International Journal of Linguistics

ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

Code Switching in English as Foreign Language

Instruction Practiced by the English Lecturers at
Universities

Mujiono (Corresponding author)

Department of Linguistics, Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta

Jl. Ir. Sutami 36 A Kentingan Surakarta 57126, Central Java, Indonesia

Tel: 62-0271-632-450 E-mail: moejie_nova73@yahoo.com

Soepomo Poedjosoedarmo

Letters Faculty, Sanata Dharma University of Yogyakarta

Tromol Pos 29, Yogyakarta 55002, Central Java, Indonesia

Tel: 62-0274-513-301 ext. 1324 E-mail: soepomop@yahoo.com

Edi Subroto and Tri Wiratno

Department of Linguistics, Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta

Jl. Ir. Sutami 36 A Kentingan Surakarta 57126, Central Java, Indonesia Tel:
62-0271-632-450 E-mail: wiratno.tri@gmail.com

Received: January 18, 2013 Accepted: February 18, 2013 Published: April 22, 2013
doi:10.5296/ijl.v5i2.3561 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i2.3561

Abstract

In lecturing English as foreign language instruction in the classroom, the English lecturers still
have difficulties. They have to switch the language when the students do not understand about
what they are conveying. This study was aimed at investigating how the English lectures

46 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

practiced code switching in English as foreign language (EFL) instruction in the classroom.
This was a descriptive qualitative research in which data was taken ethnographically by
recording, observation, and interview technique. The collected data was analyzed by
descriptive qualitative method through four steps, i.e. data reduction, data description, data
grouping, and conclusion. The findings of the study revealed that the English lecturers used
English, Indonesian, Arabic, interchangeably. The English lectures made switching for (1)
linguistics factor, (2) to continue speaker’s pronouncement, (3) addressee specification, (4)
information clarification, (5) intimacy, (6) affected with the addressee, (7) unpleasant feeling,
(8) to create humor, (9) repetition used for clarification reiteration of a message, (10) to
strengthen request or command, (11) to make questions, (12) to give advice, (13) to balance
the addressee’s language competence, (14) to make it easier to convey speaker’s message,
(15) discourse marker.

Keywords: Code switching, English as foreign language, Instruction

47 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

1. Introduction

Using two or more languages within an utterance or what linguists call code switching, is
fairly common especially between two of the most used languages in the country which is the
national language (Indonesian) and the international language (English). Code switching is
common in multilingual Asian countries such as Indonesian, where English as well as other
foreign languages (EFL) are mixed in an utterance. In English Foreign Language (EFL)
instruction, code switching comes into use either in the teachers’ or the students’ discourse.
Although it is not favoured by many teachers, one should have at least an understanding of the
functions of switching between the native language and the foreign language and its
underlying reasons. This understanding will provide language teachers with a heightened
awareness of its use in classroom discourse and will obviously lead to better of instruction by
either eliminating it or dominating its use during the foreign language instruction. So, code
switching is used by the teacher in order to build solidarity and intimate relations with the
students. Skiba, (1997) underscores that code-switching can be practiced by teachers by
integrating it into the activities used to teach a second language. By having students get in
pairs and switch languages at pre-determined points in conversation, it helps them to learn
each other’s language. Teachers can also begin a lesson in one language, then switch to
another language, forcing the children to listen carefully and comprehend both languages.

With regard to the previous statements, Sert, (2004) explains that the functions of teacher code
switching are known as topic switch, affective functions, and repetitive functions. Topic
switching means that the teacher alters his or her language according to the topic being taught.
This is mainly seen in grammar instruction, and the student’s attention is directed towards the
new knowledge. In Affective functions, code switching which is practiced by the teacher to
express emotions, and build a relationship between the teacher and the student. In dealing with
repetitive functions, the teacher uses code switching to clarify the meaning of a word, and
stresses importance on the foreign language content for better comprehension.

Code switching is practiced by the students in EFL classroom also has many functions. Sert
(2004) has investigated that the functions of code switching for students are known as
equivalence, floor-holding, reiteration, and conflict control. Equivalence gives the student the
opportunity to communicate without gaps because of incompetence. Floor-holding is used
when a student cannot remember a word, and uses their native language to avoid a break in
communication. Reiteration helps the student to become more competent in the language they
are trying to learn. Conflict control may be used to avoid misunderstanding when a child does
not use a correct meaning in communication.

Based on the above statements, it can be explained that switching from one language to
another language is effective in continuously establishing EFL classroom communication. The

48 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

use of code switching is to serve better in English immersion setting where they provide
clarification when a word or phrase is not known. The code exchange occurrences are
welcomed in the class and may increase English competency if the frequency is not excessive
(Bista, 2010). In addition, code switching can be a useful strategy in classroom interaction if
the aim is to make meaning clear and to transfer the knowledge to students in an efficient way.
In short, the application of code switching is believed to be beneficial, particularly in order to
motivate students to learn more, to engage and maintain students’ attention, to provide a
classroom atmosphere more conducive to language acquisition. This issue appears an
interesting topic to explore.

The study of code switching analyzed from functional perspectives, more specifically English
as a foreign language alternated with Indonesian in educational contexts, seems very limited.
Moreover, as far as the writer has known that little research has been conducted on English to
Indonesian code switching practiced by English lecturers in EFL instruction in the classroom
at Universities. The following offers at least two point of views why the study of English to
Indonesian, other languages code switching practiced by English lectures in English as foreign
language (EFL) instruction in the classroom at Universities is an interesting to investigate.
First, the English lecturers are facing problems because students are not proficient in English
language particularly in speaking. Therefore, English lecturers will be forced to switch to
make the students understand the subject matter. Switching from one language to another
language is an effective way to continuously establish classroom communication. Code
switching practiced by the English lecturers will be beneficial for students because it helps
them understand what their lecturers are explaining about. Second, code switching situation
which is considered in order to avoid gaps in communication may result from the lack of
fluency in target language. It is considered very important in linguistic study. In this case, the
message in target language is repeated by the student in native tongue through which the
students tries to give the meaning by making the use of a repetition technique.

In lecturing English subject, the English lecturers often have difficulties; in this case they have
to switch the language when the students do not understand about what they are conveying.
Gumperz (1983) gives the idea that code switching could be seen as a real, specific discourse
strategy for bilinguals. He calls code switching as code-alternation. It can occur in the form of
quotation when the speaker directly uses a piece of reported speech in the language which is
produced. In case of addressee specification, the switch of language is merely used in order to
direct the message to one of the possible addressees. On the other hand, bilingual speakers
tend to use code-switching for interjections or simple sentence fillers. Code switching occurs
where speakers are aware of two varieties being distinct and are able to keep them apart,
although they may not do so habitually. Code switching is regarded as controllable strategy,
differing from both ordinary borrowing of individual lexical items and unavoidable
interference.(Coulmas, 2005)

The reason for this specific language alternation case may be two-folds: first, he/she may not
have transferred the meaning exactly in target language. In short, the student may think that it
is more appropriate to code switch in order to indicate that the message is clearly understood.
That is the reason, why the researcher is interested to investigate code switching practiced by
English lecturers in English as Foreign Language (EFL) instruction in the classroom at
Universities.

49 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

2. Literature Review

2.1 The Definition of Code Switching

Trousdale (2010) defines that code switching is the linguistic situation where a speaker will
alternate between two varieties (code) in conversation with others who have similar linguistic
repertoire. Romaine (2000) has stressed the point that switching is a communicative option
available to a bilingual member of a speech community on much the same basis as switching
between styles or dialects is an option for monolingual speaker. Wardhaugh (1998) has
defined that code switching is a conversational strategies used to establish, cross or destroy
group boundaries; to create, evoke interpersonal relation with their right and obligations.
While Gumperz (1983) has argued that code switching is a conversational strategy, the
function of which is to express social meanings.

Code switches also play the role of defining an addressee as the recipient of a message. Here,
the speaker switches to a language the interlocutor knows for example, when conversation is
ongoing in a bilingual situation, a switch is made to a particular language especially for
someone not immediately involved in the conversation in order to invite that person to
participate in the interaction. The following examples (reported from Holmes (1997), and
Mujiono (2010)

1) Engari ‘so’ now we turn to more important matter (Holmes, 1997).

(Switch between Maori and English)

2) Confiscated by Customs, dàgài ‘probably’

(Switch between English and Chinese)

3) Please deh jangan ganggu aku terus, you know (Mujiono: 2010).

(Switch between English and Indonesian)

2.2 Type of Code Switching

The speaker may speak one language in one situation and another in a different situation. In
terms of situational switching, each point of switching corresponds to a change in the
situation. In other words, one speaker may speak a different language depending on the
situation, but the language spoken in that particular situation does not vary. In this situation,
many features relating to social factors are involved in determining which language is to be
used. In addition, the notion of situational switching assumes a direct relationship between
language and social situation. In support these views of situasional code switching, Bentahila
(1983) argues that a speaker might speak one language at home then switch to another
language at his or her workplace. Dealing with this, Wardhaugh (1998) has explained that
situational code switching occurs when the languages used change according the situations in
which the conversant find themselves. They speak one language in one situation and another
in a different one. No topic change is involved. But when the speakers code switch to signal

50 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

identities or a change of relations in the roles of the participants in the conversation,

Wardhaugh (1998) calls it by metaphorical code switching. He argues that metaphorical
switching is influenced by the topics of the conversation and it is not influenced by the social
situation. Wardhaugh (1998) explains that metaphorical code switching has an affective
dimension. He explains it more that the people change the code as they redefine the situation;
formal to informal, official to personal, serious to humorous, and politeness to solidarity.
However, metaphorical code switching used by the people to show how speakers employ
particular language to convey information that goes beyond their actual words, especially to
define social situation. And metaphorical code switching occurs when a change of topic
requires a change in the language used. But if the speaker may switch within a single sentence,
one sentence is expressed in one variety, and next sentence in another variety, Gumperz
(1986) mentions it as conversational code switching. Moreover, Hudson (1980) states that
conversational switching takes place when the varieties are distinct languages. In early work,
Gumperz (1982) analyzed that code switching as situational or metaphorical, adding
conversational code switching. A situational switch involves a change in participants and/or
strategies, whereas metaphorical code switching involves a change in topical emphasis. These
switches appear to be motivated by speaker-external factors

Another type of code switching is called ‘intrasentential’ code switching. Romaine (1995)
points out that intrasentential switching involves, arguably, the greatest syntactic risk, and
may be avoided by all but the most fluent bilinguals. The intrasentential code switching is
switching at the clause, phrase or word level if no morphophonological adaptation occurs. It is
the most complex type of code switching, requiring as it does that the speaker be able to
control two linguistics systems simultaneously. It is the most complex type of code switching
in which the speakers are able to control two linguistic systems simultaneously (Poplack,
2000). She establishes two constraints on intrasentential code switching including constraints
of equivalence, word order immediately before and after a switch point must be grammatically
possible in both languages, and free morpheme constraint, no switches are allowed between
stem and affix, and few within idiomatic expressions and set phrases.

The last type of code switching can be called ‘Intersential switching’. This switching involves
a switch at a clause or sentence boundary where each clause or sentence is in one language or
another. It may also occur between speaker turns. Intersentential switching can be thought of
as requiring greater fluency in both languages than tag switching since major portions of the
utterance must conform to the rules of both languages. The intersentential code switching is
switching at the sentence level. It may serve to emphasize a point made in the other language,
signal a switch in the participants conversation, indicate to whom the statement is addressed,
or provide a direct quote from, or reference to, another conversation. Bilinguals use code-
switching as a strategy to negotiate the development of the conversation, and therefore, to
organize or structure their discourse (Baredo 1995).

2.3 The Function of Code Switching in EFL Instruction

Wardhaugh (1998) views that people switch to the interlocutor’s language when they want to
show politeness to strangers. Further evidence is provided by Poplack (2000) as she mentions
that the speakers in her study would switch languages if they are concerned about their
audience’s perception. When the speakers agree with and comply with the interlocutor’s

51 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

choice of code, it means speakers choose another dialect or language instead of their own to
use their interlocutors’ language and the speakers agree to that. Spolsky (1998) argues that
some interlocutors switch language for convenience.

Sert (2004) on study of code switching in the ELT classroom finds that code switching is used
either in the teachers’ or the students’ discourses. The results show students who are unable to
express themselves clearly in one language often switch languages to avoid difficulties. Sert
believes this to be an important factor that influences speakers to switch languages. Skiba
(1997) finds that the participants switched language due to the lack of language ability in the
target language. This is supported by Barredo (1995) who studies code switching between
Basque and Spanish. The results indicated that some of the switching was linguistically
motivated in the sense that speakers switch into Spanish when they lack a Basque lexical item.
Speakers switch into another language because they are more familiar with the lexical items in
that particular language than in their native language. Barredo (1995) explains that the
speakers switch from Basque to Spanish whenever they are more familiar with words, phrases,
or sentences in Spanish. This view is also found in Koziol (2000), whose interview results
indicate that the subjects normally switch to the language to which they are most accustomed.

The functions of teacher code switching are known as topic switch, affective functions, and
repetitive functions. In topic switching, the teacher alters his or her language according to the
topic being taught. This is mainly seen in grammar instruction, and the student’s attention is
directed towards the new knowledge. Affective functions are important in the expression of
emotions, and building a relationship between the teacher and the student. In repetitive
functions, code switching is used to clarify the meaning of a word, and stresses importance on
the foreign language content for better comprehension (Sert, 2004).

With regard to these statements Reyes (2004) describe the function of code switching as
clarification. With this function, the code switching gives more information to clarify an idea
or the message of the speaker. In other words, the use of code switching here can be attributed
to the need for a clarification of the message and occurs when a speaker wants to make clearer
what he or she is talking about.

In classroom discourse, codeswitching is considered by many to be neither an asset nor a

valuable addition. This may seem surprising given that so often, in modem approaches to
language teaching and learning, teachers attempt to make the second language classroom a
mirror of the outside world. Codeswitching by individual students is also regarded as evidence
that they are not thinking as much as possible in the L2. Again, the notion is that L2 learners
and users should suppress their bilingualism. Cohen (1998) agrees that the language of
thought for all but the most advanced L2 learnerluser is inevitably hislher L1. Yet many
teachers cling to the belief that, given the right conditions, the learners in their classrooms can
'think' in the L2 when undertaking a task. This belief is not exclusive to the monolingual
teacher. So, for what purposes do language teachers codeswitch? Teachers, across learning
contexts, such Macaro (2000) explain that the areas in which teachers use the L1 are: (1)
building personal relationship with learners (the pastoral role that teachers take on requires
high levels of discourse sophistication); (2) giving complex procedural instructions for
carrylng out an activity;

52 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

(3) controlling pupils' behaviour; (4). translating and checking understanding in order to speed
things up because of time pressures (e.g. exams); (5). teaching grammar explicitly.

Kern (1994) has attempts to elicit the language of thought during a reading comprehension
task and concluded that learners were using their L1 as the language of thought, to their
advantage, in order to: reduce working memory constraints; avoid losing track of the meaning
of the text; consolidate meaning in long term memory; convert the input into more familiar
terms (thereby reducing anxiety); clarify the syntactic roles of certain lexical items. Thus the
L1 was being used by the students to lighten the cognitive load as they were trylng to process
the text. If we can consider classroom discourse as text to be decoded and understood, we can
perceive how the teacher's codeswitching can help counter the cognitive constraints imposed

by working memory limitations. A codeswitch can reduce the selective attention dedicated to a
single communication breakdown, freeing up worlung memory capacity to work on the
meaning of larger chunks of input.

3. Methodology

3.1 The Form and Strategy of the Study

The strategy used in this study was descriptive qualitative in the form of ethnography. This
research was qualitative in nature with an observational case study. In line with this design,
this study collected most of its data by conducting a passive participation observation and the
focus on a particular place in the classroom when the English lecturers teach English. This
strategy was used in this study because the researcher wanted to know the reasons of the
English lecturers practiced code switching in English as foreign language instruction in the
classroom at universities.

3.2 The Data Sources

The data which was analyzed in this study consist of qualitative data. It was analyzed from
kinds of data sources involving; (1) the informants, namely two English lecturers of Letters
Faculty of State University of Malang, two English lecturers of Language and Art of State
University of Surabaya, two English lecturers of Teacher Training and Education of
Muhammadiyah University of Malang, and two English lecturers of Teacher Training and
Education of Kanjuruhan University of Malang. They are chosen as a sampling of this study;
(2) The events are the activities when English lecturers taught in EFL classroom to their
students. (3) Legalized archive or documentation commonly used by them in teaching English
as foreign language in the classroom.

3.3 The Technique of Collecting the Data

In the process of collecting the data, the researcher used several instruments in the data
analysis procedures. The instruments included; (2) classroom observation, and (3) interview
session with the English lecturers.
Classroom observation was employed to explore the practical use of code switching during
EFL instruction in the classroom in relation to its function. The application of this
observational method was based on two consideration. First, it provided the researcher with

53 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

direct evidence of code switching practices. Second, it also served as evidence of actual
application of code switching and its function in English as foreign language (EFL)
instruction. To deal with the above statements, Kellerhear (1993) asserts that observational
method enables the researcher to be familiar and objective with the subject of enquiry since it
provides him/her with a new perspective of the targeted subjects.

Passive participant observation technique was used by the researcher in order to allow him to
observe and to write out field-notes. The researcher observed the process of using code
switching practiced by English lecturers in EFL instruction. In doing the observation, the
researcher acted as a passive participant observer. In other words, the observer toke part in the
activities being studied or he pretended that he was one of the participants of the class. He did
not interact both of the English teachers and the students during the learning teaching process.
He seat at the back of the classroom and wrote down the field notes (Spradley, 1980). This
technique of observation was simpler since it was a direct means of recording what he
observed and required no special equipment. All that needed was paper and pencil. Field notes
were written expression of what was heard, seen, experienced and thought of in the course of
collecting and reflecting on the data. Audio-taped was utilized to back up notes taken during
data gathering.

Furthermore, the researcher conducted an in dept interviewing session with the English
lecturers to determine the various reasons why code-switching occurred EFL instruction. The
researcher wanted to know whether English teachers were facing problems when they were
teaching the English subjects. There are three types of interviews: (1) unstructured interview,
(2) semi-structured interview, and (3) structured interview (Minichiello, 1995). Unstructured
interview is defined as a type of interview, in which there is no prior wording of questions.
This type gives flexibility to the interviewer to ask new questions as follow-up to
interviewee’s replies. The structured interview constrains the interviewer to always follow the
schedule or question guide, since it emphasizes consistency in the way of responses when
each interviewee is interviewed. A semi-structured interview is quite similar to a structured
interview, but the interviewer does not need to strictly follow a script made before the
interview is implemented. In a semi-structured interview, the interviewer is able to pose
questions during the process of interview in response to information provided by interviewee.

This study applied a structured interview since the questions used in the interview would be
carefully ordered and worded in a detailed interview schedule. In this case, each participant
was asked to answer the same questions in the same order to prevent bias between interviews
and the focus on the research area.

3.4 Data Validity

In qualitative research, data are usually verified using triangulation technique. A triangulation
was done to verify the trustworthiness of data or information by looking at the source of data
repeatedly to arrive at the same conclusion on the phenomena observed. Hopkins (1993) states
that technique of triangulation can increase the validity of a category in verifying data.

The researcher conducted a verification/triangulation by the other ways, namely, comparing

the field-notes, the tape-scripts, and the result of interview. The field-note was
compared/confirmed to recordings and the result of interview. Such a technique of

54 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

triangulation, according to Vockell and Asher (1995), can overcome subjectivity of the
researcher in interpreting the data which may be caused by the view of the subjectivity of
interpretation in observing a behavior which is considered unimportant, but seemingly the
possibility of the event is important to support a phenomena.

To verify agreement with what the observer observed and what actually occurred to a certain
acceptable degree, the following attempts should be made. (1) Developing objective
description. The investigator recorded in the form of field-notes all the relevant data as
objectively as possible since the field-notes writing was designed to deal with two distinct
points. As illustrated before, field-notes contained descriptive materials and reflective
materials. Descriptive materials covered the observer’s objective description of the observed
phenomena and reflective materials form the observer’s subjectivity judgement of the same
observed phenomena. This separation of notes was deliberately meant to eliminate possible
confusion between those of facts and those of the investigator’s personal, subjective
viewpoints. In other words, such a separation was intended to maximize reliability. (2) Use
more than one methods of data collection. In addition to the observation, which was adopted
as the main technique of data collection, the investigator also conducted recording and
interviews to study the same data.

3.5 Data Analysis

Dealing with the above statements, classroom observations, and structured interviews were
utilized to collect the data. To analyze the gathered data, descriptive analysis was utilized. The
former dealt with describing and analyzing the gathered data, while the later is more
concerned with making decisions or inferences pertaining to phenomena described in the data.

The data gathered through classroom observations were analyzed qualitatively. The analysis
aimed to find the reasons of English lecturers practiced English to Indonesian, and other
languages code switching in EFL instruction in the classroom. Several steps were employed in
this data analysis. First, the researcher examined the field notes and transcripts collected from
classroom observation to identify English Indonesian, and other languages code switching
data practiced by English lecturers in EFL instruction in the classroom. Second, coding and
labeling of each data sample were utilized according its potential type. Third, all the codes
were screen and the data labeled with similar codes were grouped together, followed by a
careful examination of the relationships between among different codes. Code of similar
nature was then classified in mayor categories to suggest the function of English Indonesian,
and other languages code switching in EFL instruction in the classroom. Fourth, each type was
re-examined carefully to ascertain that it accurately represented the nature of its supporting
data. Fifth, verification was done through studying the theories, looking at the data and
confirming with the ones regarding the use of English-Indonesian, and other languages code
switching practiced by English lecturers in EFL instruction in the classroom. 4. Result and
Discussion

4.1 Result

4.1.1 Linguistic Factor

55 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

The use of a language code by English lectures from English to the Arabic language on the
following data, due to reason of linguistic factors. The example was presented in data excerpts
(AG-032) as shown below.

1) L: I give an example, my experience teaching my daughter; it is because my daughter is in

Islamic Primary School. So she studied

(‘Letter articulation’) (AG-032)

With regard to data excerpts (AG-032), code switching was practiced by the English lecturers
in English instruction in the classroom because they had difficulty to explain the material
related the term that didn’t have a counterpart in English as shown in excerpt (AG-032 line 2.

4.1.2 To Continue Speaker’s Pronouncement

English lecturers employed code switching to continue the previous speech. The example of
data excerpt was displayed in the following data as shown in bold and italicized forms.

1) L: So some times the subject is hidden if the subject is hidden, the sentence is imperative.
Kalimat perintah itu subjeknya di disembunyikan (‘the subject of imperative sentence is
hidden’). The subject is always ‘you’ right. ‘you’ is already understood, so ‘you’ is
omitted. (HE-044)

Based on data excerpt (HE-044), code switching was practiced by the English lecturer from
English to Indonesian in English instruction in the classroom to continue the previous speech
as shown in excerpt (HE-044) line 2.

4.1.3 Addressee Specification

English lecturer sometimes practiced code switching from English to Indonesian to involve the
addressee. The aim of involving of addressee specification in order that the students focus on
his speech. The code switching practices for involving of addressee was displayed in the
following data as shown in bold and italicized forms.

1) L: where is the predicate? coba dibaca mana predikatnya? (‘Try to read, where is the
predicate’?)

S: the predicate is “see” Sir: (HE-002)

With regard to data excerpts (HE-002), code switching was practiced by the English lecturer
in English instruction in the classroom because he wanted to involve the addressee in
classroom as shown in excerpt (HE-002) line 1.

4.1.4 Information Clarification

English lecturer often practiced code switching from English to Indonesian to clarify content
of a statement being presented. The aim of clarification was to minimize any ambiguous
words or sentences leading to incomplete understanding, and to resolve any confusion. The

56 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

code switching practices for clarification was displayed in the following data as shown in bold
and italicized forms.

1) L: Ok, the more marked L1, (.) the more marked L2, sorry, the more marked L2, the more
transfer or the more interference will happen from L1. Ok, semakin sulit l2 semakin anda
transfer, itulah pokoknya. (‘the more difficult L2 the more you transfer, it is actually’)
(ME-040)

2) L: So sentence here is consist of subject and predicate, pasti memiliki subjek dan predikat
ketika itu dikatakan kalimat (‘must have subject and predicate when it is called sentence’)
(TE-004)

The use of a language code by English lecturers from English to Indonesian language on the
above data, due to reason of information clarification. In English Instruction in the classroom,
statement of clarification was practiced by English lecturers by a means of switching from
English to Indonesian as shown in excerpts (ME-040) line 2-3, and (TE-004) line 1-2) 4.1.5
Intimacy

Code switching was practiced by the English lecturer in order to build intimate interpersonal
relationships among English lecturer and students in English instruction in the classroom. The
example from data was shown in bold and italicized forms below.

1) L: According to Chomsky, what is A, and what is B, what is competence, what is

performance (.) tidak boleh ngrepek, ayo lupa (‘it not allowed to cite, come on forget it’)
(ME-004)

As data excerpt (ME-004), English lecturer applied code switching to build intimate
interpersonal relationships. This was carried out by switching from English to Indonesian as
shown in excerpt (ME-004) line 2. The use of English to Indonesian was intended to build
intimate interpersonal relationships among English lecturer and students.

4.1.6 Affected with the Addressee

The use of code from English to Indonesian by the English lecturer because he was influenced
by the languages which was used by the students. The example of the reason was presented in
data excerpts (HE-051) as shown in bold and italicized sentence.

1) L: What is the different between intransitive and transitive?

S: Membutuhkan objek dan tidak membutuhkan objek (‘does it need object or not’)

L: Mana yang tidak membutuhkn objek? (‘Which one does not object’?) (HE-051)

With regard to data excerpt (HE-051), code switching was practiced by the English lecturer in
English instruction in the classroom because he was influenced by the language practiced by
the students as shown in excerpt (HE-051) line 4.

4.1.7 Unpleasant Feeling

57 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

The use of a language code by English lecture from English to Indonesian language on the
data below, because the English lecturer wanted to show his unpleasant feeling. The example
of the reason was presented in data excerpt (AG-044) as shown in bold and italicized form.

1) L: what do you sense of oral?

S: ((ramai)) ((‘noisy’))

L: hello what is oral? yang dak baca saya tunjuk (‘those who do not read it, I point’) (AG-
044)

With regard to data excerpt (AG-044), code switching was practiced by the English lecturer in
English instruction in the classroom because he wanted to show their unpleasant feeling due to
their students’ occurrence as shown in excerpt (AG-044) line 3.

4.1.8 To Create Humor

Code switching was also intended to create humorous situations in order to reduce students’
tension when they dealt with English lesson. The data obtained through classroom
observations showed that English lecturers code switched from English to Indonesian to create
humor. The example from data was shown in bold and italicized forms below. 1) L: can you
see things behind the screen

S: no, Sir

L: I can, you must wear glasses, makanya hati-hati kalau ngomong dengan orang yang
berkaca mata ya? (‘So, be careful if you spoke with the people who was wearing glasses,
yeah’) (AG-068)

As data excerpts (AG-068), English lecturer applied code switching to create humor. This was
carried out by switching from English to Indonesian as shown in excerpt (AG-068) line 3-4.
The use of Indonesian to create humor was based on the reason that it was emotionally and
culturally close to English lecturer language backgrounds.

4.1.9 Repetition Used for Clarification Reiteration of a Message

The term reiteration means emphasizing the points by expressing them exactly from one
language to another language. This reiteration aims to reinforce intended messages for the
students. This can occur in the flow of English to Indonesian. The examples were presented in
bold and italicized forms as shown in the following data excerpts.

1) L: Ok, “was studying”, siapa bisa bantu jawab? (‘who can help’) Who can help him?
(HE-059)

2) L: Ok, now please, what the difference, apa bedanya (‘what is the difference’) procedur
and cronological order (.) (TE-025)

Data excerpts (HE-059), and (TE-025) showed that English lectures applied code switching to
reiterate words, phrases, or sentence in order to assist students to understand the presented

58 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

utterances. The reiteration can be in the form of English to Indonesian as shown in excerpts
(HE-059) line 1 and (TE-025) line 1. The reason for this reiteration was to help students
understand what their lectures were talking about.

4.1.10 To Strengthen Request or Command

Code switching was practiced by the English lecturer, in order to strengthen the request or
command to students in English instruction in the classroom. The example from data was
shown in bold and italicized forms below.

1) L: Come here. Yeah, you read, baca agak keras! (‘Read it louder, please!’)

S: Madura is a hot island in East Java (HE-047)

As data excerpts (HE-047), English lecturer applied code switching to strengthen his request.
This was carried out by switching from English to Indonesian as shown in as demonstrated in
excerpt (HE047) lines 1.

4.1.11 to Give Question

Code switching was practiced by the English lecturer because he intended to give his
questions to students in English instruction in the classroom. The example from data was
shown in bold and italicized forms below.

1) L: Linda makes me bored at any times. If you analyze the lexical categories here, what
kinds of lexical categories of “bored” content word or consume word ”bored” here is
disebut apa? (‘ what is it called’) (HE-071)

Data excerpt (HE-071) showed that the occurrence of a code of English to Indonesian was a
strategy used by English lecturer in order for the question that was given to the students were
easier to be understood by them. This was carried out by switching from English to Indonesian
as shown in as demonstrated in excerpt (HE-071) lines 3.

4.1.12 to Give Advice

The use of code between English and Indonesian by the English lecturer was intended to
advice to the students. The example of the function was presented in data excerpt (DJ-006) as
shown in bold and italicized sentence.

1) T: … no more ideas, mahasiswa sebaiknya (.) saya lebih bangga kepada mahasiswa yang
seharusnya membuat lima kesalahan karena menjawab lima kali, daripada mahasiswa
yang membuat nol kesalahan karena sama sekali tidak pernah menjawab, ya (‘the students
should (.), I was gladder to the students who should make five mistakes doe to answer five
times rather than the students who made no mistakes because they never answer at all,
yeah’) (DJ-006)
With regard to data excerpt (DJ-006), code switching was practiced by the English lecturer in
English instruction in the classroom because the English lecturer wanted to advice to the
students as shown in excerpt (DJ-006) line 1-4.

59 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

4.1.13 to Balance the Addressee’s Language Competence

English lecturer employed code switching from English to Indonesian because they wanted to
balance his language with his students’ language competence. The aim of this reason was to
make his students understand from their language that he used. The example of data excerpt
was presented in bold and italicized forms.

1) L: we have what is it time signal subject and then what subject added ‘s’ and what subject
of verb that is added ‘es’ or everything gitu kan? masih ada yang susah dengan
penggunaan ‘es’ maupun ‘s’ (.) (‘Wasn’t it? Was there any difficulty with the use of ‘es’
or ‘s’ (.) (HI-009)

With regard to data excerpt (HE-009), code switching was practiced by the English lecturer in
English instruction in the classroom because he wanted to balance his language with students’
ones in classroom as shown in excerpt (HI-009) line 2-3

4.1.14 to make it easier to Convey Speaker’s Message

The use of a language code by English lecturer from English to Indonesian language on the
above data because she wanted to make it easier in conveying meaning.

The examples of the reason was presented in data excerpts (ME-031) as shown in bold and
italicized words or phrases.

1) L: The teacher that‘s wrong, ok, it’s very complex although not grammatically accurate use
really understand that. Right. “I no like the play now”, Yeah, “ I no like.. I no like”,
Exactly like us, saya tidak suka bermain sekarang, ya, saya tidak mau bermain
sekarang (‘I don’t like playing now, yeah, I don’t want to play now’) (ME-031)

With regard to data excerpts (ME-031), code switching was employed by the English lecturer
in English instruction in the classroom; she intended to make it easier in conveying meaning
as shown in excerpt (ME-031) line 3-4.

4.1.15 Discourse Marker

Code switching which was used by the English lectures in English instruction in the classroom
at department of English Education of Universities due to as discourse marker can be seen as
the figure 1.

60 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

Figure 1. The use of discourse marker of English to English and Indonesian

The above data showed that the English lecturers in conveying their subjects still used
discourse markers of English then to be continued to English and Indonesian sentences. The
use ‘so’ then to be continued to English (21.88 %), whereas ‘so’ then to be followed by
Indonesian language (1.88%). ‘Then’ to be followed by English (8. 13%), and to be followed
by Indonesian language (1. 25%). ‘Now’ was followed by English (16. 88%), and Indonesian
language (1. 25%). Therefore, it can be called that it is very possible for the English lecturers
in conveying their subjects use discourse marker interchangeably. Meanwhile the use of
discourse marker of Indonesian to English and Indonesian sentences can be seen as the figure
2.

There were 22 discourse markers of Indonesian which were used by English lecturers to
convey their subjects. 8 out of 22 discourse markers were used by them interchangeably. They
were Indonesian discourse marker then be followed by English and Indonesian sentences.
There were only 14 cases which were followed by English sentences. 8 out of 22 discourse
markers were used by the English lecturers interchangeably. (1) ‘Ya’ be followed by English
sentence was 62 cases or (30.83%), and Indonesian sentence was 29 cases or (14.43%). (2)
‘Nanti’ which was followed English only 1 case or (0.50%), and Indonesian sentence was 2
cases or (1.00%). (3) ‘Kan’ which was followed by English was 2 cases or (1.00%) whereas
be followed by Indonesian was 12 cases or (5.97%). (4) ‘Kok’ which was followed by English
was 6 cases (2.99%), and Indonesian was 4 cases (1.99%). (5) Ok’ /okey/ that was followed by

61 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

English were 15 cases (7.46%), Indonesian was 5 cases (2.49%). (6) ‘Jadi’ that was followed
by English was 2 cases (1.00%), and Indonesian was 6 cases (2.99%). (7) ‘Gitu’ which was
followed by English was 2 cases (1.00%), whereas be followed by Indonesian was 9 cases
(4.48%). (8) ‘Sekarang’ which was followed by English and English were 1 case (0.50%) for
each. Meanwhile 14 discourse markers of others were only followed by Indonesian, such as
‘inilah’, ‘coba’, ‘ah’, ‘wah’, ‘apaan’, ‘makanya’, ‘o ya’, ‘lo’, and‘tadi’ were 1 case (0.50%).
whereas ‘la’, ‘ayo’ were 2 cases (1.00%) for each. And only 1 discourse marker of Indonesian
was followed by English, it was ‘ya’ /ya?/.’Ya’ which was followed by English was 21 cases
(10.45%).

The above data excerpts showed that the English lecturers who taught English at the
department of English Education used Indonesian more than English discourse markers. ‘Ya’,
‘ya /ya?/, ‘ok’ /oke/ were very frequently occurred in their speeches. This expression such as
‘ya’ /yeah/ and ‘ya’ /ya/ or /ya?/, and ‘ok’ /okey/ and ‘ok’ /oke/ were only distinguished
pronunciation, and perhaps the English lecturers referred to Indonesian version. Referring to
this case, students’ language interference should be avoided. It is needed to be emphasized
that the English lecturers use code switching must notice that both English and Indonesian
have different system.

4.2 Discussion

It’s seen from the perspective of sociolinguistics, the occurrence of the code in English as
foreign language instruction due to by a variety of factors relating to the purpose and the
reasons of English lecturers practice code switching. As the lingual phenomenon, code
switching practiced by the English lecturers can’t be separated from the purpose of the
communication. Thus if it is associated with the theory of sociolinguistics, code switching that
is caused by a variety of factors in this study is the lingual phenomenon which is emerging as
the implications of bilingual. The use of more than one languages by bilingual speakers led to
passage of the code are determined by a variety of causes or reasons which are related to the
context of the communication situation.

Therefore, the code that is used by English lecturers in English as foreign language instruction
not only serves for the purpose of implication input, but also has the purpose of pedagogical.
As the results of his research, Merritt (1992), who found that school teachers in Kenya doing
instead of code between languages to focus the attention of students, conduct a clarification as
well as emphasizing the material being taught. Whereas Canagarajah (1995) in his research
found that language teachers in Sri Lanka do over code for classroom management and lesson
content delivery (delivering lesson). Referring to the results of the research, that for various
reasons the use of the code by the lecturer in language teaching and learning process of the
United Kingdom, then the use of the code, which is the first language of the students is still
very necessary. As Krieger (2005) reveals that the first language usage in the foreign language
classroom is sometimes indispensable, especially for an explanation and affirmation of literary
concepts and grammar. Learner motivation can be raised with the use of their first language to
describe those parts of the language that it is difficult to understand if the language described
in English. Language and cultural differences are sharp enough among language grammar
aspects of English with first language learners can be offset by a systematic explanation using
a language mastered by learners.

62 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

5. Conclusions

With regard to the findings, the results show that the English lecturers employ English,
Arabic, and Indonesian languages during English as foreign language instruction. Based on
the analysis of data obtained from the participants of this study, the results reveal fifteen
reasons for code switching practices according to beliefs of the participants. Those fifteen
reasons include (1) linguistics factor, (2) to continue speaker’s pronouncement, (3) addressee
specification, (4) information clarification, (5) intimacy, (6) affected with the addressee , (7)
unpleasant feeling, (8) to create humor, (9) repetition used for clarification reiteration of a
message, (10) to strengthen request or command, (11) to make questions, (12) to give advice,
(13) to balance the addressee’s language competence , (14) to make it easier to convey
speaker’s message, (15) discourse marker.

In line with research findings in relation to above reasons for code switching, the use of code
switching in English as a foreign language instruction by the English lecturers can assist the
students in understanding English materials due to their lack of English proficiency. Switching
from English to Indonesian or other languages can also be employed as communication
strategy in English classroom instruction. This statement is in accordance with Krieger (2005)
who claims that the use of first language in foreign language classroom is needed to motivate
the students. This finding supports the current studies by Chung (2006), and Chen (2009) who
argue that code switching can be used as communication strategy. The English teachers
employ code switching to minimize either students miscomprehension on the lesson or
students’ difficulties in understanding the English lesson given by the English lecturers in the
classroom.

References

Barredo, I. M. (1995). Code-switching in conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity

Retrieved from http://www.udc.es/dep/lx/cac/c-s/pres.html.

Bentahila, A., & Davies, E. (1983). Ilingualism and Language Contact: The Syntax of Araic-
English Code-Switching. Lingtua, 59, 301-330.

Bista, K. (2010). “Factors of Code Switching among Bilingual English Students in the
University Classroom: A Survey”. English for Specific Purposes World, 29(9).

Canagarajah, A. (1995). Functions of codeswitching in ESL classrooms: Sociolinguistic

Bilingualism in Jaffra. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 16, 173-195.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1995.9994599

Caulmas, F. (2005). Sociolingiuistics. The Study of Speakers Choices. New York: Cambridge
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815522
Chen, D. (2009). A Preliminary Study of Teacher Code-switching in Secondary English and
Science in Malaysia. TSEL-EJ. Volume13, Number 1

Chung, H. (2006). “Code Switching as a Communicative Strategy: A Case Study of Korean-

English Bilinguals”. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), Summer

63 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

2006.brj.asu.edu/vol30_no2/-art3.pdf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2006.10162878

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.

Grosjean, F. (1982). Life With to Linguages. An Introduction to Bilingualism. USA: Harvard

University Press.

Gumperz, J. J., & D.Hymer (Eds.) (1986). Directions in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies.Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1983). Language and social identity. Cambridge : Cambridge University

Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620836

Holmes, J. (1997). An Introduction to Sociolingustics. New York: Logman.

Hudson, R. A. (1980). Sociolinguistics. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kellerhear, A. (1993). The Unobtrusive Researcher: A Guide to Methods. WA: Allen &
Unwin Pty, Ltd.

Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 16, 441-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100013450

Koziol, J. M. (2000). Code Switching between Spanish and English in Contemporary

American Society. Retrieved from http://www.smcm.edu/aldiv/ilc/pdfdocs/koziol.pdf.

Krieger, D. (2005). Teaching ESL versus EFL: Principles and Practices. English Teaching
Forum, 43(2).

Macaro, E. (2000). Issues in target language teaching. In K. Field (Ed.), Issues in modern
foreign language teaching. London: Routledge

Merrit, M., A. et al. (1992). Socializing multilingualism: determinant of code switching in

Kenyan primary classrooms. In C. M. Eastman (Ed.), code switching. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters Ltd

Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1995). In-dept Interviewing:
Principles, Techniques, Analysis (2nd ed). Melborne: Longman Australia.

Mujiono. (2010). Indonesian – English Code Switching to Develop Teenager’s Speaking

Proficiency. LINGUA-IDEA, 1(1). Purwokerto: University of Jendral Sudirman Indonesia.

Poplack, S. (2000). Code-Switching (linguistic) (On-line) available: http:// aix1.vottawa.

ca/~sociolx/CS. pdf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03031-X

Reyes, I. (2004). Functions of code switching in schoolchildren’s conversations. Bilingual

Research Journal, 28, 77-98.

64 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2013, Vol. 5, No. 2

Romaine, S. (2000). Language in Society an introduction to sociolinguistic. Oxford University

Press.

Romaine, Susan. (1995). Bilingualism (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell

Sert, O. (2004). The functions of code-switching in ELT classrooms. Retrieved from

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Sert-CodeSwitching.html

Skiba, R. (1997). Code Switching as a Countenance of Language Interference. Internet TESL

Journal. Retrieved from http:/www.aitech.ac.jp/itselj/articles/Skiba-CodeSwicthing.html

Spolsky, B. (1998). Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). The ethnographic interview. New York: Macalester College.

Trousdale, G. (2010). An introduction to English Sociolinguistics. Endingburgh University

press.

Wardhaugh, R. (1998). An Introduction to Sociolingistics. USA: Blackwell Publ.

65 www.macrothink.org/ijl