TOWARDS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF CODE SWITCHING AS A

COMMUNICATIVE STRATEGY

Rizelyn Morales-Marantan

Abstract

This qualitative study aims to examine interactions of teacher-student inside the

classroom and how code switching (the alternate use of English and Filipino) is used
during classroom instruction. Through classroom observations and surveys conducted,
the findings yield that teachers and students have difficulty in adhering to the bilingual
policy of education. Through the analysis of the extracts taken during classroom
interactions, the findings show that most of the times, students and teachers prefer the
alternate use of both Filipino and English inside the classroom, which defy the actual
designation of media of instruction. Most argue that lessons taught in English are not
comprehensible to students. Though Science teachers agree that their subject be taught in
English, they suggest that Filipino be used as a support language in Science classes.
These results have great implications in the present implementation of the bilingual
policy as Science teachers have determined through their shared experiences that the use
of English only in their classrooms has not been effective and productive in the long
term.

Introduction

Bilingualism is a widespread phenomenon, and wherever it exists people make

use of both languages (Khan, 2005). Studies on code switching (CS) in various

communities world-wide have broadened our outlook and perception of the concept.

Studies of societal bilingualism are concerned with issues such as institutional status of

languages and their roles in the society, attitudes towards languages, determinants and

language choice, and symbolic and practical use of these languages. It has often been

observed that in most third world countries, where bilingualism and multilingualism is

common in the society, teachers and students both usually make use of the two languages

in the classroom. Nevertheless, at tertiary level in these countries, the classroom language
 2

is only one. If students belong to a linguistic minority, they must have or should have

acquired that language in order to get admission or succeed in examinations

In a classroom setting, it is always important to note how the instruction between

the teacher and students take place to achieve the desired end - the extent and quality of

learning. Indeed, it has always been the role and main concern of the teacher to exploit

the best possible means to create for his students an atmosphere of quality interaction in

the classroom. However, making a classroom foster the desired atmosphere is not easy

especially when the interlocutors find language a problem to promote negotiation of

meaning. What is therefore most interesting in keeping classroom discourse alive in the

use of language. Students would find it hard to carry out certain tasks in the classroom

like following instructions, summarizing a lesson, taking down notes, reporting in class,

and others, when teacher’s use of the medium of instruction is not proficient.

However, with the implementation of the bilingual policy in 1974 by the National

Board of Education, there arose conflicts on the effects it would have on students who

will be graduating in high school and college. This led to the deterioration of the English

proficiency among our graduates since code-switching and code mixing had been used

when the bilingual policy was implemented. The intensive use of a code switching

variety of Filipino and English yields important insights into patterns of language use and

possible future trends in Philippine society which bear careful watching and monitoring.

Such problems in code switching and code mixing are very apparent in

Philippines classroom nowadays. Classroom teachers use both Filipino and English in

Tagalog-speaking regions to explain unfamiliar concepts and principles and to manage

the class since in the early year of elementary schooling, few of the children command
 3

enough English to carry on basic communication in the classroom. As the children ascend

to the upper levels, of course, there is more English than Filipino. One curious

development, however, as a result of the Bilingual Education Policy of 1974, is that in

non-Tagalog speaking areas, a switch is made between the vernacular and English,

depending on which of the two media of instruction (Filipino and English) is to be used.

Code switching is a widely observed phenomenon seen in multilingual and multicultural

communities as the Philippines. In language or literature classes, code switching comes

into use either in the teachers’ or the students’ discourse. Although it is not favored by

many educators, 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 instruction by either eliminating it

or dominating its use during the foreign language instruction.

It is surprising to note that even in the United States of America where immigrants

continue to increase in number, studies show that this is a predicament (Berriz, 2006).

Alternation between languages in the form of code switching is a widely observed

phenomenon in foreign language classrooms. Numan and Carter (2001) briefly define

the term as “a phenomenon of switching from one language to another in the same

discourse.”(p.275) Following this definition, “discourse” will be handled as the students’

and teachers’ naturally occurring language use in classroom settings throughout this

paper. Additionally, the languages between which alternation is performed are the native

languages of the students, and the foreign language that the students are expected to gain

competence in.
 4

While putting the phenomenon in code switching in context, the function of code

switching will be focused on the functionality of code switching in teachers’ classroom

discourse which will be introduced with its aspects as topic switch, affective functions,

and repetitive functions. Furthermore, weak and strong sides of code switching are also

given emphasis. However, considering all what was mentioned, the focus of this paper is

the use of code switching by teachers and students in ELT classrooms.

According to Trudgill,(2000) “speakers switch to manipulate or influence or

define the situation as they wish, and to convey nuances of meaning and personal

intention (p.105) Drawing upon this quotation, it may be suggested that code switching

can be used for self-expression and is a way of modifying language for the sake of

personal intention.

Although switching languages during a conversation may be disruptive to the

listener when the speaker switches due to an inability to express her/himself, it does

provide an opportunity for language development. As may be derived from discussion

above, language development takes place through samples of language which are

appropriate and code switching may be signalling the need for provision of appropriate

samples. The listener, in this case, is able to provide translation into the second language

thus providing a learning and developing activity. This, in turn, will allow for a reduced

amount of switching and less subsequent interference as time progresses. These

principles may also be applied in the second language classroom

Another function of code switching is that it may be used in order to build

intimate interpersonal relationships among members of a bilingual community. In this

 5

respect, it may be claimed that it is a tool for creating linguistic solidarity especially

between individuals who share the same ethno-cultural identity.

Crystal (1987) suggests that code, or language, switching occurs when an

individual who is bilingual alternates between two languages during his/her speech with

another bilingual person. A person who is bilingual may be said to be one who is able to

communicate, to varying extents, in a second language. This includes those who make

irregular use of a second language, are able to use a second language but have not for

some time (dormant bilingualism) or those who have considerable skill in a second

language. This type of alteration, or code switching, between languages occurs

commonly amongst bilinguals and may take a number of different forms, including

alteration of sentences, phrases from both languages succeeding each other and switching

in a long narrative. Berthold, Mangubhai and Bartorowicz (1997, p 2.13) supplement the

definition of code switching thus far with the notion that it occurs where 'speakers change

from one language to another in the midst of their conversations. Further, Cook (1991)

puts the extent of code switching in normal conversations amongst bilinguals into

perspective by outlining that code switching consists of 84% single word switches, 10%

phrase switches and 6% clause switching.

There are a number of possible reasons for the switching from one language to

another and these will now be considered, as presented by Crystal (1987). The first of

these is the notion that a speaker may not be able to express him/herself in one language

so switches to the other to compensate for the deficiency. As a result, the speaker may be

triggered into speaking in the other language for a while. This type of code switching

tends to occur when the speaker is upset, tired or distracted in some manner. Secondly,
 6

switching commonly occurs when an individual wishes to express solidarity with a

particular social group. Rapport is established between the speaker and the listener when

the listener responds with a similar switch. This type of switching may also be used to

exclude others who do not speak the second language from a conversation. An example

of such a situation may be two people in an elevator in a language other than English.

Others in the elevator who do not speak the same language would be excluded from the

conversation and a degree of comfort would exist amongst the speakers in the knowledge

that not all those present in the elevator are listening to their conversation.

The final reason for the switching behavior presented by Crystal (1987) is the

alteration that occurs when the speaker wishes to convey his/her attitude to the listener.

Where monolingual speakers can communicate these attitudes by means of variation in

the level of formality in their speech, bilingual speakers can convey the same by code

switching. Crystal (1987) suggests that where two bilingual speakers are accustomed to

conversing in a particular language, switching to the other is bound to create a special

effect. These notions suggest that code switching may be used as a socio-linguistic tool

by bilingual speakers.

But several problems had been experienced by students and teachers as well.

Classroom interaction has been monopolized by code switching and code mixing.

Filipinos can shift from one language to another, depending on the place, occasion, and

person addressed. This language practice is now widely used in everyday conversation

with peers, in talk shows, in mass media, and as mentioned earlier, in classrooms.

Gonzales (1974-1975), in his summative evaluation of 11 years of bilingual education in

 7

the country, reveals that our classrooms practice code-switching from Filipino ( in

Tagalog speaking areas) and to the vernacular ( in non-Tagalog speaking areas) when the

medium is supposed to be English. He further finds that “ the use of the local language is

mostly for classroom management and instruction, for repetition and review, for making

clear a principle introduced in English. English continues to provide a substratal support

for intellectual infrastructure.

Some educators have expressed negative views on code switching in the

classroom. They believe that the continued use of it in the classroom will lead to the

deterioration of the students’ competence in English.

Sociolinguistics theory, however, views it rather positively. It is maintained that it

is a communication strategy that attempts to repair misunderstood message thus

providing for more comprehensible input. A noted Filipino language educator admits that

school authorities in the Philippines have yet to be exposed to newer sociolinguistic

insights to get them to understand that code switching is a natural social phenomenon in

communication and could very well be exploited as a strategy for learning of concepts in

the content area curriculum.

Current research on language behavior in communicative interaction specifically

the effective use of language as a medium of instruction, has lately been focused on

classroom interaction, which is part of a new type of research called ethnographic

investigation. In this type of research the investigator assumes a participatory role by

being right there on the scene in order to account for the various factors that define the
 8

phenomenon. This study focuses how Science teachers resort to code switching and

code mixing while teaching lessons in Science.

This study therefore attempts to describe and analyze the interactive mode aspect of

teacher talk, bilingual and code switching practices of first year college students in their

science class with the end in view of deriving implications on the attainment of curricular

aims particularly through the use of English as medium of instruction in college science

classes.

Specifically, this investigation will attempt to answer the following:

1. Why do Science teachers code switch during classroom instruction? Does

code switching serve its purpose to clarify not only the content of the lessons but

also the language of the teachers?

2. How often is code switching and code mixing used during classroom interaction?

3. Is code switching effective in aiding students’ acquisition of content and language

in Science classes?

Method

Participants

The participants of this study came from a First Year Physics class taking up an

Engineering course, together with their instructor, at the Bulacan State University-

Sarmiento Campus. This class was chosen to find out how the teacher explains the

lesson and how the students would respond to the use of the English language. It is

expected of them to use and understand the second language during classroom

interaction without resorting to code switching or code mixing. Most students in these
 9

classes speak English as their second language. Some of them claimed in the survey

questionnaire that they want Filipino to be used more often than English during class

discussion. Most students claimed that their oral proficiency in English is poor and

that they do not use it anywhere. With the 29 students asked, they profess that they

like English to be used as medium during discussion but they prefer Filipino to be

used from time to time especially if there are parts of their lesson they hardly

understand. This background is essential to the understanding of the nature of

bilingual discourse in the classroom.

Data Collection and Data Analysis

The data were collected through observations inside the classroom of the above-

mentioned respondents. At the beginning, classroom interactions were documented

unbeknownst to the participants who really are being observed, teacher or the

students.

Instances of code-switching were identified in the transcripts and

then analyzed.

In our discussion below, we will first look at code-switching that

took place during

language class. By far the most frequently occurring use of code-

switching by

students is to mark boundaries between the various discursive and

practical activities undertaken in the course of the assigned

language-learning tasks. For example, students generally code-

 10

switch in order to shift from the undertaking of the school activity to

its management or regulation, i.e. from assigned activities to other

ones in which the parameters involving the school task are

suspended. Code-switching opens sequences aimed at planning,

organizing and structuring the discourse and the activities students

are sharing. Similarly, code-switching sometimes shows an

alteration in the arrangement of participants, i.e. a shift of receiver,

the incorporation of a new interlocutor, etc .and then turn our

attention to interaction during the English language class. We will

first analyze teacher’s use of code switching then learners’ use of

code-switching and then contrast their outcomes according to the

target language of each task. Secondly, the impact of interactive

contexts on such functions will be addressed.

To examine when CS occurs, the teacher’s interaction with the students

was transcribed. Transcriptions were organized and analyzed by the situation and manner

that triggered CS and by the intentional meanings or functions of CS that switchers used

during the conversation. Whereas a varying degree of switching occurred during the class

discussion, the researcher has gotten several extracts to focus on the language behaviors

of the students, the teacher for her code switching/code mixing activity, and the dynamics

between the teacher and the students. Moreover, the extracts were used to analyze and

examine the participants’ linguistic behavior in terms of when and for what purpose the

participants made the language choices, how CS conveyed or enhanced the switcher’s

attitude, emotion or intents, and what the entailed cultural messages were.
 11

A survey was also conducted to further identify the role of code switching in

classroom interaction.

Results

The interaction between the teacher and the students reveal that code switching is

unavoidable during classroom instruction. The analysis of when and why CS occurs

in many cases suggests that CS is triggered by who the speakers are. For example, the

teacher’s shifts are mostly used for clarifying her meaning, or helping the students

understand her intention depending on their language proficiency. The shifts play a

role of confirmation or translation.

Let us try to examine the following extract:

Extract 1:

Teacher: Alright class, what is the volume of the empty space? So, hinahanap natin

yung volume..Ano ang masasabi mo dito, Mark,?Eto yung tubig, ang

hinahanap natin yung volume ng hangin sa ibabaw.

Student: Ahm, sir, how do we solve that again? Kasi po,ano,,pag kalahati, malaki

ang, ano, volume sa taas..Panu sosolvin yan? Kasi, it’s difficult, sir.

Teacher: Again, here is the formula, you watch and listen.. Eto ang gagamitin nyong

pyramid...

As can be seen from the extract, the teacher code switched when he directed a

question to a student. When the student answered the question, he also resorted to code
 12

mixing and code switching. The alternation takes the form of two subsequent sentences,

as when a speaker uses a second language to reply to someone else’s question. It is also

noticeable here that the student is somewhat at loss of words so he resorts to sentence

fillers like kasi, ano, and ah. In this instance, code switching/mixing is used by students

to fill lexical gaps. For the teacher, it is merely an act of repetition of a previously stated

sentence for emphasis.

Here is another extract from the class discussion.

Extract 2:

Teacher: So, lampas na dun sa kalahati….So pag kalahati ng altitude ay may

tubig, ano ang volume?

Student: Sir, kung 1.675 meters yan, ano ito? (Student pointing at the drawing of

a cone on the board)

Teacher: Ahh, the cone’s latitude is equal to the diameter of the base.

In the second extract, code switching and code mixing are noticeable both from

the teacher and the student when they are discussing the problem. But upon looking at the

last sentence from the teacher, it is noticeable that he gives a direct English explanation of

the problem. It can be concluded here that there are explanations in Science which are

difficult to directly translate in English, or the speaker finds it hard to look for Filipino

words that would supplement for some Physics terminologies like latitude and diameter.

Therefore, students should also be aware of what these terms mean to foster better

understanding in the classroom.

 13

The following tables show how students interpret the amount of English and Filipino to

be used in the classroom.

Table I: Frequency on the Use of English or Filipino in Physics class

Male Female
a. Never use Filipino, 7 -
only English
b. Use Filipino 7 9
occasionally
c. Use Filipino often 3 3
d. Use Filipino
exclusively - -
Total = 17 12

In table 1, out of 29 students, there were 7 male students who said that Filipino

should never be used during classroom discussion. Seven (7) males and three (3) females

said that Filipino should only be used occasionally; three (3) males and three (3) females

said that Filipino should be used only on certain occasions. Nobody agreed that Filipino

should be used exclusively.

 14

Table 2: Percentage on the usage of Filipino and English in the classroom as

interpreted by students

Filipino (%) English (%)

Male Female
- 1 10% 90%
- 1 15% 85%
3 1 20% 80%
- 1 25% 75%
2 5 30% 70%
3 - 40% 60%
3 1 50% 50%
- 1 60% 40%

Table 2 manifests differences of opinion of the students on the amount of Filipino

or English to be used inside the classroom. But still, higher percentages are given to

English.

Table 3: Reasons given by the students why Filipino should be used as alternate to
English during discussion in their Physics class

No. of Students
a. For explanation of difficult terms 18
b. For better comprehension 17
c. For the interpretation of data
11
d. Difficulty of using English
e. Because we are Filipino citizens 2
f. For the development of listening 1
skills
g. For translation of unfamiliar words 2
 15

There were varied reasons why Filipino should be used in the classroom according to the

survey conducted from the Engineering students. But the two topmost answers given by

the students are reflected in a and b.

Hence, the question on how often is code switching and code mixing used by

Science teachers during class interaction is dependent on the conditions stated in table 3.

In the course of the classroom observation, code switching occurs very smoothly whether

it takes place at the sentence boundaries or at the word boundaries. More or less the same

patterns are found throughout the classroom discourse.

The findings show that respondents suggested that both languages (Filipino and

English) be allowed as media of instruction for teaching Science subjects. On the part of

the teachers, the language used should be simplified and comprehension should be

checked frequently during discussion. The student who struggles to respond in English is

every bit as capable a thinker as anyone in class.

Code switching has thus been conceptualized as a resource available to learners

that indexes the processes through which learners acquire, select and use new knowledge.

Code switching in classroom interactions has been said to be most often

participant-related (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2005). Switching in these instances is

motivated by, on one hand, the students’ lack of competence and, on the other, the

teacher’s intention to give help ( Unamono, 2000) , thus facilitating the interlocutor’s

language comprehension or production. Furthermore, CS can be interpreted either as a

 16

strategy for the appropriation of a new language, as a communicative strategy, or as

functionally diversified evidence of the development of plurilingual competence.

In other words, the multilingual classroom becomes an environment where the

students’ bilingual (or multilingual) identities are accepted, and this can make a positive

contribution to the learning context. ( Unamono, 2008, p.3)

Discussion

This study’s result suggests that CS is used for facilitating teacher-student

communication with each other despite language barriers and cultural differences

between generations. In the interactions between the teachers and the students, CS

functions as a communicative strategy to clarify or reinforce the speaker’s point,

overcoming the gap of linguistic competence between the two languages. In relation to

this, CS is used to promote comprehension among the students who have a preferred

language. Moreover, CS is employed to meet the complex communicative purposes,

which fill a linguistic need for appropriate word or a lack of appropriate expression due

to different linguistic choices. The purpose of the linguistic choices and the result created

by the choice reveal that CS is used as a communicative strategy to achieve particular

conversational goals in interactions with other bilingual speakers.

Many teachers, who are in favor of the applications of communicative techniques in

the language teaching environment, oppose any form of native language use during

classroom instruction. Contrary to this, supporters of the use of native language in the

form of code switching, suggest that it may be an effective strategy in various aspects.

Following the ideas of these two parties, some weak and strong sides of the use of code

switching in foreign language classroom settings will be mentioned with a critical

 17

perspective.

According to Cook (2003), when we hear an unknown language, we cannot even

make out the boundaries between words. Reading it is no better because even if it uses

familiar symbols, we do not know what the words means (p.21). It may be suggested then

that the students should share the same native language, if code switching will be applied

in instruction. Another point to consider in this respect is that the competence of the

teacher in the use of the mother tongue of students also plays a vital role, if positive

contributions of code switching are expected. This perspective concerns the interaction of

students with native speakers of the target language, as mutual intelligibility may not be

possible if the learner switches his language during communication.

In supporting the existence of code switching in language classrooms, Edwards

(2006), on his article on the foundations of bilingualism says that, “Everyone is

bilingual,” that there is no one in the world who does not know at least a few words in

languages other than the maternal variety. According to one linguist, in the

circumstances where code switching is used due to an inability of expression, it serves for

continuity in speech instead of presenting interference in language. In this respect, code

switching stands to be a supporting element in communication of information and in

social interaction; therefore serves for communicative purposes in the way that it is used

as a tool for transference of meaning. Additionally, the functions of the teacher’s code

switching as mentioned stand as supportive explanations for the strong sides of the

phenomenon. All these in general lead to the idea that the use of code switching somehow
 18

builds a bridge from known to unknown and may be considered as an important element

in language teaching when used efficiently.

According to Unamuno (2008), such uses of code switching which are very usual

in the schools, may be interpreted either as related to participants’ preferences or as

related to issues linked to the organization of their conversation. Children are shown to be

able to code switch to suggest a change of theme, of activity, of discursive role, etc. So

despite the fact that their bilingual competence is being built up, these children are able to

code switch to serve both discourse-related and participant –related functions (p.15).

Code-switching in classroom interactions has been said to be

most often participant-related (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2005;

Zentella, 1981). Switching in these instances is motivated by, on the

one hand, the students’ lack of competence and, on the other, the

teacher’s intention to give help (Nussbaum, 1990; Unamuno, 2000),

thus facilitating the interlocutors’ language comprehension or

production. However, as we will see, instances of discourse-related

code switching may also occur in the classroom context when it is

constructed as a multilingual community of practice. In this case,

participant-related code-switching and discourse-related code-

switching are not exclusive categories, and both can be used together

to illuminate the analysis. We will also need to relate our work to other

research which has argued that the analysis of code-switching must

take into account the interpretation of such contexts by the

 19

interlocutors themselves (Mondada, 2001), as well as the balance

between their linguistic competences (Py, 1991) and the practical

activity they are attempting to undertake (Pekarek, 2005). Our work

thus has common ground with those social perspectives on language

acquisition that argue that code-switching can be interpreted either as

a strategy for the appropriation of a new language (Pekarek, 1999), as

a communicative strategy, or as functionally diversified evidence of

the development of a plurilingual competence (Coste, Moore, & Zarate,

1997).

Code switching may then be integrated into the activities used for the teaching of

a second language. At beginners level, students may use the second language for

obtaining information from material such as a travel brochure or a phone message to

answer comprehension questions in the first language. At advanced stages, the student

may be required to research a topic and provide a report in the first language. This

approach is one which uses code switching as a foundation for the development of a

second language learner who can stand between the two languages and use whichever is

most appropriate to the situation rather than becoming an imitation native speaker (Cook,

1991).

Cook (1989) provides another method of using code switching as a second

language teaching tool through reciprocal language teaching. This method requires

students to switch languages at predetermined points pairing students who want to learn

each other's languages. Thus the students alternate between the two languages and

exchange the roles of student and teacher. A similar system may also be used whereby the
 20

teacher uses code switching by starting the lesson in the first language and then moving

into the second and back (Cook, 1991). This makes the lesson as communicative as

possible and is similar to the 'New Concurrent Approach' presented by Rodolpho

Jacobson, outlined in Cook (1991). The approach gets teachers to balance the use of

languages within each lesson with the teacher allowed to switch languages at certain key

points, such as during important concepts, when students are getting distracted, during

revisions or when students are praised and told off. On this basis, switching may be used

as an effective teaching strategy for second language learning.

There is however a means for viewing code switching as language interference,

particularly from a teaching perspective. Prucha (1983) examines how language usage is

determined by consideration of extraindividual and extralinguistic purposes, or social

needs, taking a 'sociofunctional' approach to the study of language. Prucha is of the

opinion that all of linguistic reality is determined by certain purposes, programs or aims

reflective of societal needs. As a result, social needs have caused an evolution of

language and language communication. This proposition relates to the notion that

language acquired by an individual will have an effect on the society in which the

individual participates as successful societal functioning demands an adaptable, thinking

and autonomous person who is a self-regulated learner, capable of communicating and

co-operating with others (Birenbaum, 1996). Acquisition of these skills is addressed by

Cherryholmes (1993) and others (Percy and Ramsden, 1980; Moore, 1988), with a

consideration of reciprocal teaching. Cherryholmes (1993) adapts a definition by

Vygotsky (1978) suggesting that cognitive development takes place as students undertake

activities in the presence of experts, or teachers, coming to eventually perform the

 21

functions by themselves. This allows the student to become autonomous over a period of

time whereby the teaching is reciprocated from the teacher to the student. In terms of

societal consequence, the teaching-learning activity would then produce individuals who

are able to participate in society independently. These concepts applied to reciprocal

teaching/learning, as presented by Cook (1991) above, would suggest that a use of code

switching in the classroom would provide for a bilingual norm whereby code switching is

seen to be acceptable method of communication. Students then would feel comfortable

switching languages within normal conversations providing for a bilingual society. In

turn, those who were not bilingual may be disadvantaged as they would not be able to

communicate as effectively as those who were not. Perhaps a societal expectation of

currency is bilingualism and this may be a foundation for the high degree of languages

other than English programs existing in all levels of schooling. In this situation the

environment is set whereby interference may occur as the societal norm moves to the

inclusion of code switching and the degree of bilingualism increases. Interference may

occur in this instance by monolingual speakers who attempt to use a second language for

a social reason such as solidarity or bilingual speakers attempting to integrate the second

language into the first to be understood by monolingual speakers.

However, from another perspective, code switching means that the two languages

are kept separate and distinct which creates a barrier to interference. This is on the basis

that if an individual code switches, he/she will not try to make up their own variations of

the words they are unable to correctly say thus preventing interference at a phonological
 22

level. Language would also not be subject to using them out of grammatical context and

would not be subject to interference at a lexical level or with orthography.

Speakers use communicative codes in their attempts (linguistic or paralinguistic)

to communicate with other language users. Listeners use their own codes to make sense

of the communicative contributions of those they interact with. Listeners may need to

shift their expectations to come to a useful understanding of speakers’ intentions.

Similarly, speakers may switch the form of their contributions in order to signal a change

in situation, shifting relevance of social roles, or alternate ways of understanding a

conversational contribution. In other words, switching codes is a means by which

language users may contextualize communication.

A useful definition of code switching for sociocultural linguistic analysis should

recognize it as an alternation in the form of communication that signals a context in

which the linguistic contribution can be understood. The ‘context’ so signaled may be

very local (such as the end of a turn at talk), very general (such as positioning vis-à-vis

some macro-sociological category), or anywhere in between. Furthermore, it is important

to recognize that this signaling is accomplished by the action of participants in a

particular interaction. That is to say, it is not necessary or desirable to spell out the

meaning of particular code switching behavior a priori. Rather, code switching is

accomplished by parties in interaction, and the meaning of their behavior emerges from

the interaction. This is not to say that the use of particular linguistic forms has no
 23

meaning, and that speakers “make it up as they go.” Individuals remember and can call

on past experiences of discourse. These memories form part of a language user’s

understanding of discourse functions. Therefore, within a particular setting certain forms

may come to recur frequently. Nonetheless, it is less interesting (for the current author at

least, and probably for the ends of socio-cultural linguistic analysis) to track the

frequency or regularity of particular recurrences than to understand the effect of linguistic

form on discourse practice and emergent social meanings.

Code switching may be viewed as an extension to language for bilingual speakers

rather than an interference and from other perspectives it may be viewed as interference,

depending on the situation and context in which it occurs. This conclusion is drawn from

the notions that switching occurs when a speaker: needs to compensate for some

difficulty, express solidarity, convey an attitude or show social respect (Crystal, 1987;

Berthold, Mangubhai and Bartorowicz, 1997). The switching also occurs within

postulated universal constraints such that it may be integrated into conversations in a

particular manner (Poplack, 1980; Cook, 1991). On this basis, given that it occurs within

a particular pattern, potential for code switching to interfere into a language exists. It has

also been outlined above that code switching may facilitate language development as a

mechanism for providing language samples and may also be utilized as a teaching

method for teaching second languages (Cook, 1989; 1991). Again, scope for code

switching to cause interference in a language exists if it is not utilised carefully as a

teaching method. It may be concluded then, that when code switching is to compensate

for a language difficulty it may be viewed as interference and when it is used as a socio-

linguistic tool it should not.

 24

To recapitulate, then, code switching is a practice of parties in discourse to signal

changes in context by using alternate grammatical systems or subsystems, or codes. The

mental representation of these codes cannot be directly observed, either by analysts or by

parties in interaction. Rather, the analyst must observe discourse itself, and recover the

salience of a linguistic form as code from its effect on discourse interaction. The

approach described here understands code switching as the practice of individuals in

particular discourse settings. Therefore, it cannot specify broad functions of language

alternation, nor define the exact nature of any code prior to interaction. Codes emerge

from interaction, and become relevant when parties to discourse treat them as such.

The Functions of Teachers’ Code Switching

According to Gleason (2005), teachers who provide opportunities and encourage

children to talk for a wide variety of purposes, in different situations, and with different

audiences also help students learn to communicate effectively. More specifically, students

need a variety of experiences communicating in order to learn the functions of language,

different forms of discourse and the conventions for using language appropriately. (p.215)

The teachers’ use of code switching is not always performed consciously; which

means that the teacher is not always aware of the functions and outcomes of the code

switching process. Therefore, in some cases, it may be regarded as an automatic and

unconscious behavior. Nevertheless, either conscious or not, it necessarily serves some

basic functions which may be beneficial in language learning environments. These

functions are listed as topic switch, affective functions, and repetitive functions by

Mattson and Burenhult (1999, p.61). In order to have a general idea about these, it will be
 25

appropriate to give a brief explanation about each function.

In topic switch cases, the teacher alters his/her language according to the topic

that is under discussion. This is mostly observed in grammar instruction, that the teacher

shifts his language to the mother tongue of his students in dealing with particular

grammar points, which are taught at that moment. The teacher is a fluent speaker of both

Filipino and English but it was revealed that in the classroom he had developed the habit

of using both the languages, as there were students who could not follow the ‘English

only’ discourse. In these cases, the students’ attention is directed to the new knowledge

by making use of code switching and accordingly making use of native tongue.

Nevertheless, most knowledge is available only in the English language. Whatever

language is used in the classroom, students and teachers must read textbooks and other

reading material in English. And through these and also through classroom input, students

get familiar with English and content words. They have also acquired a large amount of

English vocabulary, mostly nouns and noun phrases, through primary and secondary

schooling (Khan, 2005). At this point it may be suggested that a bridge from known

(native language) to unknown (new foreign language content) is constructed in order to

transfer the new content and meaning is made clear in this way as it is also suggested that

a teacher can exploit students’ previous L1 learning experience to increase their

understanding of L2.

Extract 3:

Teacher: If you have a problem, or if you encounter a word that you don’t understand, I

would advise you na mag-consult sa dictionary. Hindi naman kasi lahat ng

 26

terminologies sa English especially Science concepts ay pwede i-explain sa

Filipino.

Other functional variables also influence code switching. Although physical

setting alone has little influence, the type of discourse is a factor (Owens 2005, p.423).

Interviews and narratives contain few switches, instead remaining in one language or the

other. Conversations, in contrast, are characterized by frequent switches. In addition, code

switching can be a stylistic device used for direct quotes, emphasis, clarification or

repetitions, elaboration, focus on a particular portion of a message, attention-getting and

maintenance, and personal interjections and asides.

In addition to the function of code switching named as topic switch, the

phenomenon also carries affective functions that serve for expression of emotions. In this

respect, code switching is used by the teacher in order to build solidarity and intimate

relations with the students. In this sense, one may speak off the contribution of code

switching for creating a supportive language environment in the classroom. As mentioned

before, this is not always a conscious process on the part of the teacher.

Extract 4:

Teacher: Pwede niyo i-solve yung ibaba if gusto niyo i-check ang mga sagot niyo. Ingat

kayo sa pagsolve baka mamali sagot niyo.

Here, the teacher wants to make sure that the students would not commit any

errors.
 27

Another explanation for the functionality of code switching in classroom settings

is its repetitive function. In this case, the teacher uses code switching in order to transfer

the necessary knowledge for the students for clarity. Following the instruction in target

language, the teacher code switches to native language in order to clarify meaning, and in

this way stresses importance on the foreign language content for efficient comprehension.

However, the tendency to repeat the instruction in native language may lead to some

undesired student behaviors. A learner who is sure that the instruction in foreign language

will be followed by a native language translation may lose interest in listening to the

former instruction which will have negative academic consequences; as the student is

exposed to foreign language discourse limitedly.

Extract 5:

Teacher: What is the volume of the empty space? So hinahanap natin ‘yung volume…

Ano ba ‘yung volume ng empty space?

The Functions of Students’ Code Switching

Research on code-switching in the classroom has tended to focus

on the role of language alternation in the restructuring of participants’

linguistic and communicative repertoires (Nussbaum & Unamuno,

2001). Code-switching has thus been conceptualized as a resource

available to learners that indexes the processes through which learners

 28

acquire, select and use new knowledge. As we will argue in the present

paper, in order to examine language switching in the classroom

context it is necessary to undertake a detailed analysis of the practical

activities speakers engage in, focusing on the use of their linguistic

repertoires. Moreover, it is relevant to analyze the way the participants

sometimes exploit the differences between languages (i.e. code-

switching), and sometimes exploit other possibilities of their available

verbal resources, such as the use of mixing forms (i.e. code-mixing) or

forms that are valid in more than one language.

As it is the case for teachers’ code switching, the students also are not always

aware of the reasons for code switching as well as its functions and outcomes. Although

they may unconsciously perform code switching, it clearly serves some functions either

beneficial or not. Eldridge names these functions as: equivalence, floor-holding,

reiteration, and conflict control (1996:305-307).

The first function of student code switch is equivalence. In this case, the student

makes use of the native equivalent of a certain lexical item in target language and

therefore code switches to his/her native tongue. This process may be correlated with the

deficiency in linguistic competence of target language, which makes the student use the

native lexical item when he/she has not the competence for using the target language

explanation for a particular lexical item. So “equivalence” functions as a defensive

mechanism for students as it gives the student the opportunity to continue communication

by bridging the gaps resulting from foreign language incompetence.

 29

Extract 6:

Teacher: Okay let’s take it this way. What is the volume of your body? How could you

roughly check your estimate?

Student: Well, sir, ahm, di ko po ma-estimate eh, because I think I’ve gained weight

already. Ang tantiya (estimate) ko lang po eh, from 120 lbs.,nagdagdag ako ng

two kilos. So that means my weight now is roughly estimated at 125 lbs.

The next function to be introduced is floor-holding. During a conversation in the

target language, the students fill the stopgap with native language use. It may be

suggested that this is a mechanism used by the students in order to avoid gaps in

communication, which may result from the lack of fluency in target language. The

learners performing code switching for floor holding generally have the same problem:

they can not recall the appropriate target language structure or lexicon. It may be claimed

that this type of language alternation may have negative effects on learning a foreign

language; since it may result in loss of fluency in long term.

Extract 7:

Teacher: Is it possible for two bodies to be in thermal equilibrium with each other

without being in physical contact? Thermal equilibrium ay pagkakapantay o

pagkaka- balance ng heat or warmth sa katawan., ganun…

 30

Student: No, because according to the theory of thermal equilibrium, sinasabi po dun na

ang dalawang… ah, anu nga ba yun…dalawang bagay, ay mali, systems pala,

ay nasa thermal equilibrium kung ang temperature nila ay parehas.

The third consideration in students’ code switching is reiteration, which is pointed

by Eldridge (1996) as: “messages are reinforced, emphasized, or clarified where the

message has already been transmitted in one code, but not understood” (p. 306). In this

case, the message in target language is repeated by the student in native tongue through

which the learner tries to give the meaning by making use of a repetition

technique. 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. Second, the

student may think that it is more appropriate to code switch in order to indicate the

teacher that the content is clearly understood by him/her.

Extract 8:

Student: Sir, un po bang volume na hinahanap natin eh ung amount of air , o ung bigat

po ba ng empty space?

The last function of students’ code switching to be introduced here is conflict

control. For the potentially conflictive language use of a student (meaning that the

student tends to avoid a misunderstanding or tends to utter words indirectly for specific
 31

purposes), the code switching is a strategy to transfer the intended meaning. The

underlying reasons for the tendency to use this type of code switching may vary

according to students’ needs, intentions or purposes. Additionally, the lack of some

culturally equivalent lexis among the native language and target language--which may

lead to violation of the transference of intended meaning--may result in code switching

for conflict control; therefore possible misunderstandings are avoided.

Extract 9:

Teacher: The lid on a tightly closed jar may be loosened by running hot water over it.

Why does this work?

Student 1: Sir, is it because of atmospheric pressure?

Student 2: Well, ahh sir excuse me po. I think, siguro classmate, eto ang mas malapit na

paliwanag diyan sa sinabi mo…Hindi dahil sa atmospheric pressure. It’s because

most materials expand when their temperature is increased. So, pag binuhusan

mo ng hot water ‘yung takip ng jar na mahigpit na nakasara, ito’y luluwag

dahil sa temperature ng hot water. Sir, that’s how I understand the explanation po

kanina.
 32

All the functions of code switching by the students mentioned above were all

based on the interaction that happened between the teacher and the students during the

classroom observation.

Conclusion

Because code-switching does not sound conventional, since the role they play in

natural language and development and usage is hard to understand, because there is little

control over them, they are seen as aberrations. Because the linguistic and communicative

rules and purposes which explain them as natural and creative outgrowths of being

bilingual are difficult to perceive, they are not accepted as pattern unique to bilinguals.

Because they are neither fish nor fowl, they are seen solely as alingualism,

semilingualism, interference, confusion, or fossilization instead of as a new and

alternative forms created by cognitive/conceptual synthesis of two languages. Whether

code switching is used to fill a gap or if it is a conscious desire to mix the two languages

to create new forms, the language created in most code switches has internal linguistic

consistency and validity for the learner’s deep structure. While the surface structure also

has bilingual consistency and validity to those communicating with it, for language

separatists and language purists it is otherwise. First language purists fear that the use of

the second language with the first either keep the first one from growing or debase it or

cause confusion in the speaker’s mind. Second language purists think the same. It may

just be that code switching is needed for many reasons, one of which may be in order to

debase, erase, or cause cognitive confusion to each language.

Moreover, this study also indicates that since CS is becoming increasingly

common in more parts of the world, it is of the utmost importance to understand how CS,
 33

as a communicative strategy, functions in various settings, that is, across various

linguistic and cultural systems. The limited data in this study point to the need for future

research focusing on CS, related to how the communicative demands are achieved by

switchers from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds in their multilingual and

multicultural interactions.

With respect to all the points mentioned, it may be suggested that code

switching in language classroom is not always a blockage or deficiency in learning a

language, but may be considered a useful strategy in classroom interaction, if the

aim is to make meaning clear and to transfer the knowledge to students in efficient

way. Yet, it should be kept in mind that in long term, when the students experience

interaction with the native speakers of the target language, code switching may be a

barrier which prevents mutual intelligibility. Accordingly, the teacher has a vital

role for preventing its long-term damages on foreign language learning process.
 34

References:

Ball, Martin F. and Miller, Nicole. (2005). Clinical Sociolinguistics. ed.Martin F. Ball.
Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Black, Susan. (1995) . Bilingual Education:Melting Pot or Salad Bowl. Education

Digest.Ma.USA.p.56..

Bonvillian , Nancy. (2004)Language, Culture and Communication: The Meaning of

Messages (4th Ed) NJ Prentice Hall,

Bostepe, Erman ( 2002). Issues in Code switching: Competing Theories and Models.
Teacher’s College. Columbia:Columbia University Press. 1-27.

Cattell , Ray. ( 2007) Children’s Language : Consensus and Controversy

Choi , Jinsook amd Kuipers, Joel .(2003) Bilingual Practices in a Science Classroom:
Bilingual Hispanic Students’ Way of Constructing School Science. P.4

Christian, Donna, et.al. (2005). Phi Delta Kappan. Foreign Language Proficiency. Vol
87.no.3. p.22

Chung, Haesook H. (2006). Code switching as a Communicative Strategy. Bilingual

Research Journal. 299-305.
 35

Cook, Guy. (2003)Applied Linguistics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Cook, V. (1989). 'Reciprocal Language Teaching: Another Alternative'. Modern English

Teacher, 16, 3\4, 48-53.

Cook, V. (1991). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Edward Arnold/
Hodder Headline Group: Melbourne.

Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge University

Press: Cambridge.

Edwards, J. (2006). Foundations of Bilingualism. New York. Oxford University Press.

p. 25.

Ellis, Rod and Barkhuizer, Gary (2005). Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford,New
York: Oxford University Press.

Eldridge, J. (1996). Code-switching in a Turkish secondary school. ELT Journal, 50,4:

303-311

Fasold, Ralph and Connor-Untonn ,Jeffrey (2006). An Introduction to Language and

Linguistics
Gass, Susan M. and Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition. New York:
Routledge/ Taylor and Francis Group.

Gonzalez, Andrew.(1999) . Philippine Bilingual Education. ed. Ma.Lourdes Bautista.

Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines

Gleason, Jean B. (2005). The Development of Language. School’s Inference on the

Acquisition of Communicative Competence. 6th ed.USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
p.215

Hoff, Erika. (2008) Language Development.

Hoff, Erika(2004) Lexical Diversity and Language Development .118.

Hoff, Erika (2008) Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday And
Vygostsky ed. Heidi Byrnes

Khan, Kaleem Raza. (2005).Classroom Biligual Discourse: Problems and Prospects

Leaver, Betty Lou, et al. (2005). Achieving Success in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
 36

Liebscher, L. and Dailey- O’Cain,J. (2005) Learner Code Switching in the Content-
based foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 234-247.

Long, Michel H. ( 2005). Second Language Needs Analysis. ed. M. Long. Cambridge,
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Macias, Ana H. (1992). Code-Switching, Biligualism and Biliteracy: A case study.

Bilingual Research Journals. Minnesota:Minnesota Inuversity Press.

Malvern, David et.al. (2004) Lexical Diversity and Language Development:

Quantification and Assessment. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.

Naussbaum, L. and Unamomo,V. (2001) Sociolinguistic Communication. V . Castelloti

(ed) Rouen: Publications de l Universite del Rouen.

Nilep, Chad. (2006). “Code Switching” in Sociocultural Linguistics. Colorado Research

in Linguistics. University of Colorado, vol.19.

Owens, Robert E.Jr. (2005).Language Development. 6th ed. Code Switching and
Development. USA: Pearson Education, Inc. p.423

Poplack, S. (1980). 'Sometimes I'll start a sentence in English y termino en espanol',

Linguistics, 18, 581-616.

Prucha, J. (1983). 'Using Language: A Sociofunctional Approach', in Bain, B. (Ed.)

(1983). The Sociogenesis of Language and Human Conduct. Plenum Press: New York.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behaviour. Appleton-Century-Crofts: New York.

Tagliamonte, Sali A.(2006) Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Unamono, Virginia. (2008) . Multilingual Switch in Peer Calssroom Interaction.

Linguistics and Education. 19, 1-19.

Vizconde, Camilla J. (2006).. Attitudes of Sudent Teachers towards the use of English as
Language of Instruction for Science and Mathematics in the Philippines The
Lingustics Journal. .vol.1,no.3.p28.

Leaver ,Betty Lou et.al. (2005)Achieving Success in 2nd Language Acquisition P118.

Messing, Lynn. (2008) Bimodal Communication. User.dtcc.edu.

Milroy, Lesley and Gordon, Matthew. (2003) Sociolinguistics: Method and

Interpretation. Oxford :B lackwell Publishing,Inc.
 37

Numan, D. and Carter, D.( 2001). Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Olcay. Sert. (Oct 2008) The Internet TESL Journal volXI no.8 ,

Sert, Olcay . (2002) .The Functions of Code Switching in ELT Classrooms. Turkey:
Heicettepe University.

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

Internet TESL Journal. 3,10 <ttp://iteslj.org/Articles/Skiba-CodeSwitching.html

Skiba, Richard. (2008)Code switching as a Countenance of Language Interference.

Skiba(at)Melbourne. Starway.net.au

Spolsky ,Bernard.( 2004) Language Policy P119.

Thompson, Roger. ( 2003).Filipino English and Taglish: Language Switching from

Multiple Perspective. John Benjamin’s Publication

Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin

How, When and Why People Use CodeSwitching in Language. (2008 )

www.universitip.com/term.papers