominates as the language of instruction, students still frequently switch

to their mother tongues during interaction (Aziz & Salleh, 2024).

Likewise, Ali and Hashim (2021) observed that Malaysian undergraduates often mix languages on WhatsApp

to express identity and strengthen peer relationships. Against this background, the present study aims to

explore students’ perspectives on code-switching in higher education.

Research Objectives

The statements below are the research objectives for this study:

1. To investigate the language varieties and forms of code switch used among university students in Shah

Alam.

2. To examine the reasons for the use of code switch and the significant difference of reasons to code

switch between UiTM, MSU and UNISEL.

3. To identify the perception of university students towards the use of code switching.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Language variety in Malaysia

Malaysia's multiethnic population, which includes Malays, Chinese, Indians, and indigenous groups, is

reflected in its linguistic diversity. English still plays a significant role alongside community languages like

Mandarin, Cantonese, and Tamil, despite Malay being the official language. Majority Malaysians acquire

multiple languages through family and education, resulting in code-switching becoming a common form of

communication (Saringat & Ismail, 2024).

Definition and Types of Code Switching

Code-switching is the practice of alternating between two or more languages within a sentence or

conversation. It functions to convey identity, solidarity, and enhance clarity in communication (Nazri &

Kassim, 2023). It serves not only as a means of communication but also reveals the intricate cognitive

processes involved in bilingualism. (Chandra, 2023; Al Mustopha & D ‘Angelo, 2023). This study follows

Poplack’s (1980) framework, which distinguishes intra-sentential, inter-sentential, and extra-sentential

switching.

i. Intra sentential code switching

Occurs within a sentence or clause and is the most complex form (Koban, 2013). Example:

“Don’t be late nanti kena marah dengan teacher.”

Page 195

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

ii. Inter sentential code switching

Takes place across sentences or clauses, requiring fluency in both languages. Example: “Who told you to do

that? Saya tak suruh pun.”

iii. Extra sentential code switching

Also called tag-switching, it involves inserting short tags without breaking syntax (Poplack, 1980). Example:

“No one dared to speak in class tapi dia je yang berani.”

Social Functions for Users to Code Switch

Holmes (2013) outlined several functions of code-switching, including expressing solidarity, marking group

boundaries, topic shifts, showing emotions, and persuasion.

i. Expressing Solidarity

Speakers may switch languages to show membership within a group that shares common ethnicity or

background. This builds unity within or across groups often through “rojak” slang. Educators also use it to

create a friendly environment, with Sert (2005) noting its role in making classrooms more approachable.

ii. Expressing Group Solidarity

Code switching can be used to distinguish one group from another or exclude outsiders. For instance, speakers

may switch to Chinese in a Malay-speaking context for privacy and comfort. Rojas (2025) observed that such

switching conveys status and respect among users.

iii. Discussing a Topic

Speakers often code switch depending on the subject. Holmes (2013) noted that certain topics invite language

switching, such as the use of English for academic subjects and Malay for casual talk.

iv. Expressing Feelings

Holmes (2013) reported that bilinguals often rely on their L1 to express emotions or personal feelings, while

L2 is reserved for formal situations. Switching becomes a tool when speakers want to express themselves more

accurately.

v. Persuasion

Code switching may be used strategically to persuade or attract attention. Nerghes (2011) argued that when

combined with strong arguments, it enhances credibility and facilitates systematic processing of information,

making the speaker appear more reliable.

Perceptions towards the use of code switching

Code-switching is perceived by some as a way of expression of identity and building relationships (Kipchoge,

2024). Code-switching can facilitate comprehension in multilingual settings (William et al., 2025). However,

others consider frequent code-switching to be a sign of weaker literacy and slower language development

(William et al., 2025). Despite this, many studies show that efficient use of code-switching may increase

communication and learning. This holds particularly true for multi-lingual environments where it is already in

place.

Page 196

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

METHODOLOGY

Purposive sampling was employed, with a Google Form distributed to university students in Shah Alam. A

total of 74 respondents aged 18–29 were recruited from UiTM, MSU, and UNISEL, institutions chosen to

align with the study’s objectives. Data collection involved two instruments. The first was a questionnaire

adapted from Wong (2012), consisting of three sections: demographic information, close-ended questions on

types of code-switching, and Likert-scale items on reasons for switching. The second instrument was a short

interview comprising four open-ended questions, audio-recorded, and transcribed. The interviews explored

both the use and perceptions of code-switching while allowing direct observation of switching forms,

following similar methods used by Koban (2013).

Data were analysed using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Questionnaire responses were

processed in SPSS, with descriptive statistics used to present demographic data and visualized through pie

charts. One-way ANOVA and t-tests were then conducted to identify significant differences across universities

regarding reasons for code-switching. Interview transcripts were analysed manually and coded into three

categories of switching: intra-sentential, inter-sentential, and tag-switching based on the study’s conceptual

framework and Holmes’ (2013) model of social functions. Relevant excerpts were extracted to complement the

survey results, providing a narrative account of language varieties, forms, and functions of code-switching in

students’ everyday communication.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Language Variety among University Students

Figure 1: Percentage of Students First Language

Table 1: Crosstabulation between students and language varieties.

Page 197

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Table 1.2: Percentage of Crosstabulation within students and language varieties.

Based on the descriptive statistics of the graph and crosstabulation, most respondents’ first language is Bahasa

Malaysia. It is found that the percentage of Malay as students' first language is 73% which consists of 35

students from UiTM, 12 from MSU and 5 from UNISEL. The statistics also state that the percentage of Tamil

as students' first language is 8.1% which consists of 2 students from MSU and 4 from UNISEL. Other than

that, the percentage for students who use Mandarin as their first language is 4.1% and for speakers with other

first languages are 17.6% which consist of 2 students from MSU and 1 from UNISEL. Therefore, it is found

that most of the students' first language are (1) Malay (n = 52), (2) Others (n = 13), (3) Tamil (n = 6), and (4)

Mandarin (n = 3).

Table 1.3: The frequency of code switch done by university students

Page 198

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

The descriptive statistics in Table 1.3 shows the frequencies of code switching used by university students in

Shah Alam. The table shows that university students tend to code switch a few words (percentage = 62.2%)

more than other forms. It is also seen in the table that code switching a few words is vastly higher than the

whole sentence (percentage = 20.3%). The table above also indicates that code switching a complete phrase

(percentage = 4.1%) and fillers (percentage = 4.1%) is equivalent and is rarely used by university students

when code switching. The statistics also show that code switching a clause is slightly higher than complete

phrase and fillers respectively. This shows that university students tend to code switch a few words when

interacting.

Table 1.4: Forms of code switch used in an interaction.

The descriptive statistics in Table 1.4 shows the forms of code switch used by university students in an

interaction. The table shows that intra-sentential (percentage = 43.2%) is more frequently used. It also shows

that the usage of tag switching (percentage = 31.1%) is slightly higher compared to inter-sentential code

switching (percentage= 25.7%). The differences in the percentage of each form are not high which shows that

all forms of code switch are used frequently similarly.

Table 1.5: Forms of code switch used to deliver a content.

Table 1.5 shows the descriptive statistics that reflect the university students' opinion on the forms of code

switch used to help deliver content better in an interaction. According to the table, intra-sentential (percentage

= 43.2%) is indicated as the most effective when delivering content in an interaction. The total percentage of

the forms of code switch also shows that the use of tag switching (percentage = 31.1%) is slightly higher than

the use of inter-sentential (25.7%) when delivering content. The statistics from table 1.4 and table 1.5 indicate

that the students frequently use the forms of code switch that is considered effective when delivering a context

Page 199

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

and interacting. Both tables show that intra-sentential code switching is frequently used by university students

in Shah Alam.

Reasons to Code Switch

Table 1.6: Mean of reasons to code switch in an interaction

Table 1.6 shows the descriptive statistics of the frequency of reasons for university students to code switch

when interacting. The table shows that university students tend to code switch when they cannot find the right

words to say in a certain language (mean = 4.58) more than other reasons. The total means of the reasons to

code switch also indicates that code switching to clarify or further explain a concept is indistinctly higher than

code switching to translate a concept or meaning respectively. Therefore, according to the mean of the use of

code switch by university student, the reasons for university students to code switch is (1) cannot find the right

word (mean = 4.58), (2) clarify concept (mean = 4.41), (3) translate a concept (mean = 4.32), (4) express

feeling (mean = 4.23), (5) habit (mean = 4.22), (6) as sentence fillers (mean = 4.18), (7) topic is important

(mean = 3.97), (8) show solidarity (mean = 3.82), (9) improve linguistic competence (mean = 3.8), and (10)

exclude others (mean = 3.73). The differences between the means of each reason are slightly high which

indicates that the reasons for university students to code switch are used frequently.

The Differences of Reasons to Code Switch between University

ANOVA

Table 1.7: One-way ANOVA sample test

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

Sig.

Q1R

Between Groups

.307

.154

.281

.756

Within Groups

38.787

.546

Total

39.095

Q2R

Between Groups

2.155

1.077

2.935

.060

Within Groups

26.061

.367

Total

28.216

Q3R

Between Groups

.478

.239

.542

.584

Within Groups

31.359

.442

Total

31.838

Q4R

Between Groups

8.741

4.371

6.305

.003

Within Groups

49.218

.693

Page 200

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Total

57.959

Q5R

Between Groups

1.429

.715

1.252

.292

Within Groups

40.517

.571

Total

41.946

Q6R

Between Groups

.927

.463

1.425

.247

Within Groups

23.087

.325

Total

24.014

Q7R

Between Groups

4.333

2.167

2.185

.120

Within Groups

70.383

.991

Total

74.716

Q8R

Between Groups

1.988

.994

.779

.463

Within Groups

90.607

1.276

Total

92.595

Q9R

Between Groups

1.548

.774

1.217

.302

Within Groups

45.168

.636

Total

46.716

Q10R

Between Groups

2.776

1.388

2.063

.135

Within Groups

47.765

.673

Total

50.541

Multiple Comparisons

Table 1.8: Comparison of differences between reasons and university

Dependent

Variable

(I) University

(J) University

Mean Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error

Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Q1R

UITM

MSU

.099

.201

.875

-.38

.58

UNISEL

.156

.225

.768

-.38

.70

MSU

UITM

-.099

.201

.875

-.58

.38

UNISEL

.057

.250

.972

-.54

.66

UNISEL

UITM

-.156

.225

.768

-.70

.38

MSU

-.057

.250

.972

-.66

.54

Q2R

UITM

MSU

.114

.165

.769

-.28

.51

UNISEL

.447

.185

.047

.01

.89

MSU

UITM

-.114

.165

.769

-.51

.28

UNISEL

.333

.205

.241

-.16

.82

UNISEL

UITM

-.447

.185

.047

-.89

-.01

MSU

-.333

.205

.241

-.82

.16

Q3R

UITM

MSU

.188

.181

.554

-.24

.62

Page 201

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

UNISEL

.074

.203

.930

-.41

.56

MSU

UITM

-.188

.181

.554

-.62

.24

UNISEL

-.114

.225

.867

-.65

.42

UNISEL

UITM

-.074

.203

.930

-.56

.41

MSU

.114

.225

.867

-.42

.65

Q4R

UITM

MSU

.703

.226

.008

.16

1.24

UNISEL

.665

.254

.029

.06

1.27

MSU

UITM

-.703

.226

.008

-1.24

-.16

UNISEL

-.038

.281

.990

-.71

.64

UNISEL

UITM

-.665

.254

.029

-1.27

-.06

MSU

.038

.281

.990

-.64

.71

Q5R

UITM

MSU

.264

.205

.407

-.23

.76

UNISEL

-.107

.230

.888

-.66

.44

MSU

UITM

-.264

.205

.407

-.76

.23

UNISEL

-.371

.255

.319

-.98

.24

UNISEL

UITM

.107

.230

.888

-.44

.66

MSU

.371

.255

.319

-.24

.98

Q6R

UITM

MSU

.256

.155

.232

-.12

.63

UNISEL

.151

.174

.662

-.27

.57

MSU

UITM

-.256

.155

.232

-.63

.12

UNISEL

-.105

.193

.850

-.57

.36

UNISEL

UITM

-.151

.174

.662

-.57

.27

MSU

.105

.193

.850

-.36

.57

Q7R

UITM

MSU

.264

.271

.594

-.38

.91

UNISEL

.626

.304

.105

-.10

1.35

MSU

UITM

-.264

.271

.594

-.91

.38

UNISEL

.362

.337

.532

-.44

1.17

UNISEL

UITM

-.626

.304

.105

-1.35

.10

MSU

-.362

.337

.532

-1.17

.44

Q8R

UITM

MSU

.213

.307

.768

-.52

.95

UNISEL

-.263

.344

.726

-1.09

.56

MSU

UITM

-.213

.307

.768

-.95

.52

UNISEL

-.476

.382

.430

-1.39

.44

UNISEL

UITM

.263

.344

.726

-.56

1.09

MSU

.476

.382

.430

-.44

1.39

Q9R

UITM

MSU

.337

.217

.272

-.18

.86

UNISEL

.089

.243

.928

-.49

.67

MSU

UITM

-.337

.217

.272

-.86

.18

UNISEL

-.248

.270

.631

-.89

.40

UNISEL

UITM

-.089

.243

.928

-.67

.49

MSU

.248

.270

.631

-.40

.89

Q10R

UITM

MSU

.442

.223

.124

-.09

.98

UNISEL

.261

.250

.551

-.34

.86

Page 202

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

MSU

UITM

-.442

.223

.124

-.98

.09

UNISEL

-.181

.277

.792

-.84

.48

UNISEL

UITM

-.261

.250

.551

-.86

.34

MSU

.181

.277

.792

-.48

.84

*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

The One-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference among university students in choosing to code-switch

to improve linguistic competence, F (2,71) = 6.305, p = 0.003. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey test

indicated that UiTM students scored higher than both MSU (md = 0.703) and UNISEL (md = 0.665).

UNISEL, in turn, scored slightly higher than MSU (md = 0.038). These results suggest that UiTM students

view code-switching primarily as a strategy to enhance their linguistic competence. For the reason of code-

switching to translate a concept or meaning, no significant difference was found between UiTM and MSU

students, F(2,71) = 2.935, although UiTM showed a higher mean. However, a significant difference was found

between UiTM and UNISEL (md = 0.447), with UiTM scoring higher, while MSU scored higher than

UNISEL (md = 0.333).

In contrast, no statistically significant differences were found between the three universities for other reasons

to code-switch, including expressing feelings (F(2,71) = 0.281), clarifying or further explaining a concept

(F(2,71) = 0.542), emphasizing an important topic (F(2,71) = 1.252), finding the right words (F(2,71) = 1.425),

showing solidarity or group identity (F(2,71) = 2.185), excluding others from a conversation (F(2,71) = 0.779),

using code-switching as a sentence filler (F(2,71) = 1.217), or using it as a habit (F(2,71) = 2.063). Overall, the

findings suggest that while UiTM students tend to code-switch to improve linguistic competence more than

their peers, the three universities share broadly similar reasons for code-switching in most other contexts.

Student Perceptions of Code-Switching

To support the survey findings, six students were interviewed about their views on code-switching. Thematic

analysis revealed several recurring patterns.

Clarifying and Explaining Concepts

Students reported using code-switching to make explanations clearer, especially for abstract or technical terms.

As Interviewee 2 stated, “Kadang-kadang in legal jargons we have to use English or Malay, there are things

like concepts where we have to cakap in Malay.” Similarly, Interviewee 5 noted that switching when giving

definitions allowed peers to understand more quickly. Most used intra-sentential switching by blending Malay

and English, with tag-switching (e.g., lah, kan) reinforcing or simplifying explanations. Overall, clarification

was a key function of code-switching in academic settings.

Expressing Emotions and Creating Liveliness

Code-switching was also used to express feelings and make conversations more engaging. Interviewee 3

explained, “When I want to express my ideas or feelings and to make a conversation sound lively.” Others

described how switching emphasized emotions such as frustration or excitement. Students used intra- and

inter-sentential switching, as well as tag-switching, to signal tone. This highlights how emotions were more

effectively conveyed through code-switching.

Habitual Use and Communicative Ease

Some students described code-switching as a habit rather than a deliberate choice. Interviewee 1 shared,

“There’s no purpose but it is also 50% habit and 50% the need to make people understand what I want to say.”

Likewise, Interviewee 6 noted that switching often occurred unconsciously in daily conversation. Such

accounts point to tag-switching and intra-sentential switching as natural, effortless features of multilingual

communication.

Page 203

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Solidarity and Exclusion

A few students viewed code-switching as a way to build solidarity or exclude others. Interviewee 4 remarked,

“I mostly would do it to exclude others from my conversation and to express my feelings.” Here, inter-

sentential switching was common, while tag-switching reinforced shared identity. This supports Holmes’

(2013) view that code-switching also functions to manage group belonging and social boundaries.

Effectiveness in Communication

All students agreed that code-switching enhanced communication. Interviewee 5 stated, “Yes. It helps a person

to understand a complicated concept better,” while Interviewee 6 added, “Kadang-kadang lagi senang nak

terangkan dalam BM.” Both intra- and inter-sentential switching clarified meaning, while tag-switching

emphasized points and sustained engagement. Interestingly, two students did not code-switch during the

interviews but acknowledged its importance in everyday communication. Overall, effectiveness depended on

the flexible use of switching strategies.

Language Variety used among University Students

The findings show that most respondents’ first language is Bahasa Malaysia. This is expected as many UiTM

students are Bumiputera, who commonly use Malay as their main language. As a result, Malay was often

preferred in communication, supported by interview data where even non-Malay students code-switched from

English to Malay. Since Malaysia is multicultural, most non-Malays are fluent in Malay and adapt their

language choice depending on their conversation partner. In this study, students reported using Malay, Tamil,

and Mandarin, though Malay was dominant, especially when interacting with a Malay researcher.

Forms of Code Switch used among University Students

The results indicate that intra-sentential switching was most common, where students inserted words from

another language into a sentence. This was more frequent than inter-sentential switching or tag-switching.

Students often switched languages when struggling to recall a word, and interviews showed they shifted from

English to Malay when unable to respond fully in English. Tag-switching also appeared as a habitual feature

when students were searching for suitable expressions.

These findings align with Rajoo (2011), Koban (2013), and Poplack (1980), who also found intra-sentential

switching dominant, especially among speakers with higher bilingual competence. However, Yusuf et al.

(2018) reported different results, where inter-sentential switching appeared more often in Indonesian written

texts. This difference may be due to their focus on literature, while the present study examined spoken

interactions among Malaysian university students.

Reasons for the Use of Code Switch by University Students

The main reason for code-switching was difficulty in finding the right words. Students also used it to clarify

concepts, translate meanings, or express feelings more accurately. These functions were observed in both

survey and interview data. The study identified four main reasons: solidarity, group identity, marking

importance, and emotional expression. This corresponds with Holmes (2013) and Wong (2012), who

highlighted social and expressive functions of code-switching.

Differences in Reasons to Code Switch between Universities

The comparison across three universities showed that UiTM students were more likely to code-switch to

improve linguistic competence and to translate concepts. While no major differences were found across

universities, UiTM students reported code-switching more frequently. For example, English was often used in

classrooms for formal discussions, while Malay was preferred for explanations. Students also code-switched to

express solidarity and group identity, echoing Sert (2005), who emphasized its role in strengthening bonds and

marking ethnicity.

Page 204

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Perception of the Students towards the Use of Code Switching

Students held both positive and negative views of code-switching. Some saw it as a sign of limited proficiency,

especially when used as a strategy to fill vocabulary gaps. At the same time, they recognized its usefulness in

ensuring understanding. This reflects Holmes (2013) and Wong (2012) who noted its role as a practical

communicative tool.

Students also valued code-switching for clarifying academic concepts and expressing emotions, making

conversations more lively, consistent with Rajoo (2011). Others described it as a habit or unconscious practice,

which is noted as common in multilingual societies. Code-switching was also perceived as a tool for solidarity

or exclusion, supporting Sert’s (2005) view of its role in identity and boundary-marking. Finally, most students

considered it effective in bridging gaps and maintaining communication. This aligns with Rajoo (2011), Koban

(2013), and Poplack (1980), who argued that intra-sentential switching reflects bilingual competence rather

than deficiency.

Overall, while some viewed code-switching as a weakness, the majority regarded it as a flexible and effective

strategy for clarification, emotional expression, solidarity, and ease of communication, reflecting its complex

role in multilingual university contexts.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that code-switching among Malaysian university students is not a barrier but a

communicative resource that enhances clarity, emotional expression, solidarity, and interaction. Rather than

reflecting deficiency, it functions as a dynamic strategy that enables speakers to convey ideas more effectively

than through a single language alone.

The findings also highlight implications for education, where code-switching can serve as a valuable

pedagogical tool to support comprehension and engagement in multilingual classrooms. Its habitual use across

social groups reinforces its role as a normalized feature of Malaysian society.

Nevertheless, the study was limited to a small sample in Shah Alam. Broader research across universities and

contexts would provide deeper insights into the varied functions of code-switching in academic and social

domains.

Overall, this research contributes to existing literature by demonstrating how students perceive code-switching

as both a practical aid and a reflection of identity, underlining its significance as a natural and constructive

aspect of multilingual communication.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The approval for conducting the research was obtained from the Ministry of Higher Education. In addition, the

permission was gained from each of the participants and the participation of the said participants in this study

was voluntary.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks and gratitude to the whole team for contributing to this project.

Page 205

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

REFERENCES

1. Ali, N., & Hashim, H. (2021). The Occurrence of Code-Switching among Malaysian Undergraduates on

WhatsApp: Review of the Literature. European Journal of English Language Teaching. Retrieved from

https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejel/article/view/3848

2. Al-musthofa, W. F., & D’ Angelo, J. (2023). Code-switching in bilingual education: Cognitive and social

implications. Interling Journal, 8(2), 45-60. Retrieved from

https://ejournal.unzah.ac.id/index.php/interling/article/view/1791/932

3. Amanda, F. R., Fediyanto, N., & Ashurovna, F. D. (2025). Why is Code Switching Still Used by Teachers in

English Language Teaching? Indonesian Journal of Education Methods Development, 20(1).

https://doi.org/10.21070/ijemd.v20i1.875

4. Aziz, A., Rahman, N. H., & Salleh, M. (2024). Code-Switching in Bilingual Malaysian Polytechnic

Settings. Borneo Engineering & Advanced Multidisciplinary International Journal, 3(1), 12–17. Retrieved

from https://beam.pmu.edu.my/index.php/beam/article/view/161

5. Holmes, J. (2013). An introduction to Sociolinguistics. Routledge.

6. Kipchoge, R. (2024). Language and identity: Code-switching practices among multilingual communities.

European Journal of Linguistics, 3(3), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.47941/ejl.2053

7. Koban, D. (2013). Intra-sentential and Inter-sentential Code-switching in Turkish- English Bilinguals in

New York City, U.S. ScienceDirect.

8. Nazri, S. N. A., & Kassim, A. (2023). Issues and Functions of Code-switching in Studies on Popular

Culture: A Systematic Literature review. International Journal of Language Education and Applied

Linguistics, 13(2), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.15282/ijleal.v13i2.9585

9. Nawaz, M. (2023). Exploring How Code Switching Helps ESL Learners Understand and Participate Better.

Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 29(3), 1245–1254.

https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v29i3.8849

10. Nerghes, A. (2011). The Impact of Code-Switching on Persuasion: An Elaboration Likelihood

Perspective. Wageningen University.

11. Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO ESPANOL: Toward a typology

of code-switching. Linguistics, 18(7), 581- 618.

12. Rajoo, T. (2011). Inter-Gender code switching among primary school learners. Retrieved from University of

Malaya Library: http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/3298/\

13. Riparip, E. (2024). Codeswitching in Facebook Statuses of College Students and their Grammatical Ability

in Academic Writing. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 6(2), 465–482.

https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v6i2.1637

14. Rojas, B. G. (2025). Code-Switching as Identity Negotiation in Multilingual Communities. Bulletin of

Language and Literature Studies, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.59652/blls.v2i1.517

15. Rose, S. (2006). The functions of codeswitching in a multicultural and multilingual high school. Retrieved

from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/37320912.pdf

16. Saringat, A. S., & Ismail, R. (2024). Code-Switching in Bilingual Malaysian Polytechnic Settings. Borneo

Engineering & Advanced Multidisciplinary International Journal, 3(1), 12-17. Retrieved from

https://beam.pmu.edu.my/index.php/beam/article/view/161

17. Serip, N. H. M. (2022). Functions of code switching in youth WhatsApp chats. International Journal of

Modern Languages and Applied Linguistics, 6(4), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.24191/ijmal.v6i4.19946

18. Sert, O. (2005). The functions of code switching in ELT classrooms. The Internet TESL Journal,11(8).

Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Sert Code\nSwitching.html

19. Thirusanku, J., & Yunus, M. M. (2014). Status of english in Malaysia. Asian social science, 10(14), 254.

Page 206

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

20. William, B., Ibikunle, D., & Kunle, O. (2025). The effects of code-switching on literacy development in

multilingual classrooms. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31435.12345

21. Wong, Angelina Li Wei (2012) Code-switching in blogs of older and younger Malaysian Chinese /

Angelina Wong Li Wei. Master’s thesis, University of Malaya.

22. Yusuf, Y. Q., Fata, I. A., & Chyntia. (2018). Types of Indonesian-English code-switching employed in a

novel. Retrieved from Science Direct:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452315117302461