The phenomenon of code-switching (using two or more languages interchangeably) was first identified in the 1940s and 1950s. At that time, it was considered a substandard language practice. In the 1980s, however, code-switching started to be recognized as a pedagogical phenomenon in language instruction and received attention as a specific strategy of foreign language teachers (Liu, 2010).
A body of research exists regarding the benefits or hindrance of code-switching in second language (SL) or foreign language (FL) instruction. Code-switching, to be brief, refers to the alternate use of the first language and the target language, shifting from one language to the other within an utterance. Questions of convenience regarding switching back and forth between the target and the first language in the foreign or second language learning classroom are still debated, as to whether code-switching is positive or negative in language instruction, especially in the teaching of English, which is mandatory in high schools in many Latin American countries.
Some advocate for the total exclusion of the first language (L1) in classrooms on the grounds that it inhibits the second language (L2) acquisition or that it conveys the wrong messages about the target language (TL) or speech community ( Li & Martin, 2009). Defenders of English-only policies, for example, argue that in order to help students learn and speak English well L1 must be excluded from the classroom, as it is likely to prevent students from learning, and reaching economic and social benefits (Ellwood, 2008).
Moreover, proponents of the restriction of L1 argue that it is important for second language and foreign language teachers to expose learners to as many language functions as possible in the target language. Use or overuse of the L1 by SL or FL teachers will deprive learners of valuable TL input and social achievements that the proficient use of second language may convey (Liu, 2010)
For defenders of code-switching, however, the use of L1 is deemed beneficial. Code-switching is perceived, for its advocates, as a fundamental language skill that needs to be acquired because it is a normal part of interacting in a classroom where two languages are used. Therefore, English-only rule, a precept of English language teaching, becomes somehow a form of linguistic imperialism when imposed in classrooms.
No empirical evidence exists to support the notion that restricting mother tongue or L1 use necessarily improves learning efficiency. Furthermore, most of the code-switching appears highly valuable and related to pedagogic goals (Raschka et al., 2009). Code switching is highly functional as a communicative resource, which enables teachers and students to achieve a considerable number and variety of social and educational objectives.
In addition, code switching provides another resource for meeting classroom demands (Ferguson, 2003). The classroom is not only a place of formal learning but also a social and effective environment in its own right, one where teachers and students negotiate relationships and identities on a regular basis (Van Der Meij and Zhao, 2010).
Having no empirical evidence that supports that L1 restricts L2 learning encourages the idea that code-switching plays a positive role in the process of teaching and learning of English. No strong evidence supports the statement that code-switching hinders the learning of the TL. Code-switching is not a consequence of insufficient English language competence; nor is it a deficit or dysfunctional mode of interaction. Rather, code-switching is a valuable strategy, indicating a high level of general communicative competence (Li & Martin, 2009).
Code-switching allows the expression of identities that are not normally acknowledged in the classroom (Ellwood, 2008). The development of a theory of how code-switching works functionally and strategically in the classroom seems to be required. Weninger (2007) views code choices in academic settings as an opportunity to explore language ideologies which may facilitate the comprehension of the general situation of code-switching in diverse academic settings.
Extensive work is waiting for those who are interested in exploring the attitudes, assumptions, and contribution that code-switching have in the instruction of English as a Second Language or foreign language, which could help ease the tension between those who advocate for an English-only policy and those who advocate for the validation of code-switching as a pedagogical strategy.
In early research in second language acquisition, code-switching was construed negatively, as an incompetent and interfering strategy. However, new approaches have attempted to explore the beneficial aspects of code-switching and seek to identify its relevance for language pedagogy. English language teaching systems, which suggest that SL and FL contexts can be conducted exclusively in one language medium, are unrealistic.
The L2-only policy has limited application, relevance, and validity. Currently, no strong evidence supports the claim that code-switching hinders the learning of a second language. Code-switching is a skill requiring a large degree of linguistic competence in more than one language. In fact, code-switching is a suggestive indicator of the degree of bilingual competence. Consequently, code-switching as a pedagogical language approach can serve many purposes: classroom demands, interpersonal relations, and scaffolding knowledge construction for learners with limited English language proficiency.
The comprehension of how code-switching works in the classroom may facilitate the understanding of code-switching in diverse educational settings. If institutions and teachers understand that total immersion is not necessarily in teachers´ or students´ best interests, there is a responsibility to indicate how code-switching can best serve the needs of SL or FL classrooms.
Overall, code-switching has practical and policy implications for education in a culturally and linguistically diverse world in which we are all currently living. This culturally diverse world can only lead to recognizing that L1 plays a positive role in classrooms within any language instruction, remembering that it has influence on the attitudes of teachers and students.
References
- Ellwood, C. (2008). Questions of classroom identity: what can be learned from codeswitching in Classroom peer group talk? Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 538-557. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00786.x
- Ferguson, G. (2003). Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts: Functions, attitudes and policies. AILA Review, 16(1), 38-51.
- Li, W., & Martin, P. (2009). Conflicts and tensions in classroom codeswitching: an introduction. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 12(2), 117-122. doi:10.1080/13670050802153111
- Liu, J. (2010). Teachers’ code-switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 3(1), 10-23.
- Raschka, C., Sercombe, P., & Huang, C. (2009). Conflicts and tensions in codeswitching in a Taiwanese EFL classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 12(2), 157-171. doi:10.1080/13670050802153152
- Van Der Meij, H., & Zhao, X. (2010). Codeswitching in English courses in Chinese universities. Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 396-411. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01090.x
- Weninger, C. (2007). Speakers’ perceptions of code choice in a foreign language academic department. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 28(2), 134-151.
