Teachers’ Code Switching in Indonesian EFL Classrooms
Rita Meutia1*
1 English Applied Linguistics, Universitas Negeri Medan, Medan, Indonesia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Accepted: 15 October 2021 | Published: 1 November 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Code switching becomes a natural phenomenon in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. Since English (L2) is not used as a second language in Indonesia, the students have less proficiency in both receptive and productive skills. Thus, code switching is extensively used by the teachers to drive meaningful learning. To identify code switching types used by the teachers, to analyze the dominant language used by the teachers, and to analyze the functions of code switching in EFL classrooms, a descriptive qualitative research is carried out. Four English teachers in SMA Negeri 1 Tanjungbalai, North Sumatera, Indonesia, are observed and video recorded when teaching L2 and are interviewed after teaching L2. The findings reveal that intra- sentential switching is used 35 times, inter- sentential switching is used 183 times, and emblematic switching is used 19 times. Among all code switching types, inter- sentential switching is widely used by the teachers when teaching L2. Moreover, it is found that the proportion of L1 and L2 uttered by the teachers in EFL classrooms is equal.
Two of the teachers use L1 as the dominant language and two of them use L2 as the dominant language. Finally, code switching in EFL classrooms, in this case is in Indonesia, is practiced to explain grammar, manage the class, facilitate comprehension, translate unknown words, clarify the important teaching points, give instructions, and show emotive or affective expressions.
Keywords: code switching, EFL classrooms, Indonesian teacher
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
The status of English as a foreign language (EFL) in Indonesia has made the students face difficulties in communicating with the teachers and their peers, completing the tasks, learning effectively and efficiently, acquiring a new concept, or eliciting important information in the classrooms. To overcome these difficulties, the teachers use English as the target language (L2) and Bahasa Indonesia (L1) alternately as an alternative to make the students more proficient in learning English. The process of alternating between L1 and L2 or vice versa at word, phrase, clause, or sentence level in interaction is called code switching (Hudson, 1983; Gardner- Chloros, 2004; Myers- Scotton, 1993; Wei & Milroy, 1995; Poplack, 1980; Richards, 1985;
Timm, 1993). In EFL classrooms, code switching is viewed as an additive constituent to facilitate meaningful learning because the students are provided with the opportunities to enhance their communication in the classroom, understanding learning materials, and clarifying any gaps that may emerge in learning.
Code switching which occurs in EFL classrooms like in Indonesia differs from social code switching. The teachers and the students in EFL classrooms have imbalanced mastery of L2.
Thus, code switching becomes natural phenomenon in the classrooms. Since the teachers in EFL classrooms function as knowledge- givers and the students posit themselves as
knowledge- acquirers, code switching becomes a way to transfer knowledge, explain aspects of the structures of knowledge, give instructions, ensure that the students understand the lessons, or to mantain disciplines (Arnet, 2013; Cortés & Parks, 2019). Such processes must be more complex since L2 in the classrooms functions not only as a means of communication or as a medium of instruction, but it is also learnt as a compulsory subject. In this regard, the teachers have to train the students to use L2 in a classroom interaction and to make them understand the lesson at the same time. Accordingly, code switching is viewed as a comprehensible input to accelerate the process of teaching L2, especially for learners with low proficiency (Jingxia, 2011).
The use of code switching in EFL classrooms falls into three perspectives; (1) L1 can be used more frequent in EFL classrooms with no restriction (Cook, 2001), (2) L1 can definitely be a main resource in EFL classrooms, but its implementation must be relevant to learning situation (Tang, 2002; Greggio & Gil, 2007; Turnbull & Dailey, 2001), and (3) L1 should be absolutely excluded from EFL classrooms because it weakens the capability of the learners to acquire L2 and discourages the availability of meaningful input in L2 (Krashen, 2004). However, the use of code switching in EFL classrooms may be affected by several factors such as teachers’
beliefs regarding language learning and teaching, institutional policies about language use in teaching L2, the objectives of the lessons, the teaching methods used by the teachers, the nature of the tasks, and the intricacy of subject matters. Therefore, the practice of code switching still continues in EFL classrooms, especially in Indonesia.
Code switching, in EFL classrooms, has several functions. The teachers switched the codes in the classrooms to maintain discipline (Bhatti, Shamsudin & Seriaznita, 2018; Cortés & Parks, 2019), to translate new words (Rezvani & Rasekh, 2011; Yatağanbaba & Yildirim, 2015), to build solidarity (Bhatti, Shamsudin & Seriaznita, 2018, Rezvani & Rasekh, 2011), to explain grammar (Cortés & Parks, 2019; Shabani & Jamnani, 2016), to facilitate comprehension and to save time (Cortés & Parks, 2019), to reiterate, to qualify message, and to quote (Ibrahim, Shah & Armia, 2013), to clarify the tasks and establish contact with learners (Shabani &
Jamnani, 2016), to give instructions (Yatağanbaba & Yildirim, 2015), to manage the classrooms, and to create rapport with the learners (Rolin- Ianziti & Brownlie, 2002). The findings of antecedent studies imply that code switching has become a global phenomenon.
Although it is undeniable that code switching is very useful to encourage cognitive and affective processes of EFL learners, it should be practiced in an appropriate situational setting.
Specifically, the aims of this study are: (1) To identify the types of teachers’ code switching, (2) To analyze the dominant language used by the teachers in the process of code switching and their underlying rationales of using L1 or L2 as the dominant language in teaching L2, and (3) To analyze the functions of code switching in EFL classrooms. To achieve the first objective of this study, the framework of Poplack (1980) was used. Then, the second objective of the study was attained by implementing Matrix Language Frame Model (Myers- Scotton, 1993) syncronized with the transcription of interview session carried out after class meetings. The last objective of the study was reached by implementing sequential analysis of teacher- student interaction in the classrooms when the teachers teach L2.
2. Literature Review
The Nature of Code Switching
Different approach is used by many linguists to define code switching. Grosjean (1982), for example, used psycholinguistic approach to define the term “code switching”. According to
him, code switching is a fraught transition from a language to another language occuring from L1 to L2 or vice versa in a word, phrase, or the whole sentence level. Then, Wei & Milroy (1995) and Myers- Scotton (1993) define code switching from grammatical approach. Wei and Milroy viewed code switching as the interchangeable use of two languages or more in the same talks or discourse. In switching the codes, the speakers must respect the rules of those languages. So, grammatical awareness and knowledge are needed to control code switching.
Particularly, code switching must not break the rules of each language. Myers- Scotton, in addition, viewed code switching as the insertion of embedded language into matrix language in a conversation. Embedded language is the language with the lower number of morpheme while matrix language refers to the language with the higher number of morpheme in a conversation.
Other linguists, Meisel (1994) and Romaine (2000) used pragmatic approach to define code switching. Meisel defines code switching by noticing the competence of the speakers in mastering two languages or more. He declared that code switching is the capability to opt a language based on the participants’ competence in mastering the two languages, context, and topic. In line with Meisel, Romaine also considered that code switching is a conversational selection fitted to bilingual members of a speech community. It covers styles and dialects ranging from formal to informal which depends on social context and class, bond and motive of the participants, and circumstance.
In relation to definitions proposed by some linguists, it is clear that code switching is a complex and longer process. When the participants switch one code to another code, they must take more time to turn a code “on” or “off” as needed. Since two different languages have different linguistic systems, they cannot activate them promptly at the same time. That is why certain factors such as participants’ linguistic background, situational and contextual boundaries, or participant relationship may accelerate the process of code switching (Mahato, 2016).
The Process of Code Switching
No matter how fluent the participants speak two languages or more, switching one code to another code at the same time is still complicated. The participants have to consider the linguistic systems, equivalent vocabularies, and relevant context of both languages. Otherwise, the communication does not go smoothly and continuously. Both production and comprehension in the process of code switching will be obstructed if the participants do not fully understand the code switching process.
From the cognitive perspective, code switching involves the way participants provide lexical items in their thoughts before switching one language to another language. Grosjean (1982) mentioned that code switching comprises activating, selecting, controlling, and producing process. In activating process, the participants have to decide which language will be mostly used and to what extent it is used. In selecting process, the participants select the lexical items which they will use in their conversation. The selection made by the participants should be based on the content and the context of conversation. However, they are organized separately, independently, and selectively. Then, in controlling process, the participants control over the lexical items selected from the smallest meaningful unit (morpheme) before switching between the languages appropriately. Once activating, selecting, and controlling processes are accomplished, the participants will produce code switching either at the level of word, phrase, clause, or sentence.
Another linguist, Myers- Scotton (1993), viewed code switching as a syntactic process. In this process, the participants insert the embedded language into the matrix language in an utterance.
This process may take place from L1 to L2 or vice versa. Code switching, in this process, is tightly related to the number of morphemes. In short, matrix language functions as dominant language in a conversation while embedded language functions as subordinate language in that conversation.
Types of Code Switching
Some linguists classified code switching differently. Saville (1986), for example, classified code switching on the basis of the disparity implemented to the shifting style. According to him, there are three types of code switching, namely; situational, metaphorical, and conversational code switching. Situational code switching takes place when a participant utters different languages in different situations. The participant does such a code switching type based on the assumption that each situation must involve different participants with different lingusitic competencies, topic interests, and social context. So, a certain code switching may fit a particular group and may not suit the other groups. Then, metaphorical code switching occurs when a participant tends to change the topic followed by the change of the language used because of another conversational domain. Generally, metaphorical code switching is subconscious and predictable to the participants within a social group. Another code switching type, conversational code switching, occurs when the participants switch the code by resembling the subsequent structure of the word, phrase, clause, or sentence. In conversational code switching, the participants are fluent in using both languages.
In addition, code switching is categorized by Poplack (1980) and Hoffman (1991) based on the element inserted and the location where it occurs. According to them, code switching has three types; intra- sentential, inter- sentential, and emblematic switching. Intra- sentential switching takes place within a clause and sentence boundary. In this type, one language functions as a dominant language or matrix language and another language acts as a subordinate language or embedded language. Matrix language provides clause or sentence frame to embedded language when L1 or L2 is inserted. However, the rules of both languages should be considered.
Moreover, inter- sentential switching takes place between a clause or sentence boundary.
Unlike intra- sentential switching, inter- sentential switching entails greater fluency in both languages (L1 and L2) because grammatical rules of both languages must be adjusted and their lexical choices have to be relevant. The easiest code switching, emblematic switching, demands less participants’ fluency since it encompasses simple constituent of the sentence. Emblematic switching is the insertion of tags, exclamation, and certain phrases or expressions from one language into another language. The tags, exclamation, and certain expression inserted in either L1 or L2 should be based on norms provided in both languages.
The Benefits of Code Switching in EFL Classrooms
Although code- switching arises debates among linguists and educators (Krashen & Terrel, 1983; Duff & Polio, 1990), it is undeniable that the practice of code switching plays significant role in facilitating teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Code switching is very beneficial for the students with low and high proficiency. For the students with low proficiency, code switching is very helpful to make them understand the lessons while for the students with high proficiency, code switching can be a strategic method to reiterate the lessons. Code switching, in EFL classrooms, can make input become intake and knowledge (Brooks &
Donato, 1994). Thus, the occurance of code switching in EFL classrooms cannot be ruled out.
Finally, although there is no consensus among linguists and educators on how much L1 and L2 are used in EFL classroom setting, code switching can be continuously practiced as long as it can faciliate teacher- student communication and teacher- student rapport in teaching and learning process of L2. Before both languages coexist within or between the sentences, language policy and institutional policies should be considered. In Indonesia, particularly, English is still used as a medium of instruction in a classroom. There is no obligation for the teachers to use L2 in teaching L2. The goals of studying L2 as stipulated in the Minister of Education and Culture Regulation (Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan:
PERMENDIKBUD) No. 21/ 2016 are; (1) being able to communicate interpersonally, transactionally, and functionally at school and community, (2) being able to know the social function, linguistic features, and the structures of the text or discourse, (3) being able to implement knowledge gained in a classroom setting to a real life setting, and (4) being informational literate to access global information. To achieve these goals, scientific approach is recommended by the government. Observing, asking, gathering information, associating/
reasoning, and communicating are series of scientific approach stages that should be completed by the students in learning L2. Consequently, whenever the students find gaps in learning, the teachers may alternate L2 to L1 or vice versa to facilitate their learning.
3. Methodology
A descriptive qualitative research is used in this study. This research design is intended to explore the phenomenon of teachers’ code switching more deeply and comprehensively. The subjects of this study are four English teachers in SMA Negeri 1 Tanjungbalai, North Sumatera, Indonesia with over 10 years experience of teaching. These teachers completed their bachelor’s degree from Indonesian reputable universities, have been certified by Indonesian government, and are proficient in English. Their scores of Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) were above 500.
To gather the data, the subjects were observed, video recorded, and interviewed. Thus, field notes and a video recorder were used as the instruments in this study. The data gained from video recording, then, were carefully transcribed in form of a text- based version. It takes 6 weeks for the researcher to complete the data collection.
The subjects were observed and video recorded when they were teaching the lessons in the classrooms. The observer (the researcher) sat at the back of the class for 90 minutes and took field notes to record language used by the teachers in the process of explaining the lessons and teacher- student interaction during teaching and learning process. All the lessons, in this study, were video recorded. After the classroom visits were complete, these video recordings were transcribed. To clarify the data in the classroom visits, the subjects were interviewed separately.
To analyze the data, Miles and Huberman’s (1994) technique was used in this study. Firstly, the data were reduced based on code switching types proposed by Poplack (1980). After that, the data were displayed. This technique was used to analyze the dominant language used by the teachers in each code switching type based on the framework of Myer- Scotton (1993).
Moreover, the display of the data became the basis for the analysis of functions of code switching in the classroom. Finally, conclusions were systematically and comprehensively drawn based on formulated research objectives.
Research Procedures, Findings and Discussion
To identify the frequency of L1 and L2 used in EFL classrooms by the teachers, video recordings of the teachers when teaching L2 were transcribed and analyzed as well as the field notes. Teachers’ code switching at word, phrase, clause, and sentence levels are counted based on the theory of code switching introduced by Poplack (1980). After the identification process was done, the findings were analyzed by using Matrix Language Frame Model (Myers- Scotton, 1993). The dominant language used by the teachers in code switching was identified later. To analyze why the teachers prefer L1 to L2 or vice versa in teaching L2, confirmation process by syncronizing the answers of the teachers in interview session with the data (from video recording transcription and field notes) was done.
Types of Code Switching Used by the Teachers in EFL Classrooms
With respect to the first objective of this study related to the identification of code switching types used by the teachers in teaching L2, the data were separated into intra- sentential switching, inter- sentential switching, and emblematic switching. These code switching types are rooted from the theory of Poplack (1980). The following data illustrate the specific phenomenon of code switching in each type:
Table 1: The Frequency of Code Switching Types Used by EFL Teachers Type Intra- Sentential
Switching
Inter- Sentential Switching
Emblematic Switching
Subject
Teacher F 11 34 3
Teacher N 17 29 9
Teacher R 5 116 7
Teacher T 2 4 0
Total 35 183 19
The table shows that inter- sentential switching is mostly used by the teachers in the classrooms when teaching L2, followed by intra- sentential switching and emblematic switching.
Specifically, teacher F used inter- sentential switching 34 times, followed by intra sentential switching (11 times) and emblematic switching (3 times). Teacher N used inter- sentential switching 29 times, intra- sentential switching 17 times, and emblematic switching 9 times.
Then, Teacher R used inter- sentential switching 116 times, followed by emblematic switching (7 times), and intra- sentential switching (5 times). At last, Teacher T used inter- sentential switching 4 times and intra- sentential switching 2 times. However, emblematic switching was not used in her classrooms when teaching L2. These findings imply that the teachers are proficient in using both languages. So, the findings are relevant to the theory of Poplack (1980) and Hoffman (1991).
Dominant Language Used by L2 Teachers in Code Switching
Some of the teachers used L1 as the dominant language and some of them used L2 as the dominant language when teaching L2. To analyze the dominant language used by the teachers in each type of code switching, the framework of Myers- Scotton (1993) was used. Generally, the dominant language used by L2 teachers in the classrooms is displayed in the following table:
Table 2: The Recapitulation of The Dominant Language Used by EFL Teachers
Subject Teacher F Teacher N Teacher R Teacher T
Type
Intra- Sentential Switching
ML: L2, EL: L1 ML: L1, EL: L2 ML: L1, EL: L2 ML: L2, EL: L1 Inter- Sentential
Switching
ML: L2, EL: L1 ML: L1, EL: L2 ML: L1, EL: L2 ML: L2, EL: L1 Emblematic Switching ML: L2, EL: L1 ML: L2, EL: L1 ML: L2, EL: L1 - ML : Matrix Language
EL : Embedded Language
L1 : Native Language (Bahasa Indonesia) L2 : Target Language (English)
Table 2 shows that Teacher F and Teacher T used L2 as the dominant language. Whereas, Teacher N and Teacher R like using L1 better than L2. All teachers (except Teacher T) used more L2 than L1 in emblematic switching. The dominant language was determined by the number of morphemes found in any type of code switching. When the teachers produced higher number of morpheme in L1, it means that L1 functions as the matrix language (ML) and L2 functions as the embedded language (EL). Then, when the teachers produced more L2 morphemes, L2 functions as matrix language (ML) and L1 functions as embedded language (EL). Since Teacher F and Teacher T produced higher number of L2 morphemes in all types of code switching, their ML was L2 and their EL was L1. Teacher N and Teacher R only produced higher number of L2 morphemes in emblematic switching while in intra- sentential and inter- sentential switching, they produced higher number of L1 morphemes. So, L1 becomes their ML and L2 becomes their EL in their intra- sentential and inter- sentential switching. However, L2 becomes their ML in emblematic switching. Further analysis of the Teachers’ ML and EL based on the theory of Matrix Language Frame Model introduced by Myers- Scotton (1993) in each code switching type can be exemplified as follow:
Table 3: Teacher F’s Code Switching in Matrix Language Frame Model Types of Code
Switching Excerps
Number of
Morphemes ML EL
Intra- Sentential switching
The source in News Item text in criminal case, for example, can be victim, kalau masih hidup
[if they are still alived], suspect, authority, witness, or expert
L1: 3, L2: 19 L2 L1
Inter- Sentential Switching
What is today's headline news? Have you watched the TV or read the newspaper? Or you
just like gossiping? Ayo jujur pada diri sendiri! [Let's be honest to yourselves!]
L1: 5, L2: 19 L2 L1
Emblematic Switching
Nah [Indonesian exclamation used to infer something], who is wrong in this case?
L1: 1, L2: 6 L2 L1
Table 4: Teacher N’s Code Switching in Matrix Language Frame Model Types of Code
Switching Excerps
Number of
Morphemes ML EL
Intra- Sentential switching
Besides name, informasi mana lagi yang bisa kita masukkan ke dalam [which information
can we include to the category of] self- identity?
L1: 9, L2: 4 L1 L2
Inter- Sentential Switching
Coba lihat contoh di buku! [See the examples in the book!] Open page 26!
L1: 5, L2: 3 L1 L2 Emblematic
Switching
Aduh [Indonesian exclamation used to express regret], Why don't you know? I have
explained it just now
L1: 1, L2: 11 L2 L1
Table 5: Teacher R’s Code Switching in Matrix Language Frame Model Types of Code
Switching Excerps
Number of
Morphemes ML EL
Intra- Sentential switching
Discussion text melihat masalah dari dua sudut pandang yang berbeda [views the issue
from two points of view].
L1: 8, L2: 2 L1 L2
Inter- Sentential Switching
Penulis tidak boleh berpihak pada salah satu sudut pandang [The writers may not support
one point of view]. Remember that!
L1: 9, L2: 2 L1 L2
Emblematic Switching
Eits [Indonesian exclamation used to ask for not being rush in making decision], It is not
the main idea of the paragraph.
L1: 1, L2: 9 L2 L1
Table 6: Teacher T’s Code Switching in Matrix Language Frame Model Types of Code
Switching Excerps
Number of
Morphemes ML EL
Intra- Sentential switching
Narrative text uses past tense, bentuk kerja masa lampau [Verbs used to express past
events] to entertain the readers
L1: 4, L2: 9 L2 L1
Inter- Sentential Switching
Fairy tale, folk tale, myth, legend, fable are some examples of Narrative text. Semuanya berkisah tentang peristiwa masa lalu [All are
about past events].
L1: 6, L2: 13 L2 L1
Emblematic Switching
_ _ _ _
Table 3 and Table 6 imply that Teacher F and Teacher T have the same beliefs about language learning and teaching. They dominantly used L2 in teaching L2. To prove this implication, their answers from interview session were confronted:
Interviewer: Which language do you prefer when teaching L2?
Teacher F: I tend to use L2 because for me L2 is not only the subject learnt in the classroom, but it is also a means of communication. When the students can use and understand the language, they are successful in learning L2. So, I want to expose them to L2 as much as possible.
Teacher T: I prefer to use L2 because I believe that acquiring a new language is a natural process. When I use more L2 in teaching L2, it will give the students inputs to build their automaticity. Their brain will store the inputs and they can be recalled whenever the students need them. The students will practice what they have heard from the teachers
automatically. That is the main point of learning L2. They can practice it in their daily life with different setting.
Then, table 4 and Table 5 show that Teacher N and Teacher R have the same perspectives on viewing which language is able to support L2 learning more effectively. They used L1 as the dominant language. Although they have different reasons, they have the same pattern of thinking. They thought that facilitating L2 learning by using L1 can help the students understand L2 better. Their answers in interview session reflected their beliefs about language learning and teaching:
Interviewer: Which language do you prefer when teaching L2?
Teacher N: I handle the beginners. They have very poor intake of L2. L1 will help them clarify the knowledge of L2 and it will erase their anxiety in learning L2. You know...learning a new language sometimes is very stressful. More L2 used in the classrooms will add another psychological paint for them. So, I use L1 in teaching L2 to make them more comfortable. Once they are comfortable, they will like the subject and of course, they will try to understand it voluntarily.
Teacher R: Discussion text is a scientific text. Using more L2 in explaining it will lead to confuseness. It is not relieving and proper to leave the students with so many unsolved questions in their minds. So, make them clearer by using L1 to reiterate or clarify teaching material. L1 facilitates meaningful learning. That is what I do.
From the analysis of ML and EL used by the teachers in the classrooms as well as their answers transcribed from interview sessions, it is clear that teaching and learning processes are dynamic, the teachers cannot set L1 or L2 as the default language when teaching L2. However, the proportion of L1 and L2 should be adjusted to the needs of the students in EFL classroom setting. The teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning determine their ML and EL when teaching L2.
Functions of Code Switching in EFL Classrooms
Code switching, in EFL classrooms, has so many functions. The teachers used it as a strategic method to facilitate L2 learning. In the case of Teacher F, Teacher N, and Teacher R, they used code switching to explain grammar, manage the class, facilitate comprehension, translate difficult and technical words, clarify the message, give instruction, and show emotive/ affective expressions. However, Teacher T only used code switching to explain grammar, facilitate comprehension, translate difficult words, clarify the message, and to give instruction. It was not found that Teacher T used code switching to manage the class and show emotive or affective expressions. The general description of the functions of code switching is displayed in the following table:
Table 7: Functions of Code Switching in EFL Classrooms
No Functions Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Grammar explanation 45 19
2 Classroom management 22 9.28
3 Comprehension 73 30.79
4 Translation 45 19
5 Clarification 17 7.17
6 Instruction 24 10.12
7 Emotive/ Affective expressions 11 4.64
Total 237 100
The table presents that code switching for comprehension is used 73 times by the teachers, followed by grammar explanation and translation (used 45 times by the teachers), instruction (used 24 times by the teachers), classroom management (used 22 times by the teachers), clarification (used 17 times by the teachers), and emotive or affective expressions (used 11 times by the teachers). The data from the table imply that the phenomenon of code switching cannot be erased from EFL classrooms.
Each teacher switches L1 to L2 or vice versa to achieve meaningful and effective learning. In terms of which function is mostly optimized to facilitate L2 learning, the following table can illustrate it clearly:
Table 8: Teachers’ Code Switching in Each Function Subject Grammar
explanation
Classroom management
Comprehension Translation Clarification Instruction Emotive/
Affective expressions
Teacher F 15 4 12 7 4 3 3
Teacher N 9 11 13 9 5 4 4
Teacher R 19 7 47 28 7 16 4
Teacher T 2 0 1 1 1 1 0
The functions of code switching of each teacher were obtained from sequential analysis of teacher- student interaction in the classrooms. Code switching used by Teacher F, Teacher N, Teacher R, and Teacher T for grammar explanation was reflected in the following dialog:
Teacher F
T: Factual event in News Item Text is written by using simple past form. Jadi, kita pakai [So, we use] simple past verb here. Do you know the example of past verb?
S1: sing becomes sang?
T: Good.
Teacher N
T: In introducing self, we often find a lot of pronouns. Subjective pronoun jadi subjek dalam kalimat, objective pronoun jadi objek dalam kalimat [subjective pronouns function as the subject, objective pronouns function as the object in the sentence]. What is the example of it?
S: “I”, Miss.
T: Betul [Correct!] what else?
S: ...
Teacher R
T: The arguments in the Discussion Text represent the group. General nouns are used here.
Tau kan general nouns apa? [Do you know what are general nouns?]
S: Kata benda [it is a noun], Miss.
T: Iya, tapi ini berbeda [Yes, but it is different]. General nouns refer to plural nouns.
Contohnya, a student itu tunggal, kalau students itu jamak [for example, a student is singular but students are plural nouns]
Teacher T
T: Narrative Text uses Past Tense because the event happened in the past. For example, the story of Buto Ijo. It is believed that long time ago, this story existed in Javanese society. The words “ran”, slept, “chased” in paragraph 3 adalah contoh dari [are examples of] Past Tense.
Do you understand?
S: Yes, Ma’am.
Code switching which functions as classroom management can be exemplified by the following examples:
Teacher F
T: Now, discuss with your group. Everybody must be active. Jangan mengganggu yang lain ya! [Do not bother others!]
S: Ok, Sir.
Teacher N
T: Kita tidak akan mulai praktek [we are not going to start practicing] before you are quiet. Tolong diam dulu! [Please, be quiet]
S: ssstt..ssstt
Teacher R
T: Yang terlambat kumpul, tugasnya tidak akan saya terima lagi [Those who are late in handing in the task will be disqualified]. Hurry up!
S: Tunggu [Wait], Miss.
Then, code switching used to facilitate comprehension in L2 teaching can be identified from the following examples:
Teacher F
T: The social function of News Item Text is to give information for the readers. So, this text should present factual information. The text must include facts, bukan pendapat [not opinions]
Teacher N
T: Asking information ditandai dengan penggunaan [is marked by] question mark at the end of the sentence.
Teacher R
T: Di bagian Thesis, the writer proposes the issue. Isunya harus dari 2 sudut pandang [The issues are from 2 point of views].
S: Kalau satu aja [What’s about 1 point of view], Miss?
T: No, nanti jadi teks Eksposisi itu [it will be an exposition text].
Teacher T
T: Fairy tale, folk tale, myth, legend, fable are some examples of Narrative Text. Semuanya berkisah tentang peristiwa masa lalu [All are about past events].
S: Kalau masa yang akan datang [What’s about the future event], Ma’am?
T: No, Narrative Text concerns with past events.
Another function of code switching is for translation. The examples are:
Teacher F
T: “Collide” means “crush”. What is “collide” in Indonesian?
S: Eee...tabrakan [collision].
T: No, menabrak [to collide]. It is a verb
Teacher N
T: Ada kata [There is] “sex” dalam dialog [in the dialog] about self- identity. What does it mean?
S:...(Laughing)
T: It doesn’t correlate with sexual activity. Itu artinya jenis kelamin; laki- laki atau perempuan [It refers to male or female].
Teacher R
T: Di paragraph 3 ada kata [In paragraph 3, there is a word] “drawback”. What is the meaning of it?
S: I don’t know, Miss.
T: Itu ya..kekurangan [It is similar to “weakness”]
Teacher T
S: Ball maksudnya apa [What is the meaning of ball], Ma’am?
T: It is not a ball used to play football, but it is a dance party, pesta dansa [dance party—
pesta dansa in Indonesian]
S: Ooo [I see]
Then, clarification is another function of code switching in EFL classrooms, the teachers expressed it in the following examples:
Teacher F
T: News Item Text must be newsworthy. It means that the event must be up to date, terkini beritanya [the event is current].
Teacher N
T: Whenever your self- identity is asked by someone else, you have to give information on it.
Jadi, setiap permintaan informasi pasti dipasangkan dengan pemberian informasi [So, asking information is coexisted with giving information]
Teacher R
T: In conclusion, the writer may not show agreement to a certain party. Tapi, dia cukup menyimpulkan saja dari kedua sudut pandang [But, the writer covers two points of view in his conclusion]
Teacher T
T: Narrative Text is different from Recount Text. Although both took place in the past, they are different. Narrative text concerns with imaginary events while recount text refers to factual events. So, Narrative is fiksi [fiction], Recount is non fiksi [non- fiction].
Code switching can also be used for instruction in L2 teaching. This function is reflected in the following excerpts:
Teacher F
T: Look at the question number 2. What you have to do is arrange the structures of News Item Text. Dari judul sampai dengan sumber ya [From the title until the source].
S: Yes, Sir.
Teacher N
T: The answers are found in dialog on page 114. Jadi, baca dulu dialognya, baru dikerjakan!
[read the dialog before doing the exercise!].
S: Alright, Miss.
Teacher R
T: List pros and cons from the text. Tulis ada berapa yang pro dan ada berapa yang contra (Write down how many ideas support the issue and how many ideas are contrast to the issue]
S: Di buku latihan [Should it be written on exercise book], Miss?
T: Yes, on your exercise book.
Teacher T
T: Match the picture with options provided. Start with the easiest. Gak mesti berurut ya [You may start it randomly].
S: Ok, Ma’am.
The last function of code switching in EFL classrooms is for emotive/ affective expressions.
The examples of such expressions are:
Teacher F
T: The boat was fully loaded and the passangers knew it. Was the skipper blamed for this accident
S: No, Sir.
T: Why?
S: Because the skipper tidak memaksa penumpang untuk naik [did not force the passengers on board]
T: Hah? [Indonesian exclamation used to express a shocking condition or surprise].
Teacher N
T: Aduh [Indonesian exclamation used to express regret], Why don't you know? I have explained it just now
S: I am sorry, Miss.
Teacher R
T: Ah [Indonesian exclamation to express vexation], you did something I dont ask you to.
Kok bisa? [How come?]
S: Saya tadi nanya Winda [I ask Winda], Miss.
T: Ask me, not your friend if you don’t know.
The sequential analysis of Teacher- students interaction in the dialogs implies that code switching occurs normally and naturally in EFL classrooms. L1 and L2 are used alternately by L2 teachers to match the need of the students in learning L2. In other words, code switching is used in EFL classrooms to help learners learn L2 as the target language with strategic and helpful way.
4. Conclusion
Nowadays, code switching has been a common phenomenon in EFL classrooms, including Indonesia. L1 and L2 are used alternately by Indonesian teachers based on their reasonable rationales. Thus, the proportion of L1 and L2 used in teaching L2 are varied. Two of the teachers believe that L2 should be dominantly used while the other teachers assumed that L1 is more facilitative in teaching L2. Whatever reasons they proposed, code switching has to be adjusted to learners’ need. Indonesian teachers used code switching to explain grammar, manage the class, facilitate comprehension, translate unknown words or terms, clarify the message or important points, give instruction, and show emotive and affective expressions.
In teacher- student interaction, code switching occurs at word, phrase, clause, or sentence level either within or between the sentence. As long as both codes (L1 and L2) do not distract the rules of one another. They can coexist in the teaching of L2. Indonesian teachers, in implementing code switching, used intra- sentential switching, inter- sentential switching, and emblematic switching. Intra- sentential switching needs less proficiency in L2 while inter- sentential switching needs more proficiency in both languages. Whenever the teachers cannot find relevant terms or equivalent expressions to express emotion or affection, emblematic switching can be used. In case that intra- sentential switching is more suitable for low proficient teachers in L2, it does not mean that the teachers have low proficient skill in L2. They used this type of code switching to present more comprehensible learning inputs to the students.
Therefore, the students are enjoyable in learning new lesson and language in the classrooms.
References
Arnet, K. (2013). Using the First Language and Code Switching in Second Language Classrooms. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. 1-5.
Bhatti, A., Shamsudin, S., & Setiaznita. (2018). Code Switching: A Useful Foreign Language Teaching Tool in EFL Classrooms. English Language Teaching, 11(6), 93-101.
Brooks, B. F., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan Approaches to Understanding Foreign Language Learner Discourse during Communicative Tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262-274.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the First Language in the Classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402-423.
Cortés, G. O. (2019). Teachers’ Perception and Use of Code Switching in Core ESL Classes in Quebec Elementary Schools. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 75(1), 23-39.
Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How Much Foreign Language is There in the Foreign Language Classroom?. Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154- 166.
Gardner- Chloros, P. (2004). Assumptions behind Grammatical Approach to Code Switching:
When the Blueprint Is a Red Herring. Transactional Philological Society, 102(1), 103- 129.
Greggio, S., & Gil, G. (2007). Teacher’s and Learner’s Use of Code Switching in the English as a Foreign Language Classroom: A Qualitative Study. Linguagem & Ensino, 10(2), 371-393.
Hoffman, C. (1991). An Introduction to Bilingualism. New York: Longman.
Hudson, R. A. (1983). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ibrahim, H. E., Shah, I. M., & Armia, T. N. (2013). Code Switching in English as a Foreign Language Classroom: Teachers’ Attitude. English Language Teaching, 6(7), 139-150.
Jingxia, L. (2011). Teachers’ Code Switching to the L1 in EFL Classroom. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 4(2), 10-23.
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2016). Permendikbud No. 21 Tahun 2016. Jakarta:
Direktorat Pembinaan SMA.
Krashen, S., & Terrel, T. D. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (2004). Applying the Comprehension Hypothesis: Some Suggestions. Language Teaching and Teachers’ Association International Symposium, 16-28.
Mahato, P. R. (2016). Code Switching in Classroom Teaching. Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 28-31.
Meisel, H. M. (1994). Code Switching in Young Bilingual Children. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(4), 413-428.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis. California: Sage Publication Inc.
Myers- Scotton, C. (1993). Social Motivation for Code Switching: Evidence from Africa.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Poplack, W. (1980). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rezvani, E., & Rasekh, E. A. (2011). Code Switching in Iranian Elementary EFL Classrooms:
An Exploratory Investigation. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 18-25.
Richards, J. (1985). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Essex: Longman.
Rolin- Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher Use of Learners’ Native Language in the Foreign Language Classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 402-426.
Romaine, S. (2000). Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saville, M. (1986). The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. England: Blackwell Publishing.
Shabani, G., & Jamnani, A. R. (2016). A Study of Iranian EFL University Lecturers’ Practice of Code Switching in English as Foreign Language Instruction. Journal of Studies in Education, 6(2), 95- 118.
Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English Classroom. ERIC Journal, 40(1), 36-43.
Timm, L. (1993). Bilingual Code Switching: An Overview of Research. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Turnbull, M., & Dailey- O’Cain, J. (2009). First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Wei, L., & Milroy, L. (1995). Conversational Code Switching in a Chinese Community in Britain: A Sequential Analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(3), 281-299.
Yatağanbaba, E., & Yildirim, R. (2015). EFL Teachers’ Code Switching in Turkish Secondary EFL Young Language Learner Classrooms. International Journal of Linguistics, 7(1), 82- 101.
