The Language Learning Journal

ISSN: 0957-1736 (Print) 1753-2167 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rllj20

Code-switching functions in postcolonial

classrooms

Yan Chen & Eliane Rubinstein-Avila

To cite this article: Yan Chen & Eliane Rubinstein-Avila (2018) Code-switching functions
in postcolonial classrooms, The Language Learning Journal, 46:3, 228-240, DOI:
10.1080/09571736.2015.1035669

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1035669

Published online: 21 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 366

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rllj20
THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL, 2018
VOL. 46, NO. 3, 228–240
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1035669

Code-switching functions in postcolonial classrooms

Yan Chena and Eliane Rubinstein-Avilab
a
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; bDepartment of Teaching, Learning &
Sociocultural Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This paper focuses on code-switching (CS) in postcolonial (P-C) classrooms code-switching; L1 use in L2
(e.g. Africa, Asia and Asia-Pacific) where the use of English has increased classrooms; postcolonial;
not only as a subject matter, but also as the language of instruction classroom practices
across all subjects. CS, a common behaviour among bilinguals and
polyglots, refers broadly to the alternation between two or more
languages or language varieties in a single conversation, and has
received much attention—in terms of both its grammatical dimensions
and sociolinguistic function. Rather than focusing on the grammatical
dimensions of CS, this paper examines the sociolinguistic functions. The
paper highlights attitudinal conflicts between educational language
policies and classroom practices in regard to CS. Supporters argue that
CS facilitates language learning and creates a supportive classroom
environment. Opponents argue that it is counterproductive, because it
does not foster acquisition in the second (or additional) language. This
paper examines this conflict and highlights how it plays out in P-C
classroom contexts. The authors provide implication for both classroom
practice and future research.

Although multilingualism, at least bilingualism, is a common global phenomenon, tensions around

who is, or is not, considered to be bilingual abound (Grosjean 2010). Concepts about bilingualism
and bilingual behaviour have evolved across the last few decades. In the 1950s, Weinreich (1953)
claimed that the ‘ideal bilingual’ was an individual who switches between languages according to
appropriate changes in the speech context, but not in an unchanged speech situation or within a
sentence. Concepts and attitudes about bilingualism by applied linguists, who study language use
in their social, cultural and political contexts, have definitely changed; nevertheless, theoretical ten-
sions across the literature still abound. Few scholars today support concepts such as ‘ideal’ bilingual
or ‘tidy bilingualism’ (Weinreich 1953). Such views have fallen out of favour across the research litera-
ture, and it is now more widely accepted that bilingualism is ‘messy’ (Grosjean 2010). However, policy-
makers, school administrators and practitioners overall may still hold on to linguistic conservative
views towards code-switching (CS).
CS is defined slightly differently across the research literature; for example, Milroy and Muysken
(1995) use CS to refer to both the switching from one language to another between sentences and
within sentences. Kachru (1978), Singh (1985) and Sridhar and Sridhar (1980) use the term CS for
switches between sentences, and the term ‘code-mixing’ for switches within sentences. In our
paper, we use the term CS to stand for both types of switches. Numerous studies have demonstrated
that bilinguals switch languages or dialects both between sentences and within sentences, and that
such practice fulfils a variety of functions (Gumperz 1982; Li 1998; Myers-Scotton 1993). Among lay
folk, attitudes towards CS are often negative. Negative attitudes towards CS may stem partly from

CONTACT Eliane Rubinstein-Avila rubinste@email.arizona.edu

© 2015 Association for Language Learning
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 229

the belief about language standardisation and standard language ideology (Ferguson 2003; Grosjean
2010). Language ideology encompasses popular ideas and beliefs about language, such as (1) that
‘standard’ language is distinct from—and superior to—other varieties of the language, and that
there are correct and incorrect ways of speaking; and (2) that the standard language is a symbol
of national identity, whose purity and uniqueness should be upheld (Milroy 1999).
The focus of our paper is on bilingual behaviours—specifically CS practices and their multiple
functions—in postcolonial (P-C) classroom contexts. What do we mean by P-C classrooms? Although
we are well aware that the term P-C is complex and highly contested, a thorough discussion of the
term is beyond the scope of our paper and beyond our expertise. As Childs and Williams (1997: 21)
have suggested, although P-C is not ‘a singular ahistorical abstraction’, it is widely viewed as a period
during which territories and nations were colonised by the West, and have since endured uneven and
incomplete processes of decolonisation. In this P-C context, languages tend to be sites of domination
and/or resistance. We chose to highlight classrooms in such contexts since lingering political, social,
ethnic and cultural tensions are likely to play out in settings in which the language of schooling is not
the native language spoken in students’ and teachers’ homes and communities.
We purposefully excluded reviewing studies on classroom contexts across the USA, despite our
nation’s ‘long sordid history … in regards to sanctioned practice[s] of linguistic suppression and cul-
tural domestication’ (Leistyna 2014: 95). We excluded US classrooms for two main reasons: (1) in
general, studies conducted in the USA do not tend to focus on or include mention of studies con-
ducted in P-C and non-English speaking nations; (2) our primary intent, within our scope, and in
the space available, was to highlight the work of international scholars and practitioners, whose
work contributes to our broader understanding of the use of CS in classroom contexts globally.
Colonial languages, such as English, French or Portuguese, are still the official medium of instruc-
tion, especially at the upper primary and secondary levels across many P-C contexts, despite the fact
that they may not be the home/community languages of students and/or teachers (Ferguson 2003).
The conflict between the relics of the colonial period and the current day-to-day linguistic experience
of the students and the teachers is instantiated in classrooms. In fact, we venture to speculate that
teachers’ use of CS may be a conscious, or unconscious, way to not only mitigate ‘official’ language
education policies in their classrooms, but also resist them.
We also chose to focus on studies conducted in classrooms in which English is the medium of
instruction, either as a foreign/second/additional language (i.e. English as a subject) or as the
medium of instruction across all subjects. Our rationale is that as the status of English has risen glob-
ally, as a consequence of colonial language policies and its burgeoning prestige as an international
language, the use of English as a medium of instruction across P-C nations has been increasingly pro-
moted (De Swaan 2001; Ferguson 2000, 2003). Consequently, our paper highlights the (implicit and
explicit) tensions between the top-down language policy and the bottom-up classroom linguistic
practices across the literature we reviewed.
Although our initial goal was to explore the attitude and functions of CS between teachers and
students as well as among students, we found the body of literature on students’ attitudes and prac-
tices towards CS across P-C classroom contexts to be minimal. Therefore, we focus on teacher–stu-
dents interaction and call for more research on students’ attitudes towards CS in P-C classrooms.
Understanding how students view, and use, CS in their learning environment is essential, because
it would allow teachers and educational researchers to glean insights into the impact of CS on learn-
ing from an emic perspective. Also, although Li and Martin (2009) found that CS is still viewed largely
negatively in classrooms, we argue, as many before us have, that CS not only serves different invalu-
able purposes (see Carvalho’s 2012 review), but also fulfils multiple functions in P-C classroom con-
texts. In fact, Valdés-Fallis (1978) and Zentella (1981) are likely to have been the first to publish
scholarship on the interactional and pedagogical strategies accomplished by bilingual Latin Ameri-
can and students across bilingual classroom settings in the USA. These two scholars have argued ada-
mantly that the practice of CS, while seemingly natural among bilinguals, requires a great deal of
proficiency and knowledge of both languages by the interlocutors—not the opposite, as others
230 Y. CHEN AND E. RUBINSTEIN-AVILA

continue to suggest. Therefore, our paper, which highlights the use of CS in P-C classrooms, is a
humble, yet vital contribution to the pedagogical research literature on bilingual behaviours and
practices.

P-C English (only) as the EFL & language of instruction

In many of the P-C societies, English has become the only language of instruction for at least in
English subject classes. For example, in many African countries (e.g. South Africa, Cameroon and
Kenya), English is one of the official languages of education or at least the lingua franca and preferred
medium of instruction, and is introduced early in the curriculum (Probyn 2005). In fact, Probyn (2005)
reports that in rural areas of South Africa, English is the official language of learning, and begins from
at least as early as the fourth grade, while it is introduced even earlier (first grade) in the more cos-
mopolitan areas; contrary to the recommendation of South Africa’s Language-in-Education Policy in
1997, which was designed to promote the use of learners’ home languages as media of instruction,
schools have informal language policies to extend instruction in English (Probyn 2005), and both
parents and students consider exposure to English as early as possible as beneficial since it is associ-
ated with socio-economic prestige. Despite the fact that English is the home language for less than
9% of the population in the area, English has been used in different areas in the society, in govern-
ment, in central economy, in scientific and technical communication, etc. (Probyn 2005). With such
prestige, English has won over its competitor—Afrikaans—in this case, in becoming the medium
of teaching and learning.
This scenario is not unique to African countries. Similar language policies are found in P-C societies
in the Asia-Pacific area. Malaysia, a former British colony, put into effect the ‘all Malay’ policy in 1969 in
the wake of the 1969 riot, which changed the medium of instruction from English to Bahasa Malay
(Ozog 1993). In 2003, the medium of instruction was switched back to English at least for mathematics
and science subjects in the national schools and secondary schools. This shift seemed to have occurred
as a response to the perceived downturn in the standards of English, and the reduced number of
English speakers (Ozog 1993). Because of the global impact of English and its embodiment as the
‘language of development, modernisation, capitalism, science, technology and even democracy’ (Pen-
nycook 1994: 201), the aim of the shift, since 2003, was to produce a technologically literate workforce
that can perform competently in an international context under globalisation (Martin 2005). Although
English is neither the official language nor the national language of Malaysia, the learning of English is
associated with what is called ‘pragmatic nationalism’, as it ‘brings about development and progress for
the country’ (Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia’s former Prime Minister, The Sun, 11 September 1999; cited
in Martin 2005: 92). However, the government abolished the teaching of mathematics and science in
English in 2012, reintroducing Bahasa Malay as the medium of instruction, because the previous policy
did not produce desired outcomes. The Malaysian government still recognises the importance of
English and commits to making English a strong second language.
Hong Kong, which was also a former British colony, is different from Malaysia in that English is the
co-official language in this region. However, English has become more like a foreign language than a
second language (Li 1999, 2000). There have been four medium-of-instruction policies to date in
Hong Kong: the laissez-faire policy prior to 1994, the streaming policy during 1994–1998, the compul-
sory Chinese medium-of-instruction policy during 1998–2010 and the most recent, fine-tuning
medium of instruction policy since 2010 (Poon, Lau and Chu 2013). In the first policy period,
English was claimed to be the medium of instruction in the majority of secondary schools. In the
second, schools were designated English-medium schools, Chinese-medium schools and two-
medium schools. After the handover back to the People’s Republic of China, the compulsory
Chinese medium-of-instruction policy began. This policy was criticised because it was blamed for
the decline in English standards and students’ lack of motivation to learn English (Poon 2009b;
Yip, Coyle and Tsang 2007). The most recent policy was meant to solve this problem by allowing sec-
ondary schools to offer English-medium classes, partial-English-medium classes and/or Chinese-
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 231

medium classes pending schools’ ability to offer classes in English as the language of instruction
(Poon 2009b). As a legacy of the colonial era and a global language, English has enjoyed much popu-
larity with the people of Hong Kong. Students and their parents continue to value English over
Chinese as the preferred medium of instruction (Poon 2009a).
The general view is that English is best taught and learned—as a medium of instruction either in
English subject classes or across all subjects—monolingually (Phillipson 1992). Using the native
language alongside English or CS between English and the native language is frowned upon, stem-
ming from policy-makers’ and some teachers’ view of CS as dysfunctional—a malpractice that threa-
tens the purity of each language, and a view of code-switchers as confused (Li and Martin 2009). As
concluded by Ferguson (2003: 44), the official attitudes tend to be ‘stubbornly negative’. As a result,
the idea of language purity is a strong social constraint against CS (Mahootian 2006).

English-only instruction and its drawbacks

In English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom contexts, using English as the sole language of
instruction may be vital since the classrooms may well be the only space in which learners have
access to the target language. The L2-only approach holds that learners ought to be immersed
in the target language as long as comprehensible language input is provided, increasing the effec-
tiveness of the learning process, and leading to an increase in linguistic competence (Krashen 1981).
Therefore, teachers are advised to conduct the whole class in the L2, including classroom manage-
ment and organisation (Ellis 1988; Krashen 1982; Macdonald 1993). However, the use of English as
the language of instruction in many P-C societies has been extended to all content subjects—not in
English (subject) language classes only. For example, in South Africa, it is assumed that using
English across all content subjects helps improve students’ English proficiency (Brock-Utne 2005).
There are two issues to consider: (1) the linguistic theories supporting L2-only instruction are ques-
tionable, since they equate native language acquisition and second/foreign language acquisition.
The similarities between L1 and L2 acquisition are overemphasised, ignoring the peculiarities of
L2 learning. For example, learners acquiring a second or addition language (L2) bring into the learn-
ing process prior linguistic knowledge of L1 that helps them make sense of the new linguistic
knowledge presented to them. (2) The use of English-only instruction in such environments is
especially impractical to implement in public secondary schools, where there are many more stu-
dents per class, and students’ levels in language proficiency and content knowledge may vary radi-
cally (Richards and Rogers 2012). In addition, while English teachers in private language schools are
often native speakers of the target language, teachers in public schools are not necessarily profi-
cient in English in public P-C classroom contexts (Martin 2005; Probyn 2005). In fact, in P-C contexts,
teachers who are not English (subject) language teachers may themselves have limited proficiency
in English. Therefore, it is unlikely that in such situations students would benefit from English-only
instruction.
In reality, teachers find English-only instruction in classrooms challenging. The main issues
reported by teachers are that students, who have low proficiency in English, have difficulties compre-
hending teachers’ instruction and engaging in class. This is somewhat to be expected since English
language learners in an English-only classroom are ‘delayed in their language, cognitive, and aca-
demic development until they understand enough of the English instruction to receive any benefits’
(Freeman and Freeman 2006). Osaki’s (1991) observations of the science teaching in secondary
schools in Tanzania provide a perfect example of this in practice. He observed that students’ input
was very limited in the classrooms where a teacher insisted on using English in the science lesson.
In fact, he claimed that teachers would end up talking to themselves.
Moreover, Brock-Utne (2005) agrees with several African educators, who claim that the major learning
problem of African students stems from the use of English, which may be a barrier to content area knowl-
edge. During her research on language-in-education policies and practices in Tanzania and South Africa,
Brock-Utne (2005) recalled an interview with a student who acknowledged that he had great difficulties
232 Y. CHEN AND E. RUBINSTEIN-AVILA

following the teacher who used English only. The student claimed that it would have been much easier for
him to learn the content if his home language was also used in class. Similar issues were also reported by
Probyn (2005), where students had comprehension problems in English-only content classes, even if they
had been exposed to English and had studied English as a subject for several years.
P-C societies outside Africa exhibit similar problems. Malaysia shifted the teaching of mathematics and
science from English to Bahasa Malaysian starting in 2012, because the former language-in-education
policy, which required the teaching of science and mathematics to be in English, failed to improve stu-
dents’ grades. The students who suffered the most from the former language policy, implemented in
2003, were those in rural districts, whose English proficiency level was limited (Martin 2005). In Hong
Kong, although Chinese students and parents continue to value English as a language of instruction
and prefer English-medium schools to Chinese-medium schools, English as a medium of instruction
has proven to be less effective than Chinese (Tung, Lam and Tsang 1997). This finding parallels the find-
ings from African schools: that secondary-school students taught in their native languages did far better
than those who were taught in English (Mwinsheikhe 2003; Prophet and Dow 1994).
The communication break down due to the English-only instruction cannot be resolved unless the
native languages of the students are used for strategies such as peer-teaching or peer-tutoring, as
suggested by Finnochiaro (1988) and Sionis (1990). Although there is a top-down language policy
imposed on teachers, requiring them to use English only for instruction, the literature shows that
in effect there is a bottom-up practice instantiated in classroom—resisting the ‘official’ language pol-
icies (Ferguson 2003; Martin 2005; Probyn 2005).

Functions of CS in PC classrooms
CS has a wide range of pedagogical purposes in classrooms. Although Flyman-Mattsson and Buren-
hult (1999) did not focus on P-C classrooms, we rely on their findings to organise the functions of CS
in classrooms. The authors identified five explanations from their analysis of classroom interactions
between teachers and Swedish students learning French, as a second or additional language
(Flyman-Mattsson and Burenhult 1999):

(1) Linguistic insecurity, for example, the difficulty teachers experience in relating new concepts.
(2) Topic switch, for example, when the teacher switches code according to which topic is under dis-
cussion; it might be suggested, for instance, that certain aspects of foreign language teaching
such as grammar instruction is preferably expressed in the mother tongue of the students.
(3) Affective function, for example, spontaneous expression of emotions and emotional understand-
ing in discourse with students.
(4) Socialising functions, for example, when teachers turn to the students’ first language to signal
friendship and solidarity.
(5) Repetitive functions, for example, when teachers convey the same message in both languages for
clarity.

Studies on CS in P-C classrooms demonstrate similar functions. For example, Pennington (1995) sum-
marises four functions of CS used in English subject lessons (EFL) in secondary schools in Hong Kong:

(1) to explicate English lexis,

(2) to gain students’ attention and encourage interaction,
(3) to explain subject content and
(4) to reduce social distance, and humanise classroom atmosphere

However, as noticed by Raschka, Sercombe and Huang (2009), providing discrete categorisation of
each instantiation of CS is difficult—if not impossible. This is because there are many factors that
influence the functions of an utterance that contains CS. For example, the locus of a switch affects
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 233

its function; an utterance containing CS may signal two or more functions simultaneously, and may
interact with other utterances of CS in complex ways. Nevertheless, according to Ferguson (2003), CS
used by teachers in classrooms can be categorised into three main broad functions: explanatory func-
tion, socialising function and classroom management function. Next, we expand on each of these
three categories.

Explanatory function
It is a common problem that students fail to understand their teachers or the content of the materials
being taught to them in that language due to their limited resources in that language. In order to
solve this problem, teachers code-switch to the native language to explain, annotate or comment
on the concepts and the materials where the comprehension problems may arise. This is referred
to as ‘unpacking the meaning’ by Martin (1999). This kind of CS is an instance of Auer’s partici-
pant-related CS (Auer 1984). It is hearer-oriented as teachers know that the students do not have
enough English competence to make sense of the instruction in English and they cater to students
by switching into the shared native language to scaffold understanding.
The following excerpt is from a geography lesson in a Year 4 classroom in Brunei, where English is
the medium of instruction. The teacher and the students are reading an English sentence Then there are
insects who like to eat vegetables, so Zainal sprays chemicals to kill the insects. The teacher explains the
text by asking questions regarding the sentence in Malay, which is the native language of the students.
Students respond in Malay and demonstrate that they have understood the sentence. The teacher con-
firms the students’ answers and repeats it back in English. Through the use of CS, the teacher provides
scaffolding for the understanding of the sentence and they negotiate in meaning successfully.

Excerpt 1 (Martin 1999: 51)

P: Spraying.
T: Spraying? Spraying apa? (What does he spray?)
P: {Racun (poison)
P: Insect
T: Racun. He sprays. Chemicals. Untak apa dia spray chemical atu? (Why does he spray the chemicals?). Untuk membunah (to kill)
P: Serangga (insects)
T: Apa pasal serangga perlu dibunuhyna? (why do the insects need to be killed?)
T: Makan sayur (they eat vegetables)

A similar pattern is seen in a Year 7 Jaffna classroom. In this English as a second language class, the
students are learning the names of fruits. The teacher elicits students’ responses by asking questions
in Tamil, students’ L1. The students respond in Tamil and the teacher repeats and emphasises the key
words in English.

Excerpt 2 (Canagarajah 2001: 205)

Teacher: inraikku niinkal viiTTilai enna palankaL caappiTTa niinkaL? cila peer kaalamai caappaaTTikku paLankaL caappiTiravai
ello?
(Today we are going to study about fruits. What fruits do you usually eat? // ‘What fruits did you eat this morning at
home? Don’t some people eat fruits for breakfast?’)
Student 1: naan maampaLam caappiTTanaan, Miss
(I ate mangoes)
Teacher: Good mangoes, eh? maampalam enRaal mangoes
(Maampalam means mangoes)
Student 2: vaaLappaLam caappitta naan, Miss
(I ate bananas)
Teacher: Okay, bananas

CS is also used to convey instructions for a task to be performed. In Excerpt 3, the teacher in a Year
7 class in Sri Lanka switches from English to Tamil when providing instructions for an oral exercise.
This facilitates the understanding of the task and is time saving. If the instruction were given in
English, the students may not have been able to understand the teacher, the teacher would have
234 Y. CHEN AND E. RUBINSTEIN-AVILA

to spend more time explaining and demonstrating what he meant, and perhaps, there would not be
enough time to complete the task the teacher had designed for that particular class period.

Excerpt 3 (Canagarajah 2001: 202)

Teacher: We will practice question forms next. [To Student 1]
Niinkal vaankoo
(You come)
(Student 1 comes forward. Teacher gives her a picture to hold)
[To class] cari, iva inta paTattu aal enTu yosiyunkoo.
(Okay, imagine that she is the person depicted in the picture)
[To Student 2] ini niir ummuTaya keeLvikalay vassiyum
(Now you read your questions)
Student 2: Who are you?
Student 1: I am a policeman

Socialising function
CS in classroom has been reported to serve the socialising function, which helps to create a learner-
friendly environment. Learning in a second/foreign language is, more often than not, a high-anxiety
activity. Krashen’s (1981) work on Monitor Model of language acquisition suggests that a learner’s
learning outcome is diminished if the ‘affective filter’ is high. The affective filter, he explains, is an
impediment to learning or acquisition due to negative emotions such as stress, anxiety and self-
doubt (Krashen 1981). In line with Gumperz’ (1982) semantic model of CS, which claims that using
the native language of the speakers conveys a sense of solidarity (‘we’ code), while the non-native
language is associated with social distance (‘they’ code), in classrooms where the teacher and the stu-
dents share a common native language, the teachers who use CS express solidarity with the students
by engaging the students in their shared native language.
In fact, a common use of CS in classrooms is praising students in their native language. Students
perceive praise by the teacher in the native language to be more genuine than praise in the non-
native language, which can seem formulaic (see also Lin 1996). Excerpt 4 is from a geography
class in a secondary school in South Africa; the teacher switches from English to Zulu to praise a
student:

Excerpt 4 (Adendorff 1993: 150)

T: What is a flood plain?
P: A flood plain is a heap of soil or sand which is deposited on banks of a river or a stream when the river or a stream has been in
flood.
T: (Confirming the answer with raised volume) Very good, Sigqemezana, uyasebenzake silwa- ne. (Sigqemezana, you are
really working very hard).

The ‘we code’ language is also used to relieve tension in the classroom. For example, in Excerpt 5,
the teacher of a biology class in a secondary school in South Africa switches from English to Zulu to
make a humorous remark:

Excerpt 5 (Adendorff 1993: 149)

The population dynamics will give you a lot of marks. All right, I have not done what I was called for. But you will all pass Biology. It
is only that you get into the examination room fascinated, excited, ucabanga ukuthi into elukhuni inde futhi lento. ( … then you
will think that the paper is difficult and exceedingly long.). [The pupils laugh out loud. The teacher’s speech is slow. He stresses every
word and elongates the penultimate vowels.] Uyabona? … we bathule nje babone i-question exakile bathi we babe!! (Do you
see? They stare at the question paper and realise it is one that they cannot attempt to answer and will cry out, Oh Father!!) [The pupils
again laugh loudly. The teacher places heavy stress on ‘babone’].

Excerpt 6 shows CS by a Hong Kong teacher in his science class who attempts to create a warm
and friendly atmosphere as he switches to Cantonese to make favourable remarks on his students’
science projects. As noted in Lin (1996), in Hong Kong society, a Chinese–English bilingual would
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 235

switch to Cantonese if he or she were serious about establishing a genuine and friendly relationship
with another Chinese person.

Excerpt 6 (Lin 1996: 67)

094 Jauh chin keih mh hou jeung keuih yat tek jouh tek jouh lohk go jih ji lo douh, saai jo di sam gei (but don’t kick it
into the waste paper basket, a waste of your effort.)
095 waahkje neih ho yih jeung tiuh sin cheun hei keuih diu hai neih go fong douh; hou leng ge. Mh hou saai jo keuih;
ho yih jih gei lo faan laak. (or you can put a thread through it and hang it up in your room; very beautiful. Don’t waste it; you
can get it back yourself.)
096 Now you take out your note book. we come back to Mathematics. Turn to Exercise Eleven C. We look at the problems.

Classroom management function

The third function of CS in classroom is classroom management. CS demarcates different ‘frames’ in a
lesson (Goffman 1974). Lesson content is conveyed mainly by the official language of instruction, but
the ‘off-lesson’ matters are conveyed by the native language. Such ‘off-lesson’ matters include
gaining students’ attention, disciplining students, admonishing students and clarifying task instruc-
tion. This use of CS is speaker-oriented, discourse-related CS (Auer 1984). It signals a shift in topics or
frames and provides a structural organisation of the classroom discourse.
Merritt et al. (1992) identify the use of CS as an attention-focusing device. Such use can be seen in
Excerpt 7, where the teacher in a Form 1 science lesson in a Malta secondary school code-switches to
Maltese from English to gain students’ attention.

Excerpt 7 (Camilleri 1996: 101)

Teacher Right. Can I have silence now. [learners quiet down]
irridkom toqoghdu attenti hafna. Ghal-lesson Ok ghaliex hija. Sa nibdew unit gdid. Xi ftit mill-a arijet li. Sa
naghmlu. F’dan il-unit sa jkolkom zgur fl-ezami allura tridu toqughdu attenti iktar.
(I want you to give your full attention to the lesson ok because it is. We are going to start a new unit. Some of the things
that we are going to do in this unit are definitely going to come out in the exam and therefore you must pay more
attention.)

When disciplining students’ behaviours, teachers tend to engage in CS for ‘moral discourse’ (Fer-
guson 2003), switching from the language of instruction to the shared native language. The author
maintains that the preferred language for ‘moral discourse’ is the local language of the teachers’ and
students’ community. In the following excerpt from Lin (1996) on the analysis of a classroom in a sec-
ondary school in Hong Kong, the teacher switches to Cantonese from English (the language of
instruction) to discipline the students as the teacher checks students’ homework.

Excerpt 8 (Lin 1996: 64)

024 How about you?
025 Oh, neih meih jouh hou hah? Chahn Gwai-hou. Laahndi-wo. Neih ne? Neih leuhng go jouh matyeh? Hah?
Mhgeidak-jo dou yauh ge me! Hah? Gunfg fo dou yauh mh geidak jouh ge me? Hah? Neih leuhng go jouh matyeh?
(Oh! You haven’t done it eh Chahn Gwai-hou. So lazy. And you? You two, why? What? Forgotten? How can that be? Eh! Is there
such a thing as forgetting to do homework? What? You two? What do you think you’re doing?)

A similar event is seen in classrooms in Kenya. Bunyi (2005) provides an example of a teacher
admonishing her students and keeping order in a class. This is a Standard 4 classroom and the
teacher code-switches from English to Gikuyu for classroom management purposes:

Excerpt 9 (Bunyi 2005: 142)

T: What is the noise for? Nũũ ũcio ũtoĩ ũrĩa agĩrĩirwo nĩ gwĩka? (What is the noise for? Who doesn’t know what he/she is
supposed to do?)
T: Where was this book when the … Rĩrĩa mabuku mararehetwo waregire kũrehe wĩra ũyũ nĩkĩ? Ta rũgama. (Where was
this book when the … Why did you not bring this work when the books were brought? Stand up).
236 Y. CHEN AND E. RUBINSTEIN-AVILA

Teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards CS in classrooms

Despite the research, which shows that the use of CS in the classroom is a common linguistic feature
across P-C classrooms, serving a wide range of interactional and pedagogical functions, policy-
makers, and some educators, do not endorse CS as an appropriate classroom practice. Many teachers
still regard the use of a native language alongside English as a negative pedagogical practice (Aden-
dorff 1996; Martin 2005; Probyn 2001, 2002, 2005; Setati et al. 2002). Counter-intuitive as it may seem,
this negative attitude towards the use of local languages in P-C classrooms may stem from what has
been called the ‘monolingual fallacy’ (Phillipson 1992), the idea that English is best taught monolin-
gually and the false assumption that using English as a language of instruction across all subjects
improves English proficiency.
Critics, however, claim that as a result of these English-only policies, students learn neither English
nor the subjects taught in English (Qorro 2002). Qorro suggested that improving the teaching of
English as a subject (EFL) would be more effective in developing English proficiency, in the long
run, than using English as a medium of instruction across subject matters. Unfortunately, teachers
who do use CS in the classroom are often blamed for their lack of English competence, and their
use of CS is also seen as ‘sabotaging’ the official educational language policy (Martin 2005).
Exploring teachers’ attitudes and conscious CS practices is a more recent development. Two
researchers in Iran, Samar and Moradkhani (2014), sought to delve into the underlying cognitive
processes that guided four EFL teachers’ decisions to code-switch between L1 (in this case
Persian) and the target language (English) in their FL classrooms. Citing recent studies, the
authors suggested that FL teachers these days may have a more positive attitude towards the
use of L1 than they did in the past—viewing switches to L1 ‘as a constructive instrument’. We
include the Persian context, because according to Grassian (2013):
… Iran can be considered a postcolonial country, having gained its independence (debatably) during the 1979
Iranian Revolution from Western backed monarchy led by the Shah, who it has been suggested, was put in place
by the United States in 1953 … (Grassian: 11)

In Samar and Moradkhani’s (2014) study, participating teachers claimed that student comprehensi-
bility accounted for the majority of their CS decisions. However, lowering students’ affective filter
(Krashen 1985) was also claimed as a rationale. Less frequently, teachers also stated that they
switched to the L1 to encourage comparison between the two languages as a strategy to aid reten-
tion. One teacher explained that switching to Persian (L1) was most effective to point out cognates:
[In this occasion] I wanted to make students notice that blouse is the same as blooz /blu:z/. So students do not
need to look for a word for the shirt they have on because blooz in Persian is the same as blouse in English.
(Samar and Moradkhani: 160)

However, only examining attitudes to, and the functions and value of, CS in classrooms from the tea-
chers’ perspective is inadequate and incomplete. It is essential that we broaden the exploration of
how students experience, practise and view the use of CS in the learning environment. Students’
view of CS can, and should, inform teaching. Although there is a relatively large body of literature
that investigates the functions of CS in P-C classrooms, little research has been dedicated to the
issue of students’ attitudes towards CS in such classroom settings. Although there are anecdotal
reports (Brock-Utne 2005; Bunyi 2005; Probyn 2005; etc.), there is little systematic research—qualitat-
ive or quantitative—on students’ CS practices and perspectives.
Among the few existing published studies that explore students’ views, Van der Meij and Zhao
(2010) investigated the use of CS in English (EFL) classes in universities in China. The study included
40 teachers and 450 students; research questions explored whether students viewed the use of CS by
teachers favourably, and if they preferred shorter or longer CS exchanges. The analysis of the ques-
tionnaire showed that while teachers claimed that they aimed to use less CS, and only for shorter
exchanges, students wanted more CS and for longer moments. Alenezi (2010) obtained similar find-
ings on the use of CS in English–Arabic classrooms. Alenezi utilised questionnaires (quantitative) and
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 237

open-ended questions (analysed qualitatively) to examine attitude towards CS among 17 occu-

pational therapy students in a university in Kuwait. Most students (14 out of 17) indicated a strong
preference towards using CS in class, and thought that the use of CS rendered instruction more com-
prehensible. For example, one student commented that: ‘When [the] teacher teaches in English and
explains in Arabic, [then] I can understand very easily and this improves my language’ (Alenezi 2010:
14). Students’ preferences, for or against CS, in Alenezi (2010), did not seem to be impacted by their
previous schooling experiences. Participating students also conveyed that CS had a positive effect on
strengthening their L2 (English). Another important finding was that students tended to perceive tea-
chers who used CS often more favourably than those who used it less often (64% of the students).
Consequently, Alenezi (2010) concluded that English–Arabic CS should be adopted as the medium
of instruction in classroom.
Similarly, Macaro and Lee’s (2013) examination of South Korean students’ (487 children who were
in their last year of primary school and 311 adult learners) attitudes towards the use of CS in learning
English (EFL) yielded favourable views towards CS. Neither group favoured English-only instruction,
preferring English–Korean CS in classrooms. Children expressed feeling least comfortable with
English-only instruction; the researchers presumed that it was, at least partly, a result of their
limited experience of language learning, and their lower level of English proficiency. Results from
these studies are informative, providing glimpses into students’ apparent preference for CS.

Conclusion and implications

While CS is viewed by most policy-makers and still by many educators in P-C educational settings as
a dysfunctional practice that should be avoided in classrooms, researchers, front-line teachers and
instructors, and possibly students, seem to find CS helpful in the learning process for the interac-
tional and pedagogical purposes. Since the social, cultural, psychological and linguistic contexts
are crucial to learning, English-only instruction (or L2-only instruction in general) may convey to
the students that their native language is devalued, even stigmatised. Moreover, it undermines
the linguistic knowledge that students already possess and can apply to acquire and develop pro-
ficiency in their additional languages. Native languages play important, positive roles in the learning
of the non-native language as has been suggested by several studies we reviewed (e.g. Auerbach
1993; Cleghorn and Rollnick 2002; Shamash 1990; etc.). In fact, choosing English as the official
language of instruction in a non-English speaking nation, because of its increasingly important
role in global markets, should be considered carefully and critically.
Although we stand firmly behind the important implications about CS use in P-C classroom con-
texts, suggested by Bailey (2011) and by Macaro and Lee (2013), we believe that the implications are
also well suited for modern foreign language (MFL) classroom contexts. Bailey (2011) claimed that it is
essential to take into account individual differences among students, although that may be a chal-
lenge in large classrooms, with many different types of learners (often the norm in many P-C con-
texts). Macaro and Lee (2013) encouraged teachers and policy-makers to consider ways in which
they can adjust to students’ preferences and needs, in order to achieve pedagogical results. Teachers
in MFL classrooms (in non-postcolonial contexts) practise CS for very similar, if not the same, reasons:
to save time, to avoid ambiguities and to establish their authority (Wilkerson 2008). In fact, Littlewood
and Yu (2011) have suggested a framework of principles to balance L1 and TL use in MFL classrooms.
Therefore, we reiterate Edstrom’s (2006) suggestion: rather than adhering blindly to professional
guidelines, teachers should instead strive to identify, and perhaps re-evaluate, their moral obligations
to their students, and consider the objectives for the language learning process, when deciding how
to teach them.
In conclusion, our paper confirms that irrespective of institutional policies that advocate no (or
minimal) use of students’ L1 in L2 and foreign language classrooms, most teachers use CS, most
likely—purposefully—to accomplish several important pedagogical strategies to reach the learning
objectives in their language classrooms.
238 Y. CHEN AND E. RUBINSTEIN-AVILA

References
Adendorff, R. 1993. Codeswitching amongst Zulu-speaking teachers and their pupils: its functions and implications for
teacher education. Language and Education 7, no. 3: 141–62.
Adendorff, R. 1996. The functions of code switching amongst high school teachers and students in KwaZulu and impli-
cations for teacher education. In Voices From the Language Classroom: Qualitative Research in Second Language
Education, ed. K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan, 388–406. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Alenezi, A.A. 2010. Students’ language attitude towards using code-switching as a medium of instruction in the College of
Health Sciences: an exploratory study. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences 7, no. 1: 1–22.
Auer, P. 1984. Bilingual Conversation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Auerbach, E.R. 1993. Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 27, no. 1: 9–32.
Bailey, A.A. 2011. Codeswitching in the foreign language classroom: students’ attitudes and perceptions and the factors
impacting them. MA thesis. University of Toledo.
Brock-Utne, B. 2005. Language-in-education practices in Africa with a special focus on Tanzania and South Africa –
Insights from research in progress. In Decolonisation, Globalization: Language-in-education Policy and Practice, ed.
A.M.Y. Lin and P.W. Martin, 173–93. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bunyi, G.W. 2005. Language classroom practices in Kenya. In Decolonisation, Globalization: Language-in-education Policy
and Practice, ed. A.M.Y. Lin and P.W. Martin, 131–52. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Camilleri, A. 1996. Language values and identities: code switching in secondary classrooms in Malta. Linguistics and
Education 8, no. 1: 85–103.
Canagarajah, A.S. 2001. Constructing hybrid postcolonial subjects: codeswitching in Jaffna classrooms. In Voices of
Authority: Education and Linguistic Difference, ed. M. Heller and M. Martin-Jones, 193–212. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Carvalho, A.M. 2012. Code-switching: from theoretical to pedagogical considerations. In Heritage Language Pedagogy in
the United States: The State of the Field, ed. S. Beaudrie and M. Flairclough, 139–60. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Childs, P. and R.J.P. Williams. 1997. An Introduction to Post-colonial Theory. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Cleghorn, A. and M. Rollnick. 2002. The role of English in individual and societal development: a view from African class-
rooms. TESOL Quarterly 36, no. 3: 347–72.
De Swaan, A. 2001. Words of the World. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Edstrom, A. 2006. L1 use in the L2 classroom: one teacher’s self-evaluation. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La
Revue canadienne des langues vivantes 63, no. 2: 275–92.
Ellis, R. 1988. Classroom Second Language Development. New York: Prentice Hall.
Ferguson, G. 2000. The medium of instruction in African education and the role of the applied linguist. In Language and
Institutions in Africa, ed. S. Makoni and N. Kamwangamalu, 95–111. Cape Town: Center for Advanced Studies of African
Society.
Ferguson, G. 2003. Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts: functions, attitudes and policies. Association
Internationale de la Linguistique Appliquee Review – ILA Review 16, no. 1: 38–51.
Finnochiaro, M. 1988. Teacher development: a continuing process. English Teaching Forum 26, no. 3: 2–5.
Flyman-Mattsson, A. and A. Burenhult. 1999. Code-switching in second language teaching of French. Working Papers 47,
59–72. Lund University, Department of Linguistics.
Freeman, Y.S. and D.V. Freeman. 2006. Teaching Reading and Writing in Spanish and English in Bilingual and Dual Language
Classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Grassian, D. 2013. Iranian and Diasporic Literature in the 21st Century: A Critical Study. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Grosjean, F. 2010. Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gumperz, J.J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, B. 1978. Toward structuring code-mixing: an Indian perspective. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
1978, no. 16: 27–46.
Krashen, S.D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
Leistyna, P. 2014. Bite your tongue: how the English-only movement works to silence voices of dissent. In Affirming
Language Diversity in Schools and Society: Beyond Linguistic Apartheid, ed. P.W. Orelus, 94–114. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Li, W. 1998. The ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions in the analysis of conversational codeswitching. In Code-switching in
Conversation: Language, Interaction, and Identity, ed. P. Auer, 156–79. London: Routledge.
Li, D.C.S. 1999. The functions and status of English in Hong Kong: a post-1997 update. English World-Wide 20, no. 1: 67–110.
Li, D.C.S. 2000. Improving the standards and promoting the use of English in Hong Kong: issues, problems and prospects.
In English Language Use and Education Across Greater China, ed. A. Feng, 95–113. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Li, W. and P. Martin 2009. Conflicts and tensions in classroom codeswitching: an introduction. Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 12, no. 2: 117–22.
 THE LANGUAGE LEARNING JOURNAL 239

Lin, A. 1996. Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination, resistance and code-switching in Hong Kong
schools. Linguistics and Education 8, no. 1: 49–84.
Littlewood, W. and B. Yu. 2011. First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching
44, no. 1: 64–77.
Macaro, E. and J.H. Lee 2013. Teacher language background, codeswitching, and English-only instruction: does age make
a difference to learners’ attitudes? Tesol Quarterly 47, no. 4: 717–42.
Macdonald, C. 1993. Using the Target Language. Cheltenham, UK: Mary Glasgow.
Mahootian, S. 2006. Codeswitching and codemixing. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd edition), volume 2, ed.
K. Brown, 511–27. Oxford: Elsevier.
Martin, P. 1999. Bilingual unpacking of monolingual texts in two primary classrooms in Brunei Darussalam. Language and
Education 13, no. 1: 38–58.
Martin, P. 2005. ‘Safe’ language practices in two rural schools in Malaysia: tensions between policy and practice. In
Decolonisation, Globalization: Language-in-education Policy and Practice, ed. A.M.Y. Lin and P.W. Martin, 74–97.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Merritt, M., A. Cleghorn, J.O. Abagi and G. Bunyi. 1992. Socialising multilingualism; determinants of code-switching in
Kenyan primary classrooms. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 13, no. 1–2: 103–21.
Milroy, J. 1999. The consequences of standardisation in descriptive linguistics. In Standard English: The Widening Debate,
ed. T. Bex and R. Watts, 16–39. London: Routledge.
Milroy, L. and P. Muysken (eds.). 1995. One Speaker, Two Languages. Cross Disciplinary Perspectives on Code-switching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mwinsheikhe, H.M. 2003. Science and the language barrier: using Kiswahili as a medium of instruction in Tanzania sec-
ondary schools as a strategy of improving student participation and performance in science. In Language of Instruction
in Tanzania and South Africa, ed. B. Brock-Utne, Z. Desai, M.A.S. Qorro and A. Pitman, 129–49. Dar es Salaam: E and D
Publishers.
Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Social Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Osaki, K.M. 1991. Factors influencing the use of the environment in science teaching: a study of biology teaching in
Tanzania. PhD diss., University of Alberta.
Ozog, A.C.K. 1993. Bilingual and national development in Malaysia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
14, no. 1–2: 59–72.
Pennington, M. 1995. Pattern and variation in use of two languages in the Hong Kong secondary English class. RELC
Journal 26, no. 2: 80–105.
Pennycook, A. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poon, A.Y.K. 2009a. A review of research in English language education in Hong Kong in the past 25 years: reflections and
the way forward. Educational Research Journal 24, no. 1: 7–40.
Poon, A.Y.K. 2009b. Reforming medium of instruction in Hong Kong. In Reforming Learning: Issues, Concepts and Practice in
the Asian-Pacific Region, ed. C. Ng and P. Renshaw, 199–232. Dordrecht: Springer.
Poon, A.Y.K., C.M.Y. Lau and D.H.W. Chu. 2013. Impact of the fine-tuning medium-of-instruction policy on learning: some
preliminary findings. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal 4, no. 1: 946–54.
Probyn, M. 2001. Teacher’s voices: teachers’ reflections on learning and teaching through the medium of English as a
second language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4, no. 4: 249–66.
Probyn, M. 2002. Language and learning in some Eastern Cape science classrooms. Paper presented at the SAALA/LSSA
Conference, 8–10 July in Pietermaritzburg.
Probyn, M. 2005. Language and the struggle to learn: the intersection of classroom realities, language policy, and neo-
colonial and globalization discourses in South African schools. In Decolonisation, Globalization: Language-in-education
Policy and Practice, ed. A.M.Y. Lin and P.W. Martin, 153–72. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Prophet, R. and J. Dow. 1994. Mother tongue language and concept development in science: a Botswana case study.
Language, Culture and Curriculum 7, no. 3: 205–17.
Qorro, M. 2002. Language of instruction not determinant in quality education. The Guardian, 29 May.
Raschka, C., P. Sercombe and C.L. Huang. 2009. Conflicts and tensions in codeswitching in a Taiwanese EFL classroom.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12, no. 2: 157–71.
Richards, J.C. and T.S. Rodgers. 2012. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Samar, R.G. and S. Moradkhani. 2014. Codeswitching in the language classroom: a study of four EFL teachers’ cognition.
RELC Journal 45, no. 2: 151–64.
Setati, M., J. Adler, Y. Reed and A. Bapoo. 2002. Code-switching and other language practices in mathematics, science and
English language classrooms in South Africa. In Challenges of Teacher Development: An Investigation of Take-up in South
Africa, ed. J. Adler and Y. Reed, 73–93. Pretoria: Schaik Publishers.
Shamash, Y. 1990. Learning in translation: beyond language experience in ESL. Voices 2, no. 2: 71–5.
Singh, R. 1985. Grammatical constraints on code-switching: evidence from Hindi-English. Canadian Journal of Linguistics
30, 33–45.
240 Y. CHEN AND E. RUBINSTEIN-AVILA

Sionis, C. 1990. Let them do our job! Towards autonomy via peer-teaching and task-based exercises. English Teaching
Forum 28, no. 1: 5–9.
Sridhar, S.N. and K.K. Sridhar. 1980. The syntax and psycholinguistics of bilingual code-mixing. Canadian Journal of
Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie 34, no. 4: 407–16.
Tung, P., R. Lam and W.K. Tsang. 1997. English as a medium of instruction in post-1996 Hong Kong: what students, tea-
chers and parents think. Journal of Pragmatics 28, no. 4: 441–59.
Valdés-Fallis, G. 1978. Code-switching and the Classroom Teacher. Language in Education: Theory and Practice 4. Arlington,
VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Van der Meij, H. and X. Zhao. 2010. Codeswitching in English courses in Chinese universities. The Modern Language
Journal 94, no. 3: 396–411.
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact. New York: Linguistics Circle of New York.
Wilkerson, C. 2008. Instructors’ use of English in the modern language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 41, no. 2: 310–
320.
Yip, D. Y., D. Coyle and W.K. Tsang. 2007. Evaluation of the effects of the medium of instruction on science learning of
Hong Kong secondary students: instructional activities in science lessons. Education Journal 35, no. 2: 78–107.
Zentella, A.C. 1981. Tá bien, you could answer me en cualquier idioma: Puerto Rican codeswitching in bilingual class-
rooms. In Latino Language and Communicative Behavior, ed. R. Durán, 109–31. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.