This article was downloaded by: [Curtin University of Technology]
On: 23 June 2011
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 937322241]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Multilingualism
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794020038
Code-switching in English and science classrooms: more than translation
David Chen-On Thena; Su-Hie Tinga
a
Centre for Language Studies, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia
First published on: 03 June 2011
To cite this Article Then, David Chen-On and Ting, Su-Hie(2011) 'Code-switching in English and science classrooms:
more than translation', International Journal of Multilingualism,, First published on: 03 June 2011 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2011.577777
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2011.577777
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Multilingualism
2011, 125, iFirst Article
Code-switching in English and science classrooms: more than translation
David Chen-On Then and Su-Hie Ting*
Centre for Language Studies, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Sarawak,
Malaysia
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
(Received 15 August 2010; final version received 24 March 2011)
The study examined the use of code-switching by English and science teachers in
secondary schools in Malaysia. It focuses on the functions of code-switching
in multilingual classrooms where English is the language of instruction, examining
in particular the reiterative function of code-switching and its association with
translation. Thirty six lessons of teacher discourse in whole-class teaching for
English and science were audiotaped, and 20 lessons were found to contain teacher
code-switching. Analysis of the teacher discourse involving code-switching using
Gumperz’s semantic model of conversational code-switching showed that the most
prevalent function of code-switching was for reiteration and quotation. Metaphorical code-switching for interpersonal reasons such as addressee specification,
objectivisation and personalisation is not as frequent. The reiterative function of
code-switching resembling translation is mainly for bridging comprehension gaps.
The remaining instances of reiteration are for marking salient information and
instructions. The teachers also reiterated messages in Bahasa Malaysia, either in
combination with quotation to incorporate student input and text information
into the lesson or with objectivisation to allude to authority beyond that of a
teacher, as Bahasa Malaysia is the language of government directives. The findings
suggest that code-switching facilitates learning.
Keywords: code-switching; multilingual teachers; language dominance
Introduction
This paper presents some of the findings from a larger study that examined codeswitching in the classroom discourse of English and science teachers in Malaysian
secondary schools. The focus of the paper is on the reiterative function of codeswitching and the forms it takes in a multilingual classroom setting. Code-switching
refers to the use of more than one code or language in the course of a single speech
event (Gumperz, 1982). Code-switching may be minimal involving single words or
bigger chunks of language.
Language is central to the construction of meaning in the classroom. A classroom
is a space where students from different linguistic backgrounds meet, communicate
in two (or more) different languages and try to make sense of what they understand
and know, and what they are doing (Garcı́a, Bartlett, & Kleifgen, 2007). Students are
constantly engaged in instructional conversation among themselves and with their
teachers (Garcı́a, 2010). The conversation may take place in languages other than the
language of instruction. However, there are attempts by teachers to keep the
*Corresponding author. Email: shting@cls.unimas.my
ISSN 1479-0718 print/ISSN 1747-7530 online
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2011.577777
http://www.informaworld.com
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
2
D.C.-O. Then and S.-H. Ting
languages separate due to reasons such as students’ progress being only evaluated in
the language of instruction, teachers’ eagerness to do a good job by emphasising the
language of instruction and the teaching materials being in the language of
instruction (Garcı́a, 1993). Despite teachers’ attempts to maintain a monolingual
classroom setting, Garcı́a noted that the students’ first language continues to be used
for comprehensible input to help students’ learning of target language in the
classroom.
The role of language in content and language lessons differs. Content subjects
such as science makes use of the language as a medium for learning the subject
matter. For content subjects, the teaching of the academic subject is the focus and the
teaching of the language is the by-product (Zabrodskaja, 2007). Among the content
subjects, the teaching of science has received much research attention. Studies have
indicated that one of the primary obstacles for learning science is the students’ lack
of target language (see Giouroukakis & Rauch, 2010; Halliday, 2004; Lim & Mah,
2007). To aid learning of science and other content subjects, the mother tongue has
been used in bilingual content teaching. In Butzkamm’s (1998) study on the teaching
of history through the medium of English as a foreign language in a German
grammar school, the students requested German equivalents of the English
vocabulary they did not understand. Butzkamm’s argument on the facilitative use
of the mother tongue on student comprehension of lesson content was supported by
a number of studies. Based on his research on a Grade 5 mathematics class in South
Africa, Setati (1998) concluded that the teacher’s code-switching between English
and Tswana fostered mathematical understanding and encouraged student participation in class. From Martin’s (1996) study of history, science, mathematics and
geography lessons in Brunei, it was found that teachers constantly clarified and
exemplified meaning of words or concepts in Brunei Malay rather than Bahasa
Melayu. The teachers in this study perceived that Brunei Malay (the students’
mother tongue) was a more appropriate language to use compared to Bahasa
Melayu, the standard variety. Although the teachers admitted to feeling uneasy, they
continued to code-switch to minimise comprehension problems and provide a more
natural learning environment. In another paper, Martin (1999) reported that the
teachers’ unfinished utterances in science lessons were often predictable and
completed by students’ chorus response in Brunei Malay, suggesting that a common
understanding between students and their teachers was achieved. Martin added that
the teachers encouraged rather than restricted the use of local languages and tended
to elicit student participation using Iban or Brunei Malay rather than English.
Clearly, none of these studies on bilingual content teaching reported detrimental
effects of code-switching on learning, although they acknowledged reservations
teachers had about deviating away from monolingual instruction.
While studies are consistent on the usefulness of bilingual content teaching, codeswitching in language classrooms is a debatable issue. In the context of language
learning, empirical support for the facilitative effects of code-switching is countered
by those highlighting the adverse effects on the development of target language
competence. In language subjects, the language is both the object of the learning and
potentially a medium for learning. In the communicative approach where learners
use the language to learn it (Thornbury, 1999), code-switching can be seen as
subtracting from the amount of target language exposure and providing a bad
language model for students. Teachers’ code-switching in the language classroom can
cause autonomous code-switching behaviour on the part of students (Skiba, 1997)
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
International Journal of Multilingualism
3
and may even result in loss of target language fluency in students (Sert, 2005). When
code-switching is a permissible option, students are not pushed to maximise the use
of their linguistic resources to negotiate meaning.
However, research indicates that code-switching can also be an invaluable
support for language learning to take place when the target language is a barrier
for learning (e.g. Greggio & Gil, 2007; Reini, 2008). Reini (2008) showed that
explanations in Finnish speed up students’ understanding of English grammatical
rule and they later produce appropriate and comprehensible English output. In
Greggio and Gil’s (2007) study, the use of Portuguese was found to enhance message
clarity of English as foreign language learners in Brazil. In response to student
requests, the teachers provided Portuguese equivalent vocabulary and explained
English grammatical rule and structure in Portuguese. Despite language policy on
monolingual instruction, teacher code-switching in classrooms with students from
different linguistic backgrounds is frequent. Based on interviews conducted with
English and science teachers, Then and Ting (2010) found that the teachers viewed
code-switching as helping their students to understand terminology and concepts as
well as instructions pertaining to classroom activities. Setati, Adler, Reed, and Bapoo
(2002) asserted that code-switching is beneficial and should be viewed as a language
resource rather than a detriment to learning. Moreover, the alternate use of
languages not only compensates for a speaker’s inability to express oneself in a
language but is also useful for expressing solidarity with a particular social group and
conveying a speaker’s attitude (Skiba, 1997).
Thus far, from the review of related literature, differences in the types and
functions of teacher code-switching in content and language classrooms are not
clearly evident. One particular function of code-switching that has been highlighted
in many of these studies is reiteration, sometimes referred to as reformulation
(e.g. Setati, 1998) or translation (e.g. Zabrodskaja, 2007) depending on the
framework of analysis. These studies focus on the types and functions of codeswitching in facilitating classroom interaction and learning in general. However,
code-switching, or more commonly referred to as translation, is a contentious issue
in language teaching literature. On the one hand, translation can lower the chances
of error because students know exactly what the sentences mean (Cunningham,
2000); students also understand the cultural-bound meanings and hidden agenda of
the texts through revision, rewriting and redrafting of the translation (Sima & Saeed,
2010). In addition, translation also enables students to discover different vocabulary
and style of texts of the same genre in the source language and target language
(Petrocchi, 2006). On the other hand, Cunningham cautioned that overuse of
translation prevents students from thinking, reading and writing in the target
language because the translation is available, and translation could end up singling
out students when not all students share the same mother tongue. The caveat is that
alienation of students who do not understand the language used in the translation is
less likely to occur in multilingual contexts where students share a common language
such as the national language in the case of Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam and
Indonesia. Nevertheless, studies on code-switching for reiteration of messages and
translation have largely been independent of each other. Situating a comparison
of translation and reiteration in the context of Gumperz’s (1982) model of
conversational code-switching would yield insights into how code-switching facilitate
learning of content subjects and languages in educational settings where students are
from diverse linguistic groups.
4
D.C.-O. Then and S.-H. Ting
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
The need for code-switching in the Malaysian educational setting
Malaysia is a plural society comprising the numerically dominant Malay (53.3%), a
relatively large minority group, Chinese (26.0%), Indian (7.7%) and the indigenous
groups (11.8%) (Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 2010). These ethnic groups
have distinct languages, cultures, religions and other ways of life. The plural society
in Malaysia originated from the influx of migrant labour. With the recruitment of
Chinese into the tin industry by secret societies and mine-owners and the Indian into
the rubber and palm oil industries by colonial authorities in the twentieth century,
the ethnic diversity intensified (Powell, 2002). These Chinese and Indian communities funded their own vernacular schools by importing texts and teachers from their
home countries. The original inhabitants, the Malays, also had their Malay schools
and tended to be involved in agricultural and fishing activities along the coast. These
three main ethnic groups were economically and geographically segregated by the
divide-and-rule policy of the British. It was only in later years that there was
intermingling of ethnic groups in business, education and the civil service with
increased migration to urban centres.
The ethnic diversity made it necessary for the Malaysian Government to develop
the national language as a common language for communication across ethnic
boundaries as well as a symbol of Malaysian identity for nation building upon
gaining independence from British rule in 1957. This was when the status of English
was relegated to that of a second language in the country and the role of English as
the administrative language was gradually taken over by Bahasa Malaysia. Since the
independence of Malaysia, the language planning has undergone three distinct
phases: status planning from 1957 to 2002 (i.e. the replacement of English by Bahasa
Malaysia as the official language); remission in status planning from 2003 to 2009
(i.e. the reinstatement of English as the medium of instruction for science and
mathematics); and reinforced status planning from mid-2009 onwards (i.e. the
elevation of Bahasa Malaysia as a tool for unity) (Ting, 2010). Each phase of
language planning designates different emphases on the role of English and Bahasa
Malaysia.
During the British colonial rule, English medium schools were introduced to
produce an English-educated elite group in the Malaysian society for the civil service
(Gaudart, 1987). The general public attended state-funded Malay schools and
privately funded Chinese and Tamil schools (see Lee, 2009). However, it was
important for the newly independent Malaysia to have a national language to foster a
national identity (Gill, 2006). The language of the dominant ethnic group, Malay,
was chosen as the national language (Omar, 1979), and the standardised variety is
referred to as Bahasa Malaysia.1 In 1970, Bahasa Malaysia officially replaced
English as the medium of education in Peninsular Malaysia at primary one level. In
the same year, Bahasa Malaysia was introduced as a subject in primary school and
Form One in Sarawak, partly due to inadequate educational infrastructure (Porritt,
1997) and the native leaders’ suspicion of ‘Malay expansionism’ (Leigh, 1974, p. 94).
It was only in 1977 that Bahasa Malaysia officially became the medium of
instruction in Sarawak starting progressively from Primary One (Ting, 2001). With
this, the relegation of the status of English to one that is second in importance was
completed. Less time is allocated for the teaching of English compared to Bahasa
Malaysia, and a pass in English at Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) level (Malaysian
equivalent of ‘O’ level) is not compulsory.
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
International Journal of Multilingualism
5
A turning point came in 2003 when English was reinstated as the medium of
instruction for science and mathematics (Chan & Tan, 2006). Reasons provided for
the change in language policy, implemented simultaneously at Primary One, Form
One and Lower Six Form levels, included the declining proficiency in English among
Malaysians, the need to keep abreast with scientific and technological advancement
and the expansion from domestic to international trade. Nonetheless, the implementation was beset with problems such as the shortage of proficient teachers and
inadequate materials in English (Nordin, 2005; Pandian & Ramiah, 2004; Rusmin,
2008; Shah & Ahmad, 2007; Tan & Chan, 2003; Yahaya et al., 2009). In 2003,
teachers who had been educated and trained in Bahasa Malaysia had to teach science
or mathematics in English without adequate preparation of curricula and teachers.
The teachers coped with the unfamiliar language of instruction by code-switching
between English and Bahasa Malaysia (e.g. Zakaria, 2009). Ting (2010) refers to this
period as a remission in language planning for Malaysia because of the apparent
compromise on the nationalistic agenda of propagating Bahasa Malaysia as the
official language and the language of education.
The brief respite ended with the announcement on 8 July 2009 that the medium of
instruction for science and mathematics would revert back to Bahasa Malaysia in
national schools and mother-tongue languages in national-type schools starting from
2012 (Chapman, 2009; Maths and science back to Bahasa, mother tongues, 2009).
The urgency to address the performance gap between the urban and rural students
brought about by the use of English for teaching science and mathematics made it
imperative for the implementation to take place simultaneously at four levels:
Primary One, Primary Four, Form One and Form Four. The return to Bahasa
Malaysia as the medium of instruction for science and mathematics can be seen as
reinforced status planning in the context of ‘renewed attention to the symbolic role of
Bahasa Malaysia in representing a single Malaysian identity and fostering national
unity, reminiscent of the nationalistic concerns in the period immediately following
the independence of Malaysia’ (Ting, 2010, p. 403).
The renewed attention to language planning in Malaysia stems in part from the
Malaysian Government seeing that Bahasa Malaysia has not been embraced by the
non-Malay ethnic groups as their language of communication. The competition does
not come from ethnic languages of speech communities which make up the plural
Malaysian society but from English, a language of international communication.
Garcı́a, Bartlett, and Kleifgen (2007) state that ‘the prominence of English and the
increasing familiarity with multilingualism has bent the rigid power of some national
languages, allowing other languages voice and power within society’ (p. 208). In
Malaysia, English is seen as the de facto official language in the private sector and a
gateway to higher education, whereas Bahasa Malaysia is the official language in the
government domain and provides access to government jobs and projects. The use of
Bahasa Malaysia in interethnic communication also indicates accommodative ethnic
attitudes, particularly towards the Malay ethnic group which is in power. Because of
this, the history of change in language policies with respect to the medium of
instruction has involved mainly Bahasa Malaysia and English. In the context of a
multilingual and multicultural educational setting such as Malaysia, it is relevant to
examine how teachers mediate between learning concerns and positioning of various
languages and ethnic groups in their code-switching.
6
D.C.-O. Then and S.-H. Ting
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework used in this study is Gumperz’s (1982) semantic model of
conversational code-switching. The strength of the semantic model lies in its ability
to account for why a speaker switches language in a particular context (Onyango,
2009). Onyango views code-switching as a form of discourse strategy because
speakers do not speak the way they do simply due to social identities or situational
factors; instead speakers exploit linguistic choices to convey intentional meaning.
Therefore, the semantic model is able to encompass ‘the multiple relations between
linguistic means and social meaning’ (Onyango, 2009, p. 153). Although Gumperz’s
model of code-switching was proposed three decades ago, it is still employed to
explain code-switching in foreign language classes, such as Chinese (e.g. Ruan, 2003;
Zheng, 2009) and German (Seidlitz, 2003), and science classes (e.g. Choi & Kuipers,
2003; Then & Ting, 2009).
In Gumperz’s semantic model, code-switching is conceptualised as situational
and metaphorical in its functions. Blom and Gumperz gave the example of teachers
giving formal lectures in Brokmal but shifting to Ranamal to encourage open and
free discussion among students as situational code-switching. The shift in language
redefines the situation. In contrast, metaphorical code-switching enables ‘the
enactment of two or more relationships among the same set of individuals’ (Blom
& Gumperz, 1986, p. 425). For instance, Blom and Gumperz explained that residents
carried out business transactions with the clerk in the standard language but engaged
the same clerk on family affairs in dialect because it alludes to a more personal and
local relationship. The relative footing or status of the speakers changes according to
the language use, the standard language for clerk and customer relationship and
dialect for close relationships.
Code-switching that accommodates a change in the social situation is termed
situational code-switching by Blom and Gumperz (1986) while code-switching that
does not accommodate a change in setting, topic or participants is termed
metaphorical code-switching. The functions of metaphorical code-switching are
quotation, addressee specification, interjections, reiterations, message qualification
and personalisation vs. objectivisation (see Appendix 1). A quotation serves as a
direct quotation or reported speech. For example, the speaker inserted reported
speech in Spanish into her English discourse when she said ‘She doesn’t speak
English, so, dice que la reganan: Si se les va olvidar el idioma a las criatura’ (she says
that they would scold her: ‘the children are surely going to forget their language)’
(Gumperz, 1982, p. 76). Next, addressee specification serves to direct the message to
one of several addressees. For example, the speaker switches to Hindi to address a
third participant that has just returned from answering the door:
A:
Sometimes you get excited and then you speak in Hindi, then again you go on to
English.
B: No nonsense, it depends on your command of English.
A:
[shortly after turning to a third participant, who has just returned from answering
the doorbell] K3 n hai bai (who is it)?
(Gumperz, 1982, p. 77)
International Journal of Multilingualism
7
Thirdly, a switch in language to mark an interjection or sentence filler is termed
interjections. For instance, a Spanish interjection occurs in a brief talk in English
between two Chicano professionals saying goodbye to one another:
A:
Well, I’m glad I met you.
B: Andale pues (O.K. swell). And do come again. Mm?
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
(Gumperz, 1982, p. 77)
Fourthly, reiteration serves to repeat a message from one code to another code either
literally or in somewhat modified form. For example, the father repeated his
statement to his son in Hindi while walking through a train compartment, ‘Keep
straight. Sidha jao [louder] (keep straight)’ (Gumperz, 1982, p. 78). The fifth function
of metaphorical code-switching is message qualification which serves to qualify
constructions such as sentence and verb complements or predicates following a
copula. The following statement explains the preceding statement. For instance, ‘The
oldest one, la grande la de once anos (the big one who is eleven years old)’ (Gumperz,
1982, p. 79). Finally, code-switching for personalisation and objectivisation serves to
distinguish between talk about action and talk as action, the degree of speaker
involvement in, or distance from, a message, whether a statement reflects personal
opinion or knowledge, whether it refers to specific instances or has the authority of
generally known fact. In this example, A switches from Slovenian to German to give
his counter statement greater authority while discussing the origin of a certain type
of wheat:
A:
Vig3 l3 ma y3 sa americ3 (Wigele got them from America)
B: Kanada prid3 (it comes from Canada).
A:
Kanada mus I s3gn nit (I would not say Canada).
(Gumperz, 1982, p. 79)
In Gumperz’s (1982) semantic model of conversational code-switching, the function
of code-switching that is of interest in this paper is reiteration because of its
similarity to translation. For example, an English utterance ‘count first’ was
reiterated in German as ‘zählen OK’ (count OK) in Seidlitz’s (2003) study. These
teachers of German as a foreign language in Texas code-switched for reiteration to
address their students’ difficulty in understanding and to focus their attention on
matters outside the subject matter which included signalling the desire to speak
German rather than English and directing students’ attention to a particular
instruction. In Ruan’s (2003) study involving Chinese/English bilingual students in a
Chinese language programme in America, the teacher reiterated hua yuan as a garden
to establish the relationship between the English lexis and the Mandarin Chinese
lexis in ‘hua yuan jiu shi you hen duo hua, shi garden’ (Garden has lots of flowers, is
garden). Ruan explained that the repetition was a metalinguistic device for the
students and their teacher to expand and monitor the teaching and learning. In their
study in Malaysian secondary schools, Then and Ting (2009) found that reiteration
co-occurred with message qualification to assist teacher explanations of referential
content. The order of the switch from English to Bahasa Malaysia suggests that on
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
8
D.C.-O. Then and S.-H. Ting
the one hand, English is important as the base language for teaching but on the other
hand, Bahasa Malaysia is more important for ensuring student comprehension of the
teacher input.
While reiteration serves a variety of functions in the classroom, translation is
often used to assist comprehension. Translation turns an expression from the source
language to another language with lexical, syntactic and cultural accuracy retained
to maintain the translation as close as possible to the source utterance (Metha, 2010).
The translation in the target language retains the meaning, form, register and style of
the source sentence (Krajka, 2004). An example of translation involving single words
is ‘island, pulau’ to cut short the time taken to explain that what an island is by
tapping into the general knowledge that students already have in a more familiar
language, Bahasa Malaysia in this case (Then & Ting, 2010). As Then and Ting used
Gumperz’s (1982) semantic model of conversational code-switching in their study,
the translation was coded as reiteration. For the reiterative function of codeswitching in the present study, the analysis takes into account the form of the
language alternation, whether the original form is retained (translation) or modified
(reiteration).
The study
Participants
The study was conducted at three secondary schools in Kuching, located in the
Malaysian state of Sarawak. The selected schools had an ethnically diverse teacher
and student population: Chinese, Malay and indigenous (e.g. Iban, Bidayuh). The
teachers requested to participate in the study fulfilled the following criteria: they
were teaching either English or science at Form One and Form Two levels; and each
teacher had a tertiary teaching qualification in the subject to reduce the possibility
that their language practices might be due to teaching expertise. A total of 35
teachers fulfilling the selection criteria were requested to participate in the study.
However, due to unavoidable circumstances such as unexpected administrative duties
and leave, only 18 teachers were observed one to two times each. These teachers had
different home languages, as nine were Chinese, eight indigenous and one Malay.
Out of the 36 lessons observed, 20 lessons (10 English and 10 science) contained
teacher code-switching. These lessons were taught by five English and six science
teachers. All the teachers participating in the study were proficient in English and
Bahasa Malaysia, but only the teachers of Chinese descent were proficient in the use
of Mandarin Chinese (see Appendix 2). The Chinese students can usually understand
Mandarin Chinese but not the Malay and indigenous students. However, all the
students can understand Bahasa Malaysia because it is the medium of education in
the Malaysian education system.
Data collection
The data for the study of code-switching in the teachers’ classroom discourse were
obtained through non-participant observation. In the larger study, post-observational interviews were carried out to investigate the teachers’ views on
the acceptability of code-switching in the classroom. Each lesson observed lasted
3040 minutes. During the classroom observation, an audio cassette tape recorder
International Journal of Multilingualism
9
was placed on the teacher’s table in front of the class to record the teacherstudent
interactions. The teacher was requested to start the recording when he/she began the
teaching and to stop the recording when the lesson was over. During the lesson, the
first researcher took notes of the context as well as particular gestures and facial
expressions that accompany code-switching to assist in the interpretation of the data.
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
Data analysis
The audio recordings of the teacher discourse were subsequently transcribed. The
use of Bahasa Malaysia and Mandarin Chinese was indicated in italics and the
English translation provided in brackets (). Pauses were indicated with epsilon . . . and
additional information were placed in square brackets [ ]. The 10 hours of teacher
discourse data yielded a transcript of 52,495 words (English lessons: 24,310 words
and science lessons: 28,185).
The transcript was analysed for functions of code-switching based on Gumperz’s
(1982) semantic model, namely, quotation, addressee specification, interjections,
reiteration, message qualification, personalisation vs. objectivisation and situational
code-switching (see Appendix 2). Code-switching for these functions were identified
based on the context of the teacherstudent interaction and marked on the
transcripts. Then the frequencies of the code-switching functions were computed
for each lesson transcript. Although the paper focuses on the reiterative function of
code-switching, the frequencies for other code-switching functions were obtained to
provide a context to understand the main purposes of code-switching in the English
and science lessons.
For the analysis, the repeated use of code-switching for a particular function was
counted as separate instances. For example, when a teacher explains a scientific
concept in English and reiterates it in Bahasa Malaysia, followed by another
reiteration in English, this was counted as two instances of reiteration. In this study,
reiteration is differentiated from translation. When the syntactic structure of the
source and reiterated utterances is the same, as in ‘Take out your book. Keluarkan
buku awak (Take out your book). Take out your book’, it is considered translation.
However, not all reiteration is translation. For example, ‘Pick up the pen . . . Pen itu,
kutip (That pen, pick up)’. The repetition in Bahasa Malaysia does not retain the
syntactic structure of the source utterance. A point to note is that in the analysis, the
word ‘okay’ was not treated as code-switching due to the frequent use of the word in
other languages besides English (see Then & Ting, 2009). Considering ‘okay’ as an
instance of code-switching would over-represent the extent of code-switching.
Results and discussion
Frequency of code-switching functions
The analysis of teacher classroom discourse from 20 lessons showed that the teachers
code-switched 246 times in 10 hours, of which 61.79% were by the English teachers
(Table 1). On average, there was an instance of code-switching in 2.44 minutes. The
two most prevalent code-switching functions were reiteration (32.93%) and quotation (30.49%). The English teachers were found to code-switch for reiterative
purposes (57 or 37.50% of 152 instances) more frequently than science teachers (24
or 25.53% of 94 instances).
10
D.C.-O. Then and S.-H. Ting
Table 1.
lessons.
Frequency of code-switching functions in secondary school English and science
Frequency of code-switching
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
Functions of code-switching
Reiteration
Quotation
Terms of reference
Interjections
Addressee specification
Message qualification
Situational code-switching
Objectivisation
Personalisation
Total
a
English
Science
Total
Percentage
57
35
16
9
13
8
4
6
4
152
24
40
15
6
1
3
5
0
0
94
81
75
31
15
14
11
9
6
4
246
32.93
30.49
12.60
6.10
5.69
4.47
3.66
2.44
1.63
100.01a
The total percentage does not equal 100% due to rounding error.
Besides reiteration and quotation for explanation of lesson content, the teachers
also code-switched for terms of reference and message qualification to some extent.
Only 12.60% of code-switching instances involved the use of terms of reference,
mostly in Bahasa Malaysia (e.g. cikgu meaning teacher) and less frequently in
Mandarin Chinese (e.g. teh C peng meaning iced tea with milk). Code-switching in
such cases retains culturally bound meanings that may be lost in translation. In this
data-set, teacher code-switching for message qualification or elaboration was low
(4.47%), indicating that the teachers attempted to provide explanations in the
language of instruction.
In contrast, code-switching for interpersonal reasons account for less than 20% of
code-switching instances identified in the teacher discourse data. The frequency was
low for situational code-switching (3.66%), interjections (6.10%), addressee specification (5.69%), objectivisation (2.44%) and personalisation (1.63%). The frequency
of these five code-switching functions added together is 36 (23.68%) for English
teachers and 12 (12.77%) for science teachers. The transcripts revealed that the
English teachers were more interactive with their students, making interjections such
as aduh in Bahasa Malaysia (my goodness), personalising the teacher talk by
revealing their feelings about their own teaching (e.g. cikgu pun tidak tahu macam
mana mahu explain sudah, meaning teacher also does not know how to explain
already) or using Bahasa Malaysia to address a particular student (e.g. Sahidah yang
bawa, meaning Sahidah brought it). The dependence on code-switching for
quotation and reiteration show the more important role of code-switching for
informational exchange rather than for managing interpersonal relations with
students.
The nature of code-switching for reiteration
Within the context of code-switching for informational exchange involving reiteration, quotation, terms of reference and message qualification, the reiterative function
was further analysed as it was the most common function of code-switching in the
data-set. Figure 1 shows that a majority of the reiterations by English and science
teachers involved the repeated use of reiteration (61 out of 69 instances). Fewer
International Journal of Multilingualism
11
Reiteration
Functions
Non-teacher
source of codeswitching
(Student/Text)
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
QuotationReiteration
(n = 6)
Teacher as
source of codeswitching
Single
Reiteration
(n = 47)
ReiterationReiteration
(n = 10)
ReiterationReiterationReiteration
(n = 4)
ObjectivisationReiteration
(n = 2)
Figure 1. Frequency of co-occurrence of reiteration with other code-switching functions in
the English and science teachers’ classroom discourse.
reiterations co-occurred with quotation (six instances) and objectivisation (two
instances).
Repeated use of reiteration
In this study, the English teachers performed single use of reiteration more often
than the science teachers (English: 34 instances, science: 13 instances). In Excerpt (1),
the English teacher (E5) was teaching Macbeth.
Excerpt (1)
E5:
Okay, we must make the most out of our lives because life is short. Okay
always have a purpose in life and do good to others . . . Ah, how to say do
good to others in BM?
Students:
[Background noise]
Reiteration
E5:
Ah kita jangan buat ah apa-apa yang salah, yang tidak betul, kita kena buat
yang yang bagus, yang betul kepada orang lain, faham? Moral values. Okay?
Nor Hazizi okay?
E5 asked the students for the Bahasa Malaysia version of ‘do good to others’ but
upon receiving no response, she reiterated the expression in Bahasa Malaysia (We
should not do wrong, what is not right. We have to do good, the right thing to other
people, understand?). After using Bahasa Malaysia to ensure that students understood this moral value, E5 reverted to English to tell the students that they should
not interpret life as useless and meaningless like Macbeth.
Other instances of code-switching for reiteration were for emphasis when giving
instructions in class. For example, ‘If you don’t know, then write it down so that you
can understand better. Okay, write it down. Tuliskan maksudnya kalau kamu tidak
faham’ (write down the meaning if you do not understand). The reiteration of the
12
D.C.-O. Then and S.-H. Ting
message in Bahasa Malaysia was not for ensuring comprehension as the instruction
was simple but the repetition marked emphasis:
Excerpt (2)
S6:
You go back to that desk there. You go back there. Then this boy won’t be
Reiteration
Reiteration
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
disturbed by you. Go back there. Balik sana (Go back there).
You go back there. Then this boy will listen. Ah. There. Okay classification.
We put these organisms into different groups so that it’d be easier for us to
study.
In Excerpt (2), the science teacher was teaching students how to classify objects
based on common characteristics. Her lesson went on smoothly until she was
interrupted by some students making noise. She changed the seating of one of her
students by first giving an instruction in English, ‘Go back there’. Then she
translated it to Bahasa Malaysia, ‘Balik sana’, and repeated it in English, ‘You go
back there’. The double reiteration which took the form of a literal translation served
a higher purpose of signalling the seriousness of her instruction. The student
immediately obeyed and the lesson continued. Along the same vein, by using triple
reiterations teachers send the message that ‘this is very important, you must know/do
this’ without explicitly making this statement.
The use of code-switching for enhancing the clarity of key points and instructions
has also been found in other studies. Zheng (2009) found that Chinese-Australian
bilingual students were capable of emphasising their messages by repeating it in their
interviews. However, in Zheng’s study, the students repeated their message only once.
In the current study, multiple reiterations facilitate comprehension and mark
emphasis. The direction of switch in double and triple reiterations from English
(the language of instruction) to Bahasa Malaysia and back to English is reminiscent
of the sandwich technique advocated by Butzkamm and Caldwell (2009) as a quick
way to make authentic classroom communication possible in the target language
particularly in foreign language classrooms.
Quotation and reiteration
Direct quotation or reported speech in an ongoing discourse is known as quotation
(Gumperz, 1982). Figure 1 shows that there are six instances of code-switching
involving quotation and reiteration in sequence, three of which involved the
explanation of the meaning of words. One was not content-related. An example of
how a science teacher (S1) quoted her student’s translation of ‘pass motion’ in
Mandarin Chinese (ta pien) and subsequently reiterated the meaning in Bahasa
Malaysia (berak) is shown in Excerpt (3):
Excerpt (3)
S1:
Not exposed disposed. How does protein get disposed?
Students:
[Silence]
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
International Journal of Multilingualism
S1:
It means how the body gets rid of that excessive protein?
Student 1:
Pass motion.
S1:
Hah.
Student 1:
Pass motion.
S1:
Pass motion? Ah Crystal said pass motion . . . you know what pass motion is?
Student 2:
Yes. Ta pien (Pass motion).
S1:
That is in Chinese.
Student 3:
Berak (Pass motion).
Quotation
13
Reiteration
S1:
Berak (Pass motion) is in BM. English is pass motion.
Students:
Yes.
S1:
Yes, it is through urea and also through your human waste okay. Expose
through your urea. Urine. Sorry sorry not urea.
Students:
Teacher not to give energy meh?
S1:
Pardon, energy? No when it is too much. When the protein is no more
needed. They have to be disposed through our urine. So when you urine it
the protein will . . . be out from your body. Right. So next is fat.
By quoting and reiterating the students’ answers in both Mandarin Chinese and
Bahasa Malaysia, the teachers helped the students to construct their understanding
of the subject matter. At the same time, students were encouraged to provide answers
because their contribution was used to develop the lesson. In the Malaysian
classroom context where students are generally passive, allowing student responses
in languages other than English is important for encouraging student participation
in the lesson. Similar findings were obtained in Brunei Darussalam by Martin (1999),
in which a geography teacher stated that a Malay response from students is more
pedagogically sound than the teacher providing the Malay gloss herself.
Besides content-related explanations, the quotation and reiteration sequence is
also used for managing classroom activities. In Excerpt (4), when a science teacher
(S3) distributed a science project file for students to compile projects accomplished in
the next three years for formative assessment, she directed her students to fill in a
particular part of the record by saying the word ‘bilangan’ twice, followed by a
translation to English (number).
Excerpt (4)
S3:
Yes, okay. Write down handphone number. House phones or handphones.
As long as it is a number which is contactable. Okay . . . now. So, today, the
project that I want you to do is to make a scrapbook. Alright? A scrap
book. So, can you please open up your file first. Alright open up your file.
You can you see a pocket like this? The horizontal side. Alright.
14
D.C.-O. Then and S.-H. Ting
Students:
[Background noise]
Quotation
S3:
Here we have bilangan (number).
Students:
[Background noise]
Quotation
S3:
Bilangan (Number) of course means what? What does it mean?
Students:
[Background noise]
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
Quotation
S3:
Reiteration
Bilangan (Number) means number right? So this is our number one PEKA.
Number one PEKA project. So we put here one. Evidens is scrapbook. . . .
The reiteration in English was not for comprehension as the students knew the
meaning of ‘number’, evident from the teacher’s use of ‘handphone number’ in a
previous turn. The quotation from the labelling on one of the file flaps (bilangan)
followed by reiteration in English (number) was to identify the part of the file for the
PEKA Project Number 1. In her next turn, the teacher moved on to another section
of the file to tell students where to insert evidence for their project.
The feature of quotation and reiteration is the embedding of Bahasa Malaysia
words within a larger chunk of teacher talk in English. The quotation served to
bring excerpts from external texts such as government documents and textbooks
into the teacher talk. Such texts are usually related to ministry initiated projects or
school directives and are written in Bahasa Malaysia. The teachers in this study
also quoted from English and science textbooks before elaborating on the
information but as this did not involve a switch in language, the patterns are
not part of the data analysis. A similar case was reported in Seidlitz (2003) in
which teachers of German as a foreign language did not code-switch for German
texts because the teacher talk was also in German. In Martin (2005), it was
reported that English teachers annotated English texts in Bahasa Malaysia but did
not hand over speaking rights to the students. However, the English texts described
by Martin were from English textbooks, thus preventing meaningful discussion of
the texts. In the case of the present study, the direction of code-switching from
Bahasa Malaysia or Mandarin to English in quotation and reiteration sequences
indicate that the teachers attempted to conduct the teacher talk in English and
used code-switching momentarily to ensure that student comprehension is not
compromised.
Objectivisation and reiteration
Only two instances of code-switching for objectivisation and reiteration used in
sequence were identified in the teacher classroom discourse. Both were used by
English teacher 1 (E1) for teacher empowerment, as shown in Excerpt (5).
International Journal of Multilingualism
15
Excerpt (5)
E1: Just take any book you know. Read. And after reading, write in your record
Objectivisation
Reiteration
card eh ah NILAM. So awak akan dipantau (you will be monitored) you will
Objectivisation
Reiteration
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
be monitored. Sampai (Until) Form Three, until Form Three. Sorry [E1’s
handphone rang and he took the call].
Prior to this turn, E1 was reading out a school directive on NILAM (Nadi Ilmu
Amalan Membaca or Reading, the Pulse of Knowledge Practices), a reading project
in which students are required to read books and record their list of readings. In the
midst of his explanation in English, the teacher said ‘awak akan dipantau’ in Bahasa
Malaysia and immediately reiterated it in English, ‘you will be monitored’. The
statement in Bahasa Malaysia came from the teacher and not a government
document. The second objectivisation-reiteration sequence was brief as he was
interrupted by a telephone call. In Gumperz’s (1982) framework, the objectivisation
signals a distancing from the message but the reiteration in English brought back
speaker involvement in the message. The reiteration in English was not for clarity as
the teacher’s speech was smooth, suggesting that he was confident that his students
could understand him. Moreover, he had explained the directive in detail in English
prior to the code-switching.
The choice of the national language for code-switching positioned the teacher as
a representative of the school in contrast to English which is the language for
everyday teaching of English and science. Through the code-switching the teacher
constructed his or her role as that of a school administrator since Bahasa Malaysia is
the official or administrative language. By using the language of governmental
business, the teacher temporarily exceeded his or her usual authority as an English
teacher and signalled that the directive was meant to be followed by students. Each
teacher is bestowed a certain amount of power to conduct and manage his or her
classes. The power derived from a position or title held is termed as legitimate power
by French and Raven (1959) or assigned power (McCroskey & Richmond, 1983)
(cited in Orbash, 2008). Although the data on objectivisation and reiteration is
limited, it provides some indication of how code-switching to Bahasa Malaysia can
be used to rise above the legitimate power held as English and science teachers, but
the prevalence of these co-occurring functions of code-switching in other contexts
needs to be further investigated.
Reiteration and translation
The results showed that out of 20 lessons with teacher code-switching, only 10
lessons involved code-switching for message repetition, whether in literally translated
or modified form (Table 2). An example of translation is ‘consequence is hou kuo
(consequence)’ (E5) but the form is usually modified in a reiteration, ‘How to find
16
D.C.-O. Then and S.-H. Ting
your volume? . . . Macam mana kamu kira isipadu (How do you calculate)
(S4) . . . How do you find irregular volume?’ The classroom data showed that when
students provided input in Bahasa Malaysia or Mandarin, the teachers often
reiterated their utterances in English. Excerpt (6) is an example of how the teacher
refrained from repeating the student’s utterance in Mandarin Chinese but instead
offered the equivalent word for ‘ye liang’ in English, moon.
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
Excerpt (6)
E3:
This is for this week. Nothing can grow on the moon. You know what is the
moon?
Student:
Ye liang (moon).
E3:
Nothing can grow on the moon.
The student’s utterance in Mandarin Chinese provided feedback to the teacher that
the meaning had been understood. The transcripts showed that there were only five
instances when the teacher incorporated student utterances voiced in Mandarin
Chinese into the teacher talk. However, the teachers were more inclined to repeat
student utterances in Bahasa Malaysia before reiterating them in Bahasa Malaysia as
shown in Excerpt (7).
Excerpt (7)
S4:
The answer is false. Sound is not a matter. Now you look at here hah. There
are two boxes okay? I will call a student to carry lah. Which one is heavier?
Whether it’s A or B? Okay? Ah . . . can you try to ah carry the box? Just carry
hah. Just.
Student:
Background noise.
[Reiteration]
S4
[Reiteration]
Angkatlah. Angkat. (Carry lah. Carry) Ah.
Table 2 shows that out of 81 instances of message repetitions, the frequency of
reiteration (53.09%) was only slightly higher than translation (46.91%). When the
frequency of message repetitions was analysed based on instructional context, it was
found that half of the translation (20 or 52.63%) and most of the reiterations (31 or
72.09%) were for lesson explanations rather than for class activities or non-content
related teacher talk. It may seem that there is teacher dependence on other languages,
mainly, Bahasa Malaysia, for explaining academic content, as indicated by the
occurrence of one translation or reiteration in seven minutes (81 message repetitions
in 600 minutes) of teacher talk time.
Some individual differences in the use of code-switching for translation and
reiteration can be seen. Table 2 shows that for the seven teachers who had five or less
instances of code-switching, the message repetition was either all literal translation
(E2, S4 and S6) or all reiteration (E3, E4 and S3). For teachers who frequently codeswitched such as E5 (32 times), E1 (18 times) and S1 (11 times), there was a balance
Frequency of translation and reiteration by English and science teachers for different instructional contexts.
Frequency of translation
Teachers
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
S1
S3
S4
S5
S6
Total
Lesson
explanation
Class
activity
Noncontent
related
4
0
0
0
10
5
0
0
1
0
20
0
2
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
11
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
3
7
Frequency of reiteration
Sub-total
Lesson
explanation
Class
activity
Noncontent
related
Sub-total
5
2
0
0
17
6
0
3
2
3
38
10
0
4
0
9
5
0
0
3
0
31
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
5
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
7
13
0
4
1
15
5
2
0
3
0
43
Percentage of
Total message repetitions
18
2
4
1
32
11
2
3
5
3
81
27.78
100.0
0
0
53.13
54.55
0
100.0
40.0
100.0
46.91
International Journal of Multilingualism
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
Table 2.
17
18
D.C.-O. Then and S.-H. Ting
of translation (28 out of 61 or 45.90%) and reiteration (33 or 54.10%) in the message
repetitions. The high frequency of code-switching for these teachers determines
the general patterns of translation and reiteration in this study, but these patterns
need to be verified in other studies.
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
Conclusion
Within the context of code-switching in science and English as a second language
classroom in Malaysia, we have examined how languages are juxtaposed for various
functions of code-switching. The code-switching is mainly between English, the
language of instruction, and Bahasa Malaysia which is the national and official
language of Malaysia. On the basis of Gumperz’s (1982) model of conversational
code-switching, the classroom data revealed that the main functions of teacher codeswitching are reiteration and quotation. Most of the reiterations are message
repetitions involving words, concepts or instructions in Bahasa Malaysia. Repeated
reiterations mark the salience of the information, whereas single reiterations involve
mainly meaning of words. When the form of reiterations was analysed, it was found
that about half of them are direct translations aimed at ensuring conceptual
understanding of content or student compliance in classroom activities. The code
contrast captures students’ attention and helps to maintain the planned structure of
the class, as found by Greggio and Gil (2007). In addition, the alternation of
languages in repeated reiterations or quotation-reiteration sequences provide
evidence for the use of the sandwich technique (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009) to
ensure comprehension in which an initial utterance in English is reiterated in Bahasa
Malaysia, and again in English.
The English teachers under study were found to code-switch more frequently than
the science teachers. Furthermore, the English teachers also reiterated messages in
Bahasa Malaysia more frequently than the science teachers. This pattern of codeswitching for informational exchange is surprising given that in language lessons,
students are not only learning the content but also the language itself. The transcripts
showed that the science teachers were less dependent on code-switching to make
meaning because they could use examples and realia to explain scientific concepts such
as volume and processes such as digestion. By so doing, the teachers reformulated the
scientific terms and concepts in everyday language and circumvented the need for
translation. On the other hand, the English teachers tended to translate terms into
Bahasa Malaysia as a short-cut in the meaning making, particularly for vocabulary
items. It seems that using translation to overcome the barrier posed by unfamiliar
vocabulary is also the reason for code-switching in other studies (e.g. FlymanMattsson & Burenhult, 1999; Zabrodskaja, 2007). The code-switching reduces the
opportunity for both the teachers and students to negotiate meaning using available
linguistic resources, thereby compromising their ability to develop strategic competence in using English for functional communication. However, it can be argued that
since language learning is more than just acquiring the building blocks of the language,
the time saved through code-switching can be better spent on developing other
language skills which need to be learnt in a school year.
The frequent use of code-switching found in this study, about once in every two
to three minutes, indicates the important role of other languages, particularly Bahasa
Malaysia in facilitating learning. However, the extensive code-switching has sociopolitical implications. Code-switching reinforces the dominance of certain languages,
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
International Journal of Multilingualism
19
particularly the standard national and official language (Garcı́a, 1993). In the
Malaysian context where the study was conducted, switching to Bahasa Malaysia for
announcing school programmes and ministry directives reinforces Bahasa Malaysia
as the language of power. Because of its status as the official language, teachers who
are not members of the ethnic group in power also feel more comfortable switching
to Bahasa Malaysia than to languages of the less numerically dominant groups such
as Mandarin Chinese in the classroom. In the context of the classroom, teacher codeswitching to Bahasa Malaysia affirms the importance of this language in the
education of the students. These are positive implications in the context of the
national language policy.
In general, the findings on the facilitative role of code-switching in aiding student
comprehension concur with other studies on code-switching in either content (e.g.
Setati, 1998) or language classrooms (e.g. Greggio & Gil, 2007; Liebscher & DaileyO’Cain, 2005). The use of the students’ first languages provides a communicative
resource to facilitate learning when students lack proficiency in the language
of instruction. The scaffolding offered by the students’ first languages helps
guide students through the learning process (Garcı́a, 1991). In reality, the need for
effective communication in the classroom is so strong that teacher code-switching
takes place despite the existence of monolingual language policies on the medium of
instruction. Seen from the perspective of the implementation of language policies,
code-switching practice by the teacher is a compromise in providing target language
exposure in language classrooms and deprives students of the opportunity to
negotiate meaning in the language of instruction for content subjects. This is because
when code-switching is an alternative, students and teachers alike are not required to
develop strategic competence in using their available linguistic resources to make
meaning. On the other hand, by disallowing code-switching in the classroom, the
learning of students would be affected if they are not proficient in the language of
instruction. Jacobson (1981) supports the use of functional code-switching in
transitional bilingual classrooms. Citing Krashen (1982) on the importance of
comprehensible input to second language acquisition, Garcı́a (1993) advocates that
‘in some ways code-switching may facilitate English language acquisition by
providing a context from which to infer meaning’ (p. 32). In addition, codeswitching is a natural phenomenon of language use in settings when teachers and
students share the same languages (Simon, 2001). The classroom is a microcosm of
the larger speech community, and this study has shown that the multilingual
repertoires of the students is a communicative resource that can be used to help them
engage with the curriculum.
Note
1.
Originally called Bahasa Melayu or the Malay language, the national language was
renamed Bahasa Malaysia or Malaysian language after the racial conflict on 13 May, 1969
to emphasise the shared Malaysian identity (Omar, 1987). There was a brief return to the
use of the term Bahasa Melayu in 1984 when Anwar Ibrahim held the position of
education minister, but Bahasa Malaysia was again the official reference from 2007
onwards (Wong & Edwards, 2007).
20
D.C.-O. Then and S.-H. Ting
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
References
Blom, J.P., & Gumperz, J.J. (1986). Social meaning in linguistic structures. Code-switching in
Norway. In J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. The
ethnographic communication (pp. 407434). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. (2010). Background note: Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2777.htm
Butzkamm, W. (1998). Code-switching in a bilingual history lesson: The mother tongue as a
conversational lubricant. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
1(2), 8199.
Butzkamm, W., & Caldwell, J.A.W. (2009). The bilingual reform: A paradigm shift in foreign
language teaching. Tübingen: Narr Studienbücher.
Chan, S.H., & Tan, H. (2006). English for mathematics and science: Current Malaysian
language-in-education policies and practice. Language and Education, 20(4), 306321.
Chapman, K. (2009). It is Bahasa again but more emphasis will be placed on learning English.
The Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file/2009/7/9/nation/
4286168&secnation
Choi, J., & Kuipers, J. (2003). Bilingual practices in a science classroom: Bilingual Hispanic
students’ ways of constructing school science. Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/ scaleup/EQRE.doc
Cunningham, C. (2000). Translation in the classroom: A useful tool for second language
acquisition. Retrieved from http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/cindyc2.pdf
Flyman-Mattsson, A., & Burenhult, N. (1999). Code-switching in second language teaching of
French (Working Papers 47). Lund, Sweden: Lund University, Department of Linguistics.
French, J.R.P., & Raven, B.H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.),
Studies in social power (pp. 150167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Garcı́a, E. (1991). The education of linguistically and culturally diverse students: Effective
instructional practices (Educational Practice Reports: 1). Berkeley, CA: University of
California, National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language
Learning.
Garcı́a, O. (1993). Understanding the societal role of the teacher in transitional bilingual
classrooms: Lessons form sociology of language. In K. Zondag (Ed.), Bilingual education
in Friesland: Facts and prospects (pp. 2537). Leeuwarden, The Netherlands:
Gemeenschappelijk Centrum voor Onderwijsbegeleiding in Friesland. Retrieved from
http://www.web.gc.cuny.edu/urbaneducation/garcia/home/publications/37332.pdf
Garcı́a, O. (2010). Latino language practices and literacy education in the US. Retrieved from
http://www.web.gc.cuny.edu/urbaneducation/garcia/home/publications/pdfs/latinolanguage
practices.pdf
Garcı́a, O., Bartlett, L., & Kleifgen, J. (2007). From biliteracy to pluriliteracies. In P. Auer &
L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 207228).
New York: Mouton.
Gaudart, H. (1987). English language teaching in Malaysia: A historical account. The English
Teacher, XVI. Retrieved from http://www.melta.org.my/ET/1987/main2.html
Gill, S.K. (2006). Change in language policy in Malaysia: The reality of implementation in
public universities. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(1), 8294.
Giouroukakis, V., & Rauch, A. (2010). Science for the English language learner: Strategies to
enhance comprehension. Educator’s Voice, III. Retrieved from http://www.nysut.org/
educatorsvoice_14848.htm
Greggio, S., & Gil, G. (2007). Teacher’s and learners’ use of code switching in the English as a
foreign language classroom: A qualitative study. Linguagem & Ensino, 10(2), 371393.
Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). The language of science. New York: Continuum.
Jacobson, R. (1981). The implementation of a bilingual instructional model: The new
concurrent approach. In R.V. Padilla (Ed.), Ethnoperspectives in bilingual education
research, Vol. 3. Bilingual education technology (pp. 1429). Ypsilanti, MI: Eastern
Michigan University.
Krajka, J. (2004). Your mother tongue does matter! Translation in the classroom and on the
web. Teaching English with Technology. Retrieved from http://www.iatefl.org.pl/call/j_
review19.htm
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
International Journal of Multilingualism
21
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Lee, H.G. (2009). Language, education and ethnic relations. In T.G. Lim, A. Biomes, & A.
Rahman (Eds.), Multiethnic Malaysia: Past, present and future (pp. 207230). Petaling
Jaya, Malaysia: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre.
Leigh, M.B. (1974). The rising moon: Political change in Sarawak. Sydney: University of
Sydney Press.
Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2005). Learner code-switching in the content-based foreign
language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 234247.
Lim, T.S.K., & Mah, C.W. (2007). Language development strategies for the teaching of science
in English. Learning Science and Mathematics, 2, 4760. Retrieved from http://www.
recsam.edu.my/lsm/2007/2007_4_TLSK.pdf
Martin, P.W. (1996). Code-switching in the primary classroom: One response to the planned
and the unplanned language environment in Brunei. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 17(24), 128144.
Martin, P.W. (1999). Close encounters of a bilingual kind: Interactional practices in
the primary classroom in Brunei. International Journal of Educational Development, 19,
127140.
Martin, P. (2005). ‘‘Safe’’ language practices in two rural schools in Malaysia: Tensions
between policy and practice. In M.Y. Lin & P.W. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation,
globalization: Language-in-education policy and practice. New perspectives on language
and education (pp. 7497). Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.
Maths and science back to Bahasa, mother tongues. (2009). The Star. Retrieved from http://
www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file/2009/7/8/nation/20090708144354&secnation
McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. (1983). Power in the classroom I: Teacher and student
perceptions. Communication Education, 32, 176184.
Metha, N.K. (2010). English language teaching through the translation method. Translation
Journal, 14(1). Retrieved from http://www.translationjournal.net/journal/51mongolian.
htm
Nordin, A. (2005). Students’ perception on teaching and learning mathematics in
English. Bulletin Pendidikan Sains dan Matematik Johor [Johor Science and Mathematics
Education Bulletin], 14(1). Retrieved from http://www.eprints.utm.my/1507/1/KERT
ASINT.pdf
Omar, A.H. (1979). Language planning for unity and efficiency: A study of the language status
and corpus planning of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Omar, A.H. (1987). Patterns of language communication in Malaysia. In A.H. Omar (Ed.),
National language and communication in multilingual societies (pp. 1325). Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka and Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Onyango, O.R. (2009). An exploration of extra linguistic factors of English Kiswahili code
switching in FM industry in Kenya. Journal of Language. Technology & Entrepreneurship
in Africa, 1(2), 151159.
Orbash, D.N. (2008). Perceived teacher power use and credibility as a function of teacher selfdisclosure (Master’s thesis, Miami University, Oxford). Retrieved from http://www.etd.
ohiolink.edu/send pdf.cgi/Orbash%20Danielle%20Nicole.pdf ?miami1218140707
Pandian, A., & Ramiah, R. (2004). Mathematics and science in English: Teacher voice. The
English Teacher, XXXIII. Retrieved from http://www.melta.org.my/ET/2004/2004-50.pdf
Petrocchi, V. (2006). Translation as an aid in teaching English1 as a second language.
Translation Journal, 10(4). Retrieved from http://www.accurapid.com/journal/38teaching.
htm
Porritt, V.L. (1997). British colonial rule in Sarawak, 19461963. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
Oxford University Press.
Powell, R. (2002). Language planning and the British Empire: Comparing Pakistan, Malaysia
and Kenya. Current issues in Language Planning, 3(3), 205279.
Reini, J. (2008). The functions of teachers’ language choice and code-switching in EFL classroom
discourse (Master’s thesis, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland). Retrieved from http://www.
jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/18639/URN_NBN_fi_jyu-200806115441.pdf?
sequence1
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
22
D.C.-O. Then and S.-H. Ting
Ruan, J. (2003). A study of bilingual Chinese/English children’s code switching. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/
5jan2148l2.htm
Rusmin, R. (2008). Kenyataan timb. Menteri tanpa kajian [Assistant Minister’s statement
without research]. Malaysiakini. Retrieved from http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/
84231
Seidlitz, L.M. (2003). Functions of code-switching in classes of German as a foreign language
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas). Retrieved http://www.repositories.lib.utexas.
edu/bitstream/handle/2152/928/seidlitzlm032.pdf ?sequence2
Sert, O. (2005). The functions of code switching in ELT classrooms. The Internet TESL
Journal, XI(8), 16. Retrieved from http://www.iteslj.org/Articles/Sert-CodeSwitching.
html
Setati, M. (1998). Code-switching in a senior primary class of second-language mathematics
learners. Learning of Mathematics, 18(1), 3440.
Setati, M., Adler, J., Reed, Y., & Bapoo, A. (2002). Incomplete journeys: Code-switching and
other language practices in mathematics, science and English language classrooms in
South Africa. Language and Education, 16(2), 128149.
Shah, P.M., & Ahmad, F. (2007). A comparative account of the bilingual education programs
in Malaysia and the United States. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 7(2),
6377.
Sima, S., & Saeed, K. (2010). Translation: Towards critical-functional approach. Babel.
Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id227884969
Simon, D.L. (2001). Towards a new understanding of code-switching in the foreign language
classroom. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Code-switching worldwide II (pp. 311342). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Skiba, R. (1997). Code switching as a countenance of language interference. The Internet
TESL Journal, III(10), 16. Retrieved from http://www.iteslj.org/Articles/SkibaCodeSwitching.html
Tan, H., & Chan, S.H. (2003). Teaching mathematics and science in English: A perspective from
Universiti Putra Malaysia. Paper presented at the ELTC EteMS conference 2003:
Managing Curriculum Change. Retrieved from http://www.eltcm.org/eltc/Download/
conferences/8_parallelpaper_08.pdf
Then, D.C.O., & Ting, S.H. (2009). Preliminary study of code-switching in English and science
secondary school classrooms in Malaysia. Teaching of English as a Second or Foreign
Language (TESL-Electronic Journal), 13(1), A3. Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/
ej49/a3.html
Then, D.C.O., & Ting, S.H. (2010). Demystifying the notion of teacher code-switching for
student comprehension. Journal of English as an International Language, 5, 182197.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Ting, S.H. (2001). When is English not the right choice in Sarawak, Malaysia. English Today,
65, 5456.
Ting, S.H. (2010). Impact of language planning on language choice in friendship and
transaction domains in Sarawak, Malaysia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4),
397412.
Wong, C.W., & Edwards, A. (2007). Back to Bahasa Malaysia. The Star. Retrieved from http://
www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file/2007/6/4/nation/17923478&secnation
Yahaya, M.F.B., Noor, M.A.B.M., Mokhtar, A.A.B., Rawian, R.B.M., Othman, M.B., &
Jusoff, K. (2009). Teaching of mathematics and science in English: The teachers’ voices.
English Language Teaching, 2(2), 141147.
Zabrodskaja, A. (2007). Russian-Estonian code-switching in the university. Arizona Working
papers in SLA & Teaching, 14, 123139.
Zakaria, R. (2009). Role of code-switching in the talk of primary school mathematics and science
teachers. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Zheng, L. (2009). Living in two worlds code-switching amongst bilingual Chinese-Australian
children. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 5.15.18.
International Journal of Multilingualism
Appendix 1.
Code-switching functions in Gumperz’s (1982) semantic model
Function
Quotation
Addressee
specification
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
23
Interjections
Reiteration
Message
qualification
Personalisation vs.
objectivisation
Situational codeswitching
Description
Serves as direct quotations or as
reported speech
Example
She doesn’t speak English, so, dice
que la reganan: ‘Si se les va olvidar
el idioma a las criatura’ (she says
that they would scold her: ‘the
children are surely going to forget
their language’).
Serves to direct the message to one A: Sometimes you get excited and
of several addressees
then you speak in Hindi, then
again you go on to English.
B: No nonsense, it depends on
your command of English.
A: [shortly after turning to a third
participant, who has just returned
from answering the doorbell] K3 n
hai bai (who is it)?
Serves to mark an interjection or
A: Well, I’m glad I met you.
B: Andale pues (O.K. swell). And
sentence filler
do come again. Mm?
Serves to repeat a message from one Keep straight. Sidha jao [louder]
code to another code either literally (keep straight).
or in somewhat modified form
Serves to qualify constructions such The oldest one, la grande la de
as sentence and verb complements once anos (the big one who is
or predicates following a copula
eleven years old).
Serves to distinguish between talk A: Vig3 l3 ma y3 sa americ3
about action and talk as action, the (Wigele got them from America)
degree of speaker involvement in, B: Kanada prid3 (it comes from
or distance from, a message,
Canada).
whether a statement reflects
A: kanada mus I s3gn nit (I would
personal opinion or knowledge,
not say Canada).
whether it refers to specific
instances or has the authority of
generally known fact
Code-switching resulting from a
change in social setting: topic,
setting or participants
Source: Gumperz (1982, pp. 7581).
24
D.C.-O. Then and S.-H. Ting
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
Appendix 2.
Profile of teachers participating in the study
Subject(s)
trained to
teach
Proficient
languages
Teacher
Ethnic
Gender background
E1 School A
Male
E2 School A
Female Chinese
English
E3 School A
Female Chinese
English
English English
for Science and
Technology
E4 School A
Female Indigenous
English
E5 School A
Female Chinese
English
E6 School A
Male
Chinese
English
E7 School A
Female Chinese
English
E8 School B
Female Malay
English
E9 School C
Male
English
S1 School A
Female Indigenous
Mathematics
S2 School A
Male
Science and
Mathematics
S3 School B
Female Chinese
English English
for Science and
Technology
Moral education
English History English
Bahasa
Malaysia &
Mandarin
Chinese
English
English
Bahasa
Malaysia &
Mandarin
Chinese
English
English
Bahasa
Malaysia &
Mandarin
Chinese
English Civics
English
(proficient)
Bahasa
Malaysia
(proficient)
English
English &
Bahasa
Malaysia
Science
English &
Mathematics
Bahasa
Malaysia
Science
English &
Mathematics
Bahasa
Malaysia
Science
English
Bahasa
Malaysia &
Mandarin
Chinese
Indigenous
Indigenous
Indigenous
General
education
Science
Subject(s) taught
English Physical
education Moral
education
English
English &
Bahasa
Malaysia
English,
Bahasa
Malaysia &
Mandarin
Chinese
English
Bahasa
Malaysia &
Mandarin
Chinese
English
&Bahasa
Malaysia
International Journal of Multilingualism
25
Downloaded By: [Curtin University of Technology] At: 01:14 23 June 2011
Appendix 2. (Continued )
Teacher
Ethnic
Gender background
S4 School C
Male
S5 School C
Indigenous
Subject(s)
trained to
teach
Subject(s) taught
Science
Science
Female Chinese
English
Science Chinese
S6 School C
Female Indigenous
Science
Science
S7 School A
Female Chinese
Science
Science
S8 School A
Female Chinese
Science
Science
S9 School A
Female Indigenous
Science
Science
Proficient
languages
English &
Bahasa
Malaysia
English
Bahasa
Malaysia &
Mandarin
Chinese
English &
Bahasa
Malaysia
English
Bahasa
Malaysia &
Mandarin
Chinese
English
Bahasa
Malaysia &
Mandarin
Chinese
English &
Bahasa
Malaysia