Teacher codeswitching between English and
Chinese in English-as-foreign-language classroom
（课堂英语教学中教师的英汉语码转换现象）
submitted
By Liu Aichun (刘爱春 )
Beijing Foreign Studies University
Email: liumarie712@yahoo.com.cn
I. Introduction
Codeswitching (or CS), which may be briefly
defined as the alternate use of two or more languages in the same utterance or
conversation (Grosjean, 1982; Milroy & Muysken, 1995) has attracted much
scholarly attention in last decades. Far from being viewed as a random
phenomenon it has come to be seen as a highly purposeful activity. As an area
of special interest and investigation, code switching in EFL/ESL classroom has
also begun to receive growing attention around the world. As a common
occurrence in ESL/EFL teaching /learning process, code switching can be ‘evidenced
along the entire continuum of proficiency’ (Brice 2000). Studies seem to
suggest that teacher code switching，whether in teacher-led classroom discourse or in
teacher-student interaction, may be a sophisticated language use serving a
variety of pedagogical purposes.
Up till now, however, few empirical studies
on code switching in EFL classrooms have been conducted in China. An
observation of college English Language classrooms soon reveals that instances
of teacher’s alternate use of target language and native language (i.e.,
codeswitching) can easily be identified. On the whole, however, there seems to
be a lack of awareness on the part of Chinese teachers as to how, when and the
extent to which they actually code switch in their English teaching practice. Using
a qualitative approach, this study sets out to address this issue. It seems to
me that raising both the EFL learner’s and teacher’s awareness of this common,
yet inadequately explored classroom phenomenon will be helpful to the further
improvement of the foreign language teaching/learning practice in China. It is
hoped that this study, although preliminary in nature, can help arrive at a
better understanding of teacher code switching phenomenon and help develop an
appropriate attitude towards its use in EFL classroom.
In the following section, after giving a brief account of the term ‘codeswitching’ and its taxonomy, a model frequently used for the analysis of structural features of codeswitching is introduced. Then we move on to discuss a number of studies on teacher codeswitching in ESL/EFL classroom, which makes methodological preparation for the present study and provides, among other things, a set of functional categories that are to be used in the later analysis of the data. And finally we have a brief look at research on codeswitching in China.
2.1. Codeswitching and its taxonomy
Codeswitching has been regarded as a
fuzzy-edged construct (Gardner-Chloros, 1995). It may be briefly defined as
‘the alternate use of two or more languages in the same utterance or
conversation’ (Grosjean, 1982; Milroy & Muysken, 1995). Although the term
‘utterance or conversation’ is vague and fuzzy in its reference, we will adopt this
rather liberal definition of codeswitching in the present study, since the
nature of the codeswitching phenomenon is not our sole interest and we are also
more concerned about its functional use in EFL classroom. And codeswitching in foreign language
classroom usually refers to the alternate use of the target language and the
native language.
Largely out of
linguistic and syntactic consideration, codeswitching has been divided into two
types, i.e., inter-sentential and intra-sentential (Brice, 2000). In 1992, Kamwangamalu
makes the useful distinction
between ‘code-switching’ (at the inter-sentential level) and ‘code-mixing’ (at
the intra-sentential level). Codeswitching
in its narrow sense (namely, inter-sentential CS) is used to refer to the
language switch across sentence boundaries while intra-sentential code mixing
occurs when the language alternation is produced within a sentence (Grosjean,
1982). In the present study, codeswitching is used as a broad cover term and
code mixing is used to refer to language alternation within the sentence
boundary. Code mixing and intra-sentential codeswitching are used exchangeably.
2.2. Matrix Language Framework model (MLF model)
While some studies
(Wu, 1985; Yu, 2001b) analyze the linguistic features of codeswitching through
a linguistic description of the code-switched data, unconstrained by a
theoretical model, many researchers have employed the Matrix Language Framework
model (proposed by Myers-scotton, 1993; 2001), in their analysis of the
structural aspects of codeswitching, usually aims at identifying the linguistic
constrains on codeswitching. In the FL teaching context, Myers-Scotton's MLF
model can be applied to describe two kinds of switch: the switch to native
language (NL) or foreign language (FL) at the sentence boundary, followed by
one sentence or a stretch of several sentences in NL or FL (inter-sentential
code switching), or the switch to NL or FL within a FL or NL sentence
(intra-sentential code switching) (Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie, 2002). Concerning
the intra-sentential
codeswitching, her model holds that in intra-sentential codeswitching, one
language acts as a dominant or matrix language (ML) and the other as a
subordinate or embedded language (EL). The basic word structure of the matrix
language determines the morphosyntax of the code-switched sentence. In other
words, the matrix language plays the main role in setting the sentence frame
where the codeswitching arises and the embedded language material is considered
as having been inserted in a matrix language frame. One criterion for determining the Matrix Language is
statistical: the language with the higher frequency of words in the sentence is
the dominant language.
2.3. Review of related studies
Iinvestigations on classroom codeswitching have been
carried out in a broader variety of language environment, from bilingual (and
even multilingual) classrooms, to second language learning classroom, and
recently, to foreign language learning classroom. Some researchers (for instance, Guthrie, 1984; Merritt
et al, 1992) have investigated both classroom talk and the role of
codeswitching. They have carried out extensive observations of classroom interaction and
conducted close analysis of classroom language.
Guthrie’s (1984) (cited from Martin-Jones, 1995) makes a comparative
study of two teachers, one bilingual and one monolingual, working with Chinese
learners of English in the U.S. He finds that the bilingual teacher in his
study is very consistent in her use of the mother tongue and the target language.
Focusing on the bilingual teacher’s switches to Chinese, he identifies five
communicative functions: (a) for translation; (b) as a “we code,” a term
borrowed from Jumpers (1982) for establishing and maintaining solidarity and
group membership; (c) for giving procedures and directions; (d) for
clarification especially with the introduction of new vocabulary words; and (e)
as a check for understanding.
Using ethnographic observations,
Merritt et al. (1992) also explore the determinants of teacher codeswitching
between English, Swahili and mother tongue in three Kenyan primary schools.
Reasons they put forward for codeswitching include e.g. the socializing role of
the teacher, the importance of variation and repetition, and the teacher’s
linguistic competence and insecurity.
Other researchers have focused
primarily on the communicative functions of codeswitching in teacher-led talk
in ESL/EFL classrooms. For
instance, adopting a qualitative approach,
Flyman-Mattsson & Burenhult (1999) carries out a preliminary study of
codeswitching in a French-as-a- foreign-language classroom. The study reveals
an extensive use of code switching in the teacher’s interaction with the
students and explains the reasons for code switching, which include linguistic
insecurity, topic switch, affective functions, socializing functions,
repetitive functions, etc.
In recent years, codeswitching in language
classroom has come into focus as an area of specific interest and investigation
(Jacobson 2001). Foreign language classroom has become one of the specific
codeswitching contexts. This, however, has not received much attention in
China. So far, little effort has been made to examine the alternate use of
target language and native language (i.e., codeswitching) in EFL classroom.
Yang (2002) reviews findings of linguistic studies on codeswitching and
discusses its influence on second language acquisition. Wu (1985) reports a
study of code mixing by Chinese –English bilinguals teachers. However, the
context for their studies is not EFL classroom, but rather some informal social
situations when students or teachers interact among themselves. Nevertheless,
Wu’s analysis of the linguistic and functional features of code mixing and the
socioliguistic and social psychological factors involved is enlightening for
this study. The functions of code mixing she identifies are: to achieve ease of
expression, to achieve articulateness and simplicity, and to produce rhetorical
effect. Empirical studies on codeswitching in EFL classroom are sparing. As a common occurrence
in Chinese EFL Classroom,
teacher code
switching has not been
seriously attended to and analyzed as part of the teaching/learning process
from a language teaching perspective.
It is in the light of the above discussion
that the present study is conducted.
Codeswitching is not only an interesting
phenomenon in bilingual environment, but also very common in foreign language
learning/teaching process. Most research on teacher codeswitching has been originated
in context quite different from EFL classroom in China. English is taught in
China mainly as a subject at school and seldom practiced in the broad social
environment. Most English language teachers are native speakers of Chinese, and
they vary considerably in terms of their mastery of the English language. In
particular, we should bear in mind that these foreign language teachers perhaps should
not be regarded as true bilinguals who can choose freely between different
codes or languages. Instead, they are, more accurately, monolingual individuals
who have skills and knowledge in a foreign language and whose task is to teach
this language to the monolingual learners. When English serves both as a content subject and also as the
means of instruction in English
language teaching classrooms, Comprehension and Communication in English can be a barrier for
many foreign language learners. Foreign language teachers are frequently
observed to employ the alternation of the mother tongue and the target
language, i.e., code switching. One may wonder how the teachers switch codes
and what specific pedagogical purposes or functions codeswitching serves in EFL
classroom. We need a more careful assessment of the teaching practice in order
to evaluate the quality of the code-switched input and to discover the reasons
for teachers to switch code in EFL classroom. The purpose of the present study,
therefore, is to provide answer to the following questions:
1. What are the linguistic and syntactic features of teacher code-switching
in Chinese EFL classroom?
2. What are the reasons for which the EFL teachers
code switch? What specific functions codeswitching may serve in EFL classroom?
4.1. Material and data collection
The data is collected from a series of VCDs
of the face-to-face tutorials presented by Beiwai headquarter tutors for the
self–study students of intermediate level. Due to practical difficulty and the
ethical consideration, I have not been able to sit in EFL classrooms to conduct
field observation and record everyday teaching practice. I am aware of this
limitation. Future studies can make improvement in this aspect. Since our
interest lies in those EFL classroom discourses that contain considerable
account of code-switching instances, to examine lessons using almost
exclusively English or Chinese would be both time- and labor- consuming and may
not be fruitful for the present purpose. Consequently, I choose, from the
series of VCDs that I have access to, six tutorials presented by four teachers
to students of intermediate level. For each tutorial, only the first one and
half hours of the classroom discourse is used. Accordingly, I have had about
nine hours of audio- and video-recorded classroom discourse, which yields a
sufficient amount of data for the purpose of this study. All the four teachers
are experienced in English language teaching. Classroom interaction indicates
that students vary considerably in their English proficiency. The main language
of instruction is supposed to be English and the classroom discourse is
teacher-led.
4.2. Data analysis
All the material is examined and episodes
of tutorial in which teachers code switch are identified and transcribed.
Sufficient “clearance” is allowed before and after the occurrence of an
instance of in codeswitching order to ensure, as much as possible, that the
function for which codeswitching has been used can be hypothesized.
Accordingly, each episode is a relatively complete teaching act or at least
part of it. The reason for taking episode instead of independent sentence as
the unit is mainly out of consideration of the analysis of the functional
factors. Altogether, 112 teacher code-switched episodes are identified and
transcribed. The explanations for teacher codeswitching draw upon the previous
studies (Flyman-Mattsson & Burenhult, 1999; Guthrie, 1984; Merritt et al, 1992), as mentioned in the session of literature
review.
Linguistic
approach tends to divide codeswitching into inter-sentential and
intra-sentential. We have employed this division in the analysis of linguistic
features. Sometimes one episode contains several switches and thus, yields more
than one instance of codeswitching, be it inter-sentential or intra-sentential.
These episodes are further broken down in order to describe the linguistic
features of inter-sentential and intra-sentential code switching. Instances
such as “identify是什麽意思?” or “worsen 越来越糟糕” are regarded as instructing (explaining new words)
in Chinese instead of intra-sentential codeswitching. A descriptive account of
the linguistic features of codeswitching in EFL classroom is conducted upon the
data, using the MLF model and other linguistic descriptions as illustrated in
studies such as Brice (2000), Wu (1985) and Yu (2001b).
V. Linguistic features of
teacher codeswitching between English and Chinese
It is noticed from the data that in some tutorials, codeswitching has occurred with a relatively high frequency, even in environment where English is supposed to be the language of instruction. We have collected 153 instances of codeswitching in the transcribed episodes. Further examination reveals that the majority of teacher codeswitching takes place across sentence boundaries. Table 1 shows the percentages of the inter-sentential and intra-sentential codeswitching
Table 1
Number (N) Percentage (P)
Intra-sentential CS 30 19.6%
Inter-sentential CS 123 80.4%
Total 153 100%
The following are three examples of inter-sentential and intra-sentential CS:
(1) T4: Well, the point I want to make here is you stop there, you stop at the fourth stage, you have not made the full use of the reading text. You should go two steps further. 得再往前走两步。Now I will tell you what these two steps are.
(2) T2: In English, you have receptive skills and productive skills. For listening and reading, they are receptive skills, 就是看，听; and for speaking and writing, 读和写, they are productive skills. // What skills really count in your English learning? 哪些skill 更重要? … Productive skills, right? [1]
(3) T4: 你们两个可以share一下
The first example is an inter-sentential codeswitching in which English, the target language (TL), is the matrix language and Chinese, the native language (NL), is the embedded language. The teacher switches from English sentences to a Chinese sentence and then, switches back to English. In example (2), in the first part (before //), the Chinese constituents are inserted into the TL matrix and the whole sentence structure is set by English. In the left part, within an inter-sentential codeswitching, there is an intra-sentential CS where the English word ‘skill’ is inserted into a NL matrix. As we know that, the Chinese lexicon does not lead itself to inflection, affix and derivation as the English one does. Since Chinese lacks tense markers, inflection, subject-predicate agreement, the inserted English constituents take no plural forms or tense marker.
Further examination of Intra-sentential codeswitching reveals that it mainly occurs at lexical and phrasal level. And these lexical items and expressions all fit well into the matrix language structure. As suggested by Wu (1985), the high frequency of lexical and phrasal codeswitching seems to be due to the fact that lexical items and phrases are short, usually carry a relatively complete unit of meaning, which should be emphasized in the teaching/learning process or the equivalents of which are not readily available in the other language involved. Most inserted words and phrases in the present study belong to the categories of noun (noun phrases), adjective, verb and occasionally, adverb. But these categories do not share the same frequency. The switching of noun and noun phrases in the subject or object position is predominant in the data, which is in agreement with the findings of similar studies on codeswitching (Brice, 2000; Wu, 1985)
Finally, the directionality of codeswitching is examined and calculated. Since the main language of instruction is English, the majority of the switches (75.2%) take place from English to Chinese, with Chinese-English switches accounting for about 24.8%, as presented in table 2. Further detailed observation also shows that intra-sentential CS and inter-sentential CS differ in their directionality. According to table 2, English-to-Chinese switching very often takes place at sentence level while Chinese-to-English switching more easily occur within the sentence boundary. Considering the size of the data, this descriptive analysis can only be treated as tentative and no definite conclusion will be arrived at.
Table 2
Intra-sentential CS inter-sentential Total
N P N P N P
Chinese to English 17 56.7% 21 17.1% 38 24.8%
English to Chinese 13 43.3% 102 82.9% 115 75.2%
Total 30 100% 123 100% 153 100%
In EFL classroom, one of the teacher’s
essential concerns is to ensure that students with limited and varied English
proficiency understand the teaching points while achieving considerable
efficiency. Teacher codeswitching has been identified in both academic and
non-academic content. The current classification of reasons, as I have stated
earlier, draws upon these studies. In analyzing codeswitching in functional
terms, however, a major problem is that many switches may be either
multi-functional, or open to different functional interpretations. What this
study can offer is only a tentative analysis of the reasons for teacher
codeswitching between English and Chinese in EFL classroom.
Summarizing the results of the tentative analysis, we can say that teacher codeswitching in EFL classroom may arise out of one or more of the following reasons:
(a)
Owing to teacher’s linguistic competence and insecurity
As mentioned earlier, most English language
teachers are native speakers of Chinese. Rather than true bilinguals who
can choose freely between different codes or languages, they are, more
accurately, monolingual individuals who have skills and knowledge in the target
language. It is possible that they are sometimes unable to recall the required
target language word at the moment of uttering. Some intra-sentential
codeswitching instances belong to this category. For instance, in example (4), the insertion of the
Chinese word “快译通” into an English sentence structure may be
due to the lack of appropriate English lexicon “instant-dict” at the moment of
uttering.
(4) T1: If you have a study problem, or if you
have a new word that you don’s understand, I would advise you never (to) go to
a …a 快译通. Keep this in mind.
(b)
For ease of expression
We also find that, in other intra-sentential codeswitching examples, the
teacher may switch to English for ease of expression when an English word or
expression finds its equivalent in several Chinese terms or when its Chinese
equivalent is not easy to retrieve. In example (5), the teacher switches to the
English words “doctors” and “contrast” for convenience and labor-saving
purpose, instead of searching for their Chinese equivalents.
(5). T2: The next two pair of words you must remember. The
first one is surgeon, and in contrast to surgeon, 动刀的这个是surgeon, 那麽（光吃药的，）光开药的这个是什麽？…是physician. They are all doctors. 全都是doctors. 但是surgeon，它的contrast 是 physician. 就是一个是动刀， 一个是动药。
(c)
For translation of new and unfamiliar words and expressions:
Teachers’ concern for unfamiliar vocabulary
or expression often prompts them to code switch. When the teacher is not sure
whether the students know the meaning of the target language word or expression
in question, it is common for him/her to offer the Chinese translation for clarification. Besides the explanation of ‘surgeon’ and
‘physician’ in example (5), the codeswitching on ‘root words’ in the following
sample can also illustrate the point.
(6). T4: you should be able to identify
that these words are names of doctors, at least. And a step further is to
identify the root words. 就是那个词根。记住词根。
In another example (7), after making efforts to explain the phrase
“common room” in English, the teacher switches into Chinese to give its Chinese
equivalent.
(7). T1: Common room? Common
room is not the rest room. Rest room is an American word. In British schools,
you will see the word ‘toilet’, ‘the Gens’, ‘the Ladies’, the toilet. Rest room
is used in America. Common room is like a lounge in a house. A lounge, it is a
place where people meet. It’s like the living room in a house. In a family we
have a living room, but in a school we don’t have a living room, we have a
common room. So, can you guess what’s common room is? It’s like our休息室. it’s similar to our 休息室. In a
common room, you can relax.
(d)
Repetitive functions
One of the very old concerns of teachers’ is how to get the meaning
conveyed and understood by students. Repetition is one of the important
techniques for clarification or emphasis in the teaching practice. It can be
done in either language or both. In many cases, the teacher conveys the same
message in both languages for emphasis or clarity. By codeswitching, the
teacher repeats what has been
said, usually in the form of translation or approximate translation. For instance,
(8). T3: you design a route, a
very complicated route. 你们两个人设计一条路线，比如说，For example, you want to choose the TV station as
your destination. 比如说，你们想电视塔作为你们最后的目的地，那你们设计一条路线，Ok? And your job is to design a
route. And I’ll ask you to come here to show the whole class how to go there.
In example (9), the teacher chooses to Chinese in order to leave students
a deeper impression about her thought-provoking questions.
(9) T2: Maybe after this stage,
you think “I have done all the things I should have done.” 到了这儿你就说，“我读了，我懂了，练习都做了，完了。So what? 那又怎麽样呢？我学这篇课文干嘛？我这篇课文读懂了，我要干什麽？Why do I have to study
this text? In the exam they will have a completely different text, right? Why
do I have to work on that one? I want to work on the texts that will be tested
in the exam.
The use of codeswitching for repetitive function is very common among the
data. Here, one point is worth mentioning, however. In some instances of
repetition or translation, the teacher simply code switches to translate each
sentence he/she has uttered, with no clear motivation underlying it. It has
become, more or less, a habitual practice to translate the expressions and
sentences that are uttered in one of the two languages involved.
(e) Socializing functions
Teachers may switch to Chinese for interpersonal, rapport-building purpose. This is traditionally termed as ‘we code’, a term coming from Gumperz (1982). In the course of instruction, teachers sometimes code switch from English to Chinese in order to develop or maintain solidarity or friendship between teacher and students.
They switch to
show concern for the students or to show their understanding of their problems,
as illustrated in the following example:
(10) T1: Try to
learn to have small talk. Do you see what I mean? If you meet each other, if
you are not doing task 4, speak English and see how you manage the social
situations. … 你见了一个人，大家你看看我我看看你，不知说什麽好，不知从哪儿讲起好。
Some teachers also switch to Chinese to joke with students, as shown in
example (11). The teacher switches to Chinese to clarify his attention when he
has not received the expected response from student after saying ‘otherwise,
you’ll be thrown into the river’.
(11) T3: Following my direction and try to find out
the destination. 我告诉你们路线，你们跟着我走， 看能找到那个地方吗？ If you can get to the place, you’ll get
$1000,000. That’s the bonus for you. Otherwise you’ll be thrown into the river.
要不然你就（被）扔河里了，OK? This is a game.
This kind of codeswitching practice may indicate teacher’s effort to
try to maintain necessary social communication while attending to the academic
content.
Flyman-Mattsson & Burenhult (1999) also mentions the affective
functions for codeswitching, for example, the spontaneous expression of
emotions and emotional understanding in interacting with students. It is noted
that either a feeling of pleasure at a good student’s performance or a feeling
of displeasure at a poor performance from the class seem to bring on the switch
from the target language to the native language. In this study, however, no
such functional use of codeswitching has been identified. And we notice that
these teachers tend to use English, the target language, to express their
feeling of pleasure at a good student’s performance.
In summary, examination of the data
revealed that only a few instances of codeswitching are due to lack of
appropriate lexicon in the foreign language. In most cases, codeswitching by
teachers serves some kind of pedagogical purposes. There are, however, also
some instances where no clear motivation can be identified for the switching.
The above description and analysis of data
has shown that in EFL teacher speech, codeswitching exhibits specific
linguistic and functional features. Linguistically, inter-sentential
codeswitching is more evident than intra-sentential codeswitching. Some loose correspondence
between kinds of codeswitching and some categories of functions can be
implicated. For instance, for translation
of unfamiliar words and expressions is more likely to involve
intra-sentential codeswitching while repetitive
functions more likely to involve inter-sentential codeswitching. In most
cases, codeswitching, be it inter-sentential or intra-sentential, serves one or
another functions.
From the analysis of reasons for teacher
codeswitching, we may conclude that codeswitching represents one of the
strategies that EFL teachers often use to accommodate the students’ level of
foreign language proficiency. Teachers often code switch to translate or
elaborate the important message during the process of explaining new vocabulary
or grammar points, instead of continuing in the foreign language. It reduces
the overall comprehension burden and makes it easier for students to
concentrate on the core message conveyed. Teacher’s maintaining of solidarity
and expression of emotional understandings by switching to Chinese also
contributes to the smooth flow of classroom interaction and communication.
Jacobson (1990) proposes that the teacher may
code switching at some key points such as when concepts are important, when the students are
getting distracted, or when a student should be praised or reprimanded. Faltis (1989) goes
further on to clarify the use of codes witching in Jacobson’s teaching model.
As cited from Brice (2000), he states that code switching in the classroom
should follow two guidelines: (a) only inter-sentential language switching,
i.e., code switching and not code mixing, be allowed in the classroom (a point
also suggested by Jacobson 1983) and (b) all language switching should be
school professional initiated, especially teacher initiated (this latter point
may be difficult to impose).
Here, considering the present situation
of EFL teaching in China, we would advocate a more conscious and cautious use
of code switching in EFL classroom. While inter-sentential codeswitching is
considered as an educationally justifiable strategy (Jacobson, 1983), the use
of intra-sentential codeswitching, however, needs to be saved only for specific
teaching purposes. Excessive use of intra-sentential codeswitching can make
teacher’s language appear broken and damage students’ confidence in teacher’s
proficiency. The relative low percentage of intra-sentential codeswitching in
the data may indicate that the teachers are aware of the point. We also need to
bear in mind that, in foreign language classroom, the target language input by
the teacher is considered as an important factor in language learning. It is
argued that one of the teacher’s roles is to provide target language input and
present the best possible model of the language (Higgs, 1982) (cited from Polio
& Duff 1994) while fulfilling the teaching requirement.
In many cases, it is necessary for
teacher to switch code to translate newly introduced language points,
especially for learners with a limited command of the target language. Atkinson
(1987: 426) also warns that excessive use of code switching for translation (or
dependency on L1) is likely to result in the following:
The teacher and/or the students begin to feel
that they have not ‘really’ made clear or understood
any item of language until it has been translated.
The teacher and/or the students fail to observe
the distinctions between equivalence of form, semantic equivalence, and pragmatic features,
and thus oversimplify to the point of using crude and inaccurate translation.
Furthermore, some habitual practice of
translating of the content of the instruction from FL to NL, whether it is
particularly necessary or not would make the classroom language monotonous and
redundant. This may not be an advisable practice.
The last point is that code
switching is to be used mainly as a transition language teaching technique to
eventually all English instruction. With the improvement of students’ level of
proficiency, communication in EFL classroom should take place in the target language
as much as possible.
VIII. Conclusion and
directions for further research
This study represents an attempt to make contributions to a better understanding of teacher codeswitching between English and Chinese in Chinese context. Instances of teacher codeswitching episodes are identified and transcribed from audio- and video-recorded face-to-face tutorials for self-study students. It first describes the linguistic properties of both inter-sentential and intra-sentential codeswitching. Then the functional use of teacher codeswitching in EFL classroom is analyzed from the perspective of foreign language teaching. The major reasons for teacher codeswitching are: (a) owing to teacher’s linguistic competence and insecurity; (b) for ease of expression; (c) for translation of unfamiliar words and expressions; (d) for repetitive functions; and (e) for socializing functions. It concludes with a discussion about the forms and functions of codeswitching in relation to the EFL teaching practice; and offers, following Faltis (1989), some suggestions about the use of code switching in the teaching of English as a foreign language.
I must, however, point out that there is some limitation about the present study. As stated earlier, the data is collected from a series of VCDs of face-to-face tutorials. Since these VCDs are to be publicly issued, special efforts may have been made by both teachers and producers in presenting the tutorials, which may cause the tutorials different from the daily teaching practice in some aspects. Furthermore, the insights gained from the analyses of these teachers' classroom discourse would be more powerful if I have talked to the teachers about their uses of codeswitching. On the whole, this study has only attended to the very basic aspects of teacher codeswitching in EFL classroom and thus, quite preliminary in nature. It is advisable for further researchers to carry out more in-depth field-based studies about classrooms codeswitching, making improvement in the above aspects.
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource? ELT Journal 41/4.
Brice, A. (2000). Code switching
and code mixing in the ESL classroom: A study of pragmatic and syntactic
features. Advances in Speech Language
Pathology. Journal of the Speech Pathology Association of Australia, 20(1),
19-28.
Faltis, C. J. (1989)
Code-Switching and Bilingual Schooling: An Examination of Jacobson's New
Concurrent Approach. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development. v.10 no.2 p117-27.
Flyman-Mattsson, A &
Burenhult-Mattsson, N. (1999). Code-switching in second language teaching of
French. Working Papers 47, 59-72.
Gardner-Chloros, P. (1995).
Code-switching in community, regional and national repertoires. In Milroy, L
& Muysken, P. (ed.), pp.71-89.
Gumperz, J. J.. (1982). Discourse
strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guthrie, M. (1984). Contrasts in
teachers’ language use in a Chinese-English bilingual classroom’. In J.
Handscombe, R. A. Ovem and B. P. Taylor (eds.), On TESOL 1983: the question of control, 39-52. Washington, D.C.:
TESOL.
Higgs, T. V. (1982).
Introduction: what can I do to help? Curriculum,
competence, and the foreign language teacher. National Textbook Company.
Jacobson, R. (1983). Intersentential codeswitching: an
educationally justifiable strategy. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED231 221.
Jacobson, R. (ed.). (1990). Codeswitching as a worldwide phenomenon.
New York: Peter Lang.
Jacobson, R. (ed.). Codeswitching
worldwide II. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kamwangamalu, N. M. (1992).
Mixers and mixing English across cultures. World
Englishes, 11(2/3), pp.173-181.
Martin-Jones, M. (1995). Code-switching in the classroom: two decades
of research. In Milroy, L & Muysken, P. (ed.) (1995), pp.90-109.
Merritt, M., A. et al. (1992).
‘Socialising multilingualism: determinants of codeswitching in Kenyan primary
classrooms’. In C. M. Eastman (ed.), Codeswitching,
p.103-21. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Milroy, L & Muysken, P.
(ed.) (1995). One speaker, two languages:
cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages: grammatical structure in
codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon.
Myers-Scotton,
C. (2001). The matrix language frame model: development and responses. In
Jacobson, R. (ed.). pp.23-56.
Polio, C., & Duff, P.
(1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: A
qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. Modern Language Journal, 78, 313-326.
Rolin-Ianziti, J. and Brownlie,
S. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign language
classroom. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, Vol.58, No. 3.
Wu, Yi’an. (1985). Code-mixing
by English-Chinese bilingual teachers of the People’s Republic of China. World Englishes, Vol.4, No.3,
pp.303-317.
杨晓琼 （2002）语码转换及其对二语习得的影响 四川师范学院学报 （哲学社会科学版）
于国栋 （2001）语码转换的语用学研究 博士论文 国家图书馆馆藏
[1] In the presented examples, T1 identifies teachers, using numbers (T1, T2, T3, T4). The sign … is used to signal a pause.