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, 1
25, 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 30
40 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 teacher
student 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 teacher
student 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. 407
434). 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), 81
99. 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), 306
321. 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. 150
167). 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. 25
37). 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. 207
228). 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), 82
94. 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), 371
393. 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. 14
29). 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. 207
230). 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), 234
247. Lim, T.S.K., & Mah, C.W. (2007). Language development strategies for the teaching of science in English. Learning Science and Mathematics, 2, 47
60. 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(2
4), 128
144. Martin, P.W. (1999). Close encounters of a bilingual kind: Interactional practices in the primary classroom in Brunei. International Journal of Educational Development, 19, 127
140. 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. 74
97). 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, 176
184. 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. 13
25). 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), 151
159. 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, 1946
1963. 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), 205
279. 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), 1
6. 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), 34
40. 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), 128
149. 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), 63
77. 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. 311
342). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Skiba, R. (1997). Code switching as a countenance of language interference. The Internet TESL Journal, III(10), 1
6. 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, 182
197. 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, 54
56. 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), 397
412. 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), 141
147. Zabrodskaja, A. (2007). Russian-Estonian code-switching in the university. Arizona Working papers in SLA & Teaching, 14, 123
139. 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), 5.1
5.18. 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. 75
81). 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