TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ CODESWITCHING
IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
Indah PuspawatiAbstract
The debate about the use of L1 (first language) in EFL (English as a Foreign
Language) classes has been around as long as the teaching as a foreign language itself. The arguments that support the use of L1 use in EFL classes claimed that L1 can be a great tool for students for L2 (English) acquisition and learning. This claims lead to the EFL teachers’ and students’ use of code switching (CS) in the classroom. In this article, code switching is defined as an act of switching on two, i.e. L1 (Bahasa Indonesia) and L2 (English). This article describes on the use of codeswitching by both the teachers and the students in EFL classrooms. It reveals about the functions of codeswithing both by the teachers and the students.
Key words: Codeswitching, EFL classroom language, L1 use in EFL classroom Introduction
Codeswitching (hereafter CS) is “an individual’s use of two or more language varieties in the same speech event or exchange” (Woolard, 2004, pp. 73-74). This definition indicated that CS may occur among people who master two or more different languages. They can switch from one language to another language when they are speaking. Bullock & Toribo (2009) supported this notion by defining CS as “the ability on the part of bilinguals to alternate effortlessly between their two languages” (p.1). CS has received numerous attentions from linguists and researchers. Many researches are carried out to investigate the CS phenomena because it can provide an understanding of bilingual cognition and behavior (Bullock & Toribo, 2009). CS was perceived as a result of language incompetency by bilinguals that indicated problems in the mastery of one of the languages. For example, bilinguals often switched from one language to another because they momentarily lost for words in one of their languages (Edwards & Dewaele, 2007). Woolard (2004) indicates that
1 the language(s) because the use of CS is neither grammatical nor meaningful (p.74). However, since the early 1970s, linguists and researchers have accepted the view that CS is systematic, skilled and socially meaningful (Wooland, 2004). Li Wie (2007) also argues that CS is not necessarily the sign of a problem, but it is an evidence of bilingual competence (cited in Edwards & Dewaele, 2007). Bullock & Toribo (2009) also argue that CS is “not indicative either bilinguals inability to separate his languages or of a lack of proficiency. Rather it is an additional communication resource available to bilinguals” (p.8).
Researchers have revealed several reasons why bilinguals codeswitch. Bullock & Toribo (2009) state that CS by bilingual speakers is influenced by social and discursive factors. They explain that CS may serve as a marker of group membership and solidarity. It is sometimes used to build intimate interpersonal relationship among members of bilingual society, especially with those who share a dual language. CS also serves as discursive function as stated by Gumperz in his seminal work on bilingual discursive strategies (cited in
Bullock & Toribo, 2009). Gumperz described that CS is “a conscious choice on the part of
the speakers, used to mark quotation, emphasize, realignment of speech roles, reiteration and
elaboration among others” (p.10).
2 learn a new language (cited in Mugla, 2005). This paper will focus its discussion on the use of CS in classroom context. First, the functions of teachers’ CS will be described and then the functions of students’ CS will be explored.
The function of teachers’ codeswitching
Although theorists of L2 teaching methods favor using only L2 in the classroom,
teachers’ CS is quite common practices in many L2 classes. Qing (2010) argues that it may
be a teaching strategy that can be used by L2 teachers to achieve some specific goals. Sert (2005) claims that teachers do not always use CS deliberately or consciously. It means that teachers are sometimes unaware of the functions of the CS process so in some cases it may be regarded as an automatic and unconscious behavior. Nevertheless, either conscious or not, it necessarily serves some basic functions which may be beneficial in language learning environments (Sert, 2005). Qing (2010) suggests that codeswitching represents one of the strategies that EFL teachers often use to accommodate the students’ level of L2 proficiency. Ferguson (2009) postulates three broad functional categories of the functions of teachers’ CS; those are for constructing and transmitting knowledge, for classroom management, and for interpersonal relations. Many research reports confirm these three function of teachers’ CS. 1. CS for constructing and transmitting knowledge
3 Another study by Gearon (2006) also reveal that English (L1) is often used when teacher explain French (L2) grammar points. The observation in this study shows that code-switching that took place either between or within sentences used to emphasize the structure of the verb tense in French. For example, teacher used the English language to allow students to concentrate on French present perfect statements and to ask learners for examples on that tense. The French language was used to reinforce a response from learners or to obtain the English language equivalent of a French statement. Causa (1996)
proposes a “contrasting strategy … as being the explicit relationship between the two
linguistic systems present” (p. 86) (cited in Gearon, 2006, p.474). This strategy is referred to bilingual structure mapping. Gearon (2006) finds evidence of this strategy being used as a teaching tool during grammar classes. Teachers frequently use bilingual structure mapping to ensure that students understood not only the form but also the function of the grammar in relation to the L1 (in this case English). The bilingual structure mapping strategy also contributed to verifying the meaning of a sentence; learners either translated it or proposed an equivalent statement. Teachers seem to prefer this method, as it ensures that students understand the piece containing examples of the grammar form, which is,
after all, the lesson’s main objective (Gearon, 2006). Code-switching could help teachers
and students learn to contrast grammar forms, especially in cases where the teacher strengthens the grammar knowledge of the learners through the translation of grammar elements or sentences (bilingual structure mapping).
4 comprehension of a text. In one instance, to introduce new words, the teacher used Mandarin to translate, explain and review the key words. Moreover, there are occasions in the data where it was not possible to provide one-to-one translations for an English lexical item. If there are no equivalent meanings for English and Mandarin, the original English lexical item or phrase is often utilized. Tien (2009) also observe that, when explaining grammar rules, Mandarin was used much more than English. The intention of such a switch made by teachers is to assist students’ comprehension. Based on their teaching experience, they find that students understand grammar rules better when they are taught in Mandarin, not English. Accordingly, a switch from English to Mandarin was also made when cultural issues are taught (Tien, 2009). It is significant to note that teachers used a
switch from English to Mandarin to accommodate learners’ linguistic needs and to foster
their English learning.
2. CS for classroom management
CS also plays important roles in classroom management; teachers often used CS
to give instructions, to regulate students’ behavior and to maintain the flow of the class.
5 level of the students’ L2 competence, using CS to give instruction may sometimes be more effective and practical.
The next function of CS in classroom management is to regulate students’
behavior. Teachers may often use L1 to maintain order in the class, for example if in some occasions students refused to work on a certain activity. Teachers use L1 to maintain order in their class, because they presume that the students will understand the instruction better in L1 (Macaro, 2001). It is also speculated that teachers intentionally adopt L1 to demonstrate their authority in the classroom when tension occurs (Tien, 2009).
Besides, teachers also use CS to maintain the flow of the lesson. It is often observed that teachers switch to L1 to repeat a question after a long pause by the students that signal trouble in the interaction. The teacher uses L1 to present the question that is easier to understand by the learners, so that the teacher can elicit appropriate answers (Mugla, 2005). By simplifying the comprehensible input for learners, the use of L1 for this purpose may sometimes encourage students to participate and produce the desired L2 responses (Mugla, 2005; Raschka, Sercombe, & Chi-Ling, 2009). The use of L1 may also serve as assurance that no students will be left out confused that may affect the lesson flow; and by ensuring that all students are on board with the lesson, teachers may encourage the students to perform better in the lesson (Macaro, 2001). Raschka et al. (2009) also observed that the teachers use CS to highlight the move from the socializing sequence to the lesson itself by switching into the L2. Thus, teachers may maintain the non-threatening environment created in the opening sequence but skillfully move the classroom discourse on to the next level.
3. CS for interpersonal relation
6 language environment that enables teachers to build solidarity and intimate relations with the students (Qing, 2010). A study by Tien (2009) also revealed that teacher often spoke in L1 when they engaged in informal conversations with students, for example when they
walked around the classroom to check on students’ pair or group conversational
performance or before the beginning of the class. Teachers also employed L1 to bridge the gap between themselves as the authority figures and the students, in order to express a degree of solidarity or a jocular relationship between the teacher and students. That use of CS may enable the teachers to build up solid relationships with students in classrooms (Tien, 2009). Raschka et al. (2009) emphasize that teachers often use L1 prior to the start of the formal lesson to reduce distance between them and their learners; and when the distances are reduced, teachers may establish solidarity and a close relationship with their students. This function of CS is also reflected in a natural communication situation outside the class in bilingual communities, where they often use CS to show solidarity to other bilinguals who share similar codes or languages.
The functions of students’ Codeswitching
Students, like teachers, also incorporate CS in learning L2. In the early stages of learning, CS by the students is a result of their low competence in L2, but their CS may also serve different functions, such as to maintain solidarity with other students, to negotiate meaning and understanding and to avoid communication breakdown. The first function of
students’ CS in the classroom context is to maintain solidarity with other students. A study by
Ellwood (2008) on a class consisting of students from various cultural backgrounds indicated that students often demonstrated their ability to speak or to understand some words in their
peers’ languages which were neither their own nor the target language in classroom
7 research on the use of learners’ CS also revealed that students rarely used CS in groups consisting of bilingual and monolingual learners. That is because learners were conscious about their monolingual status of their peers. They do not want to exclude their monolingual friends from group discussion. This implicated that students may use CS in a situation where CS can help them maintain solidarity with other students because they may also avoid CS if it may negatively influence others.
The second function of students’ CS is to negotiate meaning and understanding the
second language (L2) they learn. Students sometimes find difficulty in understanding meanings of L2 in their early stage of learning, so CS from L2 to L1 is often the strategy they use to negotiate those meanings. They often use L1 to seek for clarification of L2 words meaning, or to provide explanation for elaboration of L2 meanings both from the teacher or the other students (Moodley, 2007). The study by Moodley (2007) indicated that by strategic use of CS, students are able to negotiate and understand their vocabulary meanings by providing L1 equivalents, synonyms or explanations. The switch to L1 may also enable student to grasp difficult ideas and concepts; embellish ideas and concepts; and provide meaningful and significant additional information, thus building on their existing knowledge. This kind of CS is often practiced by the students. It is actually can serve as a learning tool that will help them in learning L2 better.
Finally, students’ CS may also serve as a tool to avoid communication breakdown, a common phenomena when students try to produce L2. The CS provides students with back-up language in situation where they cannot easily recall a word in L2. This kind of switch is
referred to “a reformulation”, which is a specific kind of self-repair strategy, “a strategy by
which bilingual speakers reformulate the same utterance in a different code” (Liebscher &
8 words correctly. This L1 equivalent word is often used after a long pause in searching the L2 word that may sometimes disrupt the flow of communication. A communication breakdown may also occur during a topic switch of a conversation. A move from one topic to another may sometimes cause confusion. Students also tend to switch from one language to another to mark this switch. This use of CS also occurs in the natural communication context, where bilinguals tend to use different codes when they want to discuss about different topics. This indicates that bilingual classroom may reflect the natural bilingual communities, and it may provide students with a safer environment to practice developing their bilingual proficiency, a skill that may helpful for their L2 learning. Liebscher & Dailey-O'Cain (2005) argue that the students may exhibit their perception of the classroom as a bilingual space through their code-switching practices. They suggest that when given permission to code-switch, these students did not merely fall back on the L1 when they encountered a deficiency in their L2 learning; they also made frequent use of language alternation to indicate changes in their orientation toward the interaction and toward each other.
Conclusion
9 more supportive atmosphere for practicing language interaction when the intimate relation has been successfully built.
Another example is the use of CS to convey the right intended meaning of both teachers’ and students’ utterances. Teachers often use CS to explain complex grammatical concepts and complex instruction just to make sure that everyone in the class gets the right messages and performs the right responses. Students also do similar act; they use CS to negotiate meanings of L2 by asking for clarification, giving explanation, and giving repetition in order to deliver correct messages in their L2 utterances. This is in line with what Gumperz described as a function of CS in a natural communication situation that is “to mark quotation, emphasize, realignment of speech roles, reiteration and elaboration among others” (cited in Bullock & Toribo, 2009, p.10).
References
Bullock, B. E., & Toribo, A. J. (2009). The Cambridge handbook of Linguistic
code-switching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, M., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2007). Trilingual conversations: A window into multicompetence. International Journal of Bilingualism , 221-242.
Ellwood, C. (2008). Questions of classroom identity: What can be learned from Codeswitching in classroom peer group talk? The Modern Language Journal , 538-557.
Ferguson, G. (2009). What next? Towards an agenda for classroom codeswitching research.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism , 231-241.
Gearon, M. (2006). The use of Code-Switching among teachers of French as a Foreign Language in lessons focusing on the development of Grammar. The Canadian Modern
10 Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O'Cain, J. (2005). Learner Code-Switching in the Content-Based
Foreign Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal , 234-247.
Macaro, E. (2001). Analyzing student teachers' codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal , 531-548.
Moodley, V. (2007). Codeswitching in the multilingual English first language classroom. The
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism , 707-722.
Mugla, E. U. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Code-switching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 303-325.
Qing, X. (2010). To switch or not to switch: examine the Code-Switching practices of teachers of Non-English majors. Canadian Social Sciences , 109-113.
Raschka, C., Sercombe, P., & Chi-Ling, H. (2009). Conflicts and tentions in codeswitching in a Taiwanese EFL classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism , 157-171.
Sert, O. (2005, August). Articles: Iteslj . Retrieved December 12, 2010, from Iteslj Web site: http://itelj.org/Articles/Sert-CodeSwitching.html
Tien, C.-y. (2009). Conflict and accommodation in classroom codeswitching in Taiwan.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism , 173-192.
Woolard, K. A. (2004). Codeswitching. In A. Duranti, A companion to Linguistic
Anthropology (pp. 73-94). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
