Teachers code switching in pre intermediate efl classrooms a case study at university of science vietnam national university ho chi minh city m a 60 14 10

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY
UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

TEACHERS’ CODE-SWITCHING IN
PRE-INTERMEDIATE EFL CLASSROOMS:
A CASE STUDY AT UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE,
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY

A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature
in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

By
NGUYỄN KHOA NAM

Supervised by
PHÓ PHƯƠNG DUNG, Ph.D.

HO CHI MINH CITY, JANUARY 2018


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Phó
Phương Dung, for her enthusiastic support from the very first draft of my proposal
to the completion of the entire thesis. I am also thankful to her for her careful
proof-reading and comments which were of great importance to improving my
writing.
In addition, my sincere thanks go to the administrative staff at the Center for
Foreign Languages, University of Science, Vietnam National University – Ho Chi
Minh City, for providing me with necessary conditions to approach the potential

teacher participants at the site for my study.
I am also greatly indebted to my colleagues at the Center, especially the four
teachers who allowed me to enter their classes to make observations for both the
pilot and the official studies. Besides, I would like to acknowledge all the students
involved in the study for their active participation. Without their assistance, my
thesis would never have been completed.
I also owe sincere thanks to Mr. Cao Thanh Tâm, my former colleague, for his
valuable suggestions on the writing of this thesis as well as his constant
encouragement whenever I wavered in my determination to finish it.
Last but not least, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my beloved parents, who
are always there for me as a never-ending source of love, caring and support on
which I can rely every time I am in need of them to carry on in my life.

i


STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
I certify that this thesis entitled “TEACHERS’ CODE-SWITCHING IN PREINTERMEDIATE

EFL

CLASSROOMS:

A

CASE

STUDY

AT

UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE, VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO
CHI MINH CITY” is my own work, except where explicit reference sources
were made.
This thesis has not been previously submitted to any other institution for any
degree, diploma or qualification.
Ho Chi Minh City, January 25, 2018

Nguyễn Khoa Nam

ii


RETENTION OF USE
I hereby state that I, Nguyễn Khoa Nam, being a candidate for the Master’s degree
in TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and
use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original copy of my thesis deposited
in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research in
accordance with the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan
and reproduction of theses.
Ho Chi Minh City, January 25, 2018

Nguyễn Khoa Nam

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... i

Statement of originality .............................................................................................. ii
Retention of use ........................................................................................................ iii
Table of contents ....................................................................................................... iv
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................. vii
List of tables............................................................................................................ viii
List of figures ............................................................................................................ ix
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
1.1. Background to the study ................................................................................... 1
1.2. Aims of the study ............................................................................................. 3
1.3. Research questions ........................................................................................... 4
1.4. Significance of the study .................................................................................. 4
1.5. Scope of the study ............................................................................................ 4
1.6. Outline of the thesis ......................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................... 6
2.1. Operational definitions of key terms ................................................................. 6
2.1.1. Mother tongue, the first language (L1), and the second language (L2) ....... 6
2.1.2. The concept of code-switching ................................................................... 7
2.2. Functions of code-switching in second language learning and teaching .......... 10
2.3. Opinions on L1 use in L2 learning and teaching ............................................. 13
2.3.1. Arguments against L1 use in EFL classrooms .......................................... 13
2.3.2. Arguments in favor of L1 use in EFL classrooms ..................................... 14
2.4. Learners and teachers’ attitudes towards code-switching in different EFL
contexts................................................................................................................. 16
2.5. Code-switching in English classrooms in Vietnam ......................................... 18
2.6. Conceptual framework of the study ................................................................ 22
CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 24
3.1. Research design ............................................................................................. 24
3.2. Context of the study ....................................................................................... 26
iv

3.3. Pilot study ...................................................................................................... 28
3.4. Research participants in the study .................................................................. 29
3.4.1. Teacher participants ................................................................................. 29
3.4.2. Student participants .................................................................................. 31
3.5. Research instruments ..................................................................................... 32
3.5.1. Questionnaires ......................................................................................... 32
3.5.2. Observation scheme ................................................................................. 41
3.5.3. Interviews ................................................................................................ 44
3.6. Data collection procedure ............................................................................... 45
3.7. Data analysis procedure.................................................................................. 48
CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................... 50
4.1. Teachers’ opinions and practices of code-switching in EFL classrooms ......... 50
4.1.1. Teachers’ opinions of code-switching in EFL classrooms ........................ 50
4.1.2. Teachers’ practices of their code-switching in the A2-level English class 56
4.1.3. Comparisons between teachers’ opinions and their practices of codeswitching ........................................................................................................... 59
4.2. Variance in teachers’ code-switching throughout their English course in
terms of frequency and functions .......................................................................... 67
4.2.1. Observational results ................................................................................ 67
4.2.2. Discussion................................................................................................ 87
4.3. Students’ attitudes towards their teachers’ code-switching ............................. 89
4.3.1. General opinions about code-switching in EFL classrooms ...................... 89
4.3.2. Reflection on teacher’s code-switching in their current English class ....... 92
4.3.3. Students’ further opinions on their teacher’s code-switching .................. 101
4.3.4. Discussion.............................................................................................. 103
4.4. Summary ...................................................................................................... 106
CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 108
5.1. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 108
5.2. Pedagogical implications and suggestions .................................................... 110

5.2.1. Implications for EFL teachers ................................................................ 110
5.2.2. Implications for school administrators.................................................... 111
5.3. Limitations of the study ................................................................................ 111
v


5.4. Recommendations for further research ......................................................... 112
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 115
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 124
Appendix 1. Teacher questionnaire ........................................................................ 125
Appendix 2. Student questionnaire ......................................................................... 129
Appendix 2A. Student questionnaire (English version) ..................................... 130
Appendix 2B. Student questionnaire (Vietnamese version) ............................... 135
Appendix 3. Reliability analysis of the student questionnaire ................................. 140
Appendix 3A. Before item analysis ................................................................... 141
Appendix 3B. After item analysis ..................................................................... 145
Appendix 4. Extracts of classroom observation transcripts ..................................... 149
Appendix 5. Spada and Fröhlich's COLT (Communication Orientation of
Language Teaching) observation scheme ........................................... 159
Appendix 6. Classroom observation scheme........................................................... 161
Appendix 7. Questions used in teacher interviews .................................................. 162
Appendix 7A. Questions used in teacher interviews (English version) ............. 163
Appendix 7B. Questions used in teacher interviews (Vietnamese version)....... 165
Appendix 8. Extracts of teacher interviews............................................................. 167
Appendix 9. The frequency of teachers’ switches for each function in the three
stages of the course ............................................................................ 171
Appendix 10. The first page of a module in New Cutting Edge – Pre-Intermediate
textbook ............................................................................................. 177

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
B

beginning (of the course)

CS

code-switching

E

end (of the course)

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

ELT

English Language Teaching

F

frequency

US, VNU-HCMC

University of Science, Vietnam National

University – Ho Chi Minh City

L1

first language

L2

second language

M

middle (of the course)

P

percent

S(s)

Student(s)

T

Teacher

T1

Teacher 1

T2

Teacher 2

T3

Teacher 3

vii


LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Distribution of the items in the teacher questionnaire ................................ 35
Table 3.2 Distribution of the items in the student questionnaire ................................ 39
Table 3.3 A summary of the number of items and the Cronbach’s alpha values for
each scale before and after item analysis .................................................. 40
Table 3.4 The timeline for the data collection process in the official study ............... 47
Table 4.1 Teachers’ general beliefs about code-switching in EFL classrooms .......... 51
Table 4.2 Teachers’ opinions about the frequency of their code-switching for
curriculum access ..................................................................................... 54
Table 4.3 Teachers’ opinions about the frequency of their code-switching for
classroom management ............................................................................ 55
Table 4.4 Teachers’ opinions about the frequency of their code-switching for
interpersonal relations .............................................................................. 56
Table 4.5 The total number of each teacher’s switches in each module .................... 56
Table 4.6 The total number of each teacher’s switches for each function in all three
modules.................................................................................................... 57
Table 4.7 The students’ opinions on the benefits of their teacher’s code-switching .. 93
Table 4.8 The students’ opinions on the drawbacks of their teacher’s codeswitching.................................................................................................. 95
Table 4.9 The students’ feelings about their teacher’s code-switching ...................... 97

Table 4.10a The students’ preferences for their teacher’s code-switching for
curriculum access ................................................................................. 98
Table 4.10b The students’ preferences for their teacher’s code-switching for
classroom management ........................................................................ 99
Table 4.10c The students’ preferences for their teacher’s code-switching for
interpersonal relations ........................................................................ 100
Table 4.11 The students’ behaviors towards their teacher’s code-switching............ 101

viii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Two general viewpoints on code-switching in foreign language learning
and teaching settings ............................................................................... 22
Figure 4.1 Changes in the frequency of teachers’ code-switching in the three stages
of the course ........................................................................................... 68
Figure 4.2 Teacher 1’s switches for curriculum access in the three stages of the
course ..................................................................................................... 70
Figure 4.3 Teacher 1’s switches for classroom management in the three stages of
the course................................................................................................ 74
Figure 4.4 Teacher 1’s switches for interpersonal relations in the three stages of the
course ..................................................................................................... 76
Figure 4.5 Teacher 2’s switches for curriculum access in the three stages of the
course ..................................................................................................... 78
Figure 4.6 Teacher 2’s switches for classroom management in the three stages of
the course................................................................................................ 80
Figure 4.7 Teacher 2’s switches for interpersonal relations in the three stages of the
course ..................................................................................................... 81
Figure 4.8 Teacher 3’s switches for curriculum access in the three stages of the
course ..................................................................................................... 83

Figure 4.9 Teacher 3’s switches for classroom management in the three stages of
the course................................................................................................ 84
Figure 4.10 Teacher 3’s switches for interpersonal relations in the three stages of
the course .............................................................................................. 85
Figure 4.11 The students’ opinions about whether Vietnamese should be used in
English classes ...................................................................................... 89
Figure 4.12 The students’ opinions about the expected frequency of teachers’
switching between English and Vietnamese .......................................... 90
Figure 4.13 The students’ opinions about the necessity of teachers’ use of
Vietnamese in English classes ............................................................... 91
Figure 4.14 The students’ overall feeling about their teachers’ use of Vietnamese
in English classes .................................................................................. 92

ix


ABSTRACT
Code-switching, the alternation between one’s own language and another
language, is a phenomenon that has long existed in bilingual communities. Over
the past few decades, code-switching in second and foreign language classrooms
has drawn considerable attention of numerous linguists and researchers around the
globe. Two opposing viewpoints on code-switching are usually found in the
literature and various studies on this practice in L2 classrooms: for and against the
L1 use. However, most studies have investigated teacher code-switching through
only one or a couple of class sessions in a course. Besides, the learners’ attitudes
towards this practice by the teacher have yet to be explored in detail. As an attempt
to fill these gaps in the literature, the triangulation of data, i.e. observation in
different stages of the course, teacher and student questionnaires, and teacher
interviews, was employed in this current study, which consisted of three teachers
and 124 non-English majors as the participants. The results indicate that what the

teachers thought about their own code-switching was not always consistent with
what they actually performed in their English class. Moreover, among the three
teacher participants in this case study, only one teacher’s code-switching witnessed
a quite stable frequency in all the three stages of the course, whereas the other
two’s number of switches varied remarkably through time due to different reasons.
As for the students’ attitudes towards their teacher’s code-switching in English
classrooms, this practice was generally supported in some specific situations,
especially those that proved beneficial to their learning of the subject content and
helped to promote interpersonal relationships between the teacher and students.
Given these findings, the study discussed some practical implications of teacher
code-switching for both teachers and school administrators so that they can make
the most use of this practice in EFL contexts.
Key words: code-switching, L1 use, EFL classrooms, opinions, practices,
similarities, differences

x


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background to the study
It has been widely accepted that English is becoming a lingua franca in
many regions around the world. As a result, having a good command of English
can be one of the most important factors that help open the door to one’s success in
their career. Acknowledging the role of English in students’ future development, a
vast majority of schools and academic institutions all over the world have included
the English subject as one of the compulsory courses that students have to take and
achieve a required result to be qualified for their course completion, and even for
their university graduation (Al-Nofaie, 2010; Government of Vietnam, 2008;
Graddol, 2006). Besides, for those who cannot join official training provided by a

school or institution, they are still able to attend English classes at various levels
offered by numerous private English language centers around their place of living.
In other words, one will find it very easy to look for an English class which is not
only affordable but also suitable for their need of learning the language.
Along with the development of English as an international language, a
number of teaching approaches have been developed with the aim of seeking an
effective way to teach the English language. Each method has respectively enjoyed
its golden era with its own advantages and shortcomings. One of the most wellknown and earliest approaches is the Grammar-Translation method. As its name
suggests, this method highlights the importance of teaching grammar and employs
translation as a principal technique, which makes it suffer from criticism by other
educators later on (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). In the Reform Period (1880-1920),
a number of methods emerged with an emphasis on teaching the spoken language
as the main pedagogical priority. A method that had a strong influence on the
subsequent era is the Direct Method, which proscribes translation and the use of
the students’ mother tongue in language schools (Howatt & Smith, 2014). The
methods era followed with various methods and approaches such as the
1


Audiolingual Method and the Situational Method in the 1950s and 1960s, and
Content-Based Instruction and Task-based Language Teaching in the 1990s, which
focus on the outcome of learning rather than methods of teaching. Then, the aims
and priorities of language teaching shifted towards equipping the learners with the
competent use of language skills in the real world, leading to the beginning of
Communicative Language Teaching. The general principles of this approach are
widely applied and received widespread support in most institutions since it
features the practice of teaching the language for communicative purposes
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001). In short, each method characterizes a specific aspect
of teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL), and one can be used on its own
or as a supplementary method to another.

Since the appearance of such methods and approaches, a vast number of
studies have been conducted with the purpose of indicating what factors contribute
to the effective teaching of the second language (L2). Among them, the practice of
using students’ first language (L1) in the teaching of an L2 has drawn considerable
attention from a lot of professionals in the field, from which emerged two
opposing beliefs: for and against L1 use in the L2 classroom. Some language
teaching experts claim that learners’ L1 should be banned in the EFL classroom,
supported by the Reform Movement and the Direct Method (Richards & Rodgers,
2001; Howatt, 2004, as cited in Brooks-Lewis, 2009, p. 218), whereas others argue
that L1 can play an important role in facilitating L2 learning (Auerbach, 1993; V.
Cook, 2001). In regard to Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research, “there is
no definitive, principled position upon which to posit an optimal balance between
teacher use of L1 vs. L2” (Turnbull & Arnett, 2002, as cited in Warford, 2007, p.
51). Similarly, some studies (e.g. Jingxia, 2010; Nordin, Ali, Zubir & Sadjirin,
2013; Pham, H., 2015) report a support for teachers’ use of L1 since it can benefit
both teachers and learners in various aspects, whereas others studies (e.g. Nazary,
2008; Cheng, 2013) show the participants’ unfavorable attitudes towards this
practice.

2


It can be seen that the use of L1 is very common in L2 teaching contexts,
and this practice very much relates to the phenomenon of code-switching.
Concerning code-switching of both teachers and learners in foreign language
classrooms, many researchers have shown their interest in exploring what students
and teachers think about this issue. The findings of most studies in different
settings reveal that both students and teachers share positive attitudes towards the
use of L1 in L2 classrooms, although they agree that it should be employed
judiciously (Schweers, 1999; Brooks-Lewis, 2009; Al-Nofaie, 2010; Makulloluwa,

2013). In Vietnam, there have been a few studies on code-switching in EFL
classrooms, mainly focusing on the students’ attitudes towards or perceptions of
their teachers’ use of L1 (Nguyen, T. B. H., Jang, & Yang, 2010; Pham, H., 2015),
or the functions of teachers’ code-switching and the factors leading to their codeswitching (Nguyen, Q. T., 2012; Nguyen, T. H., 2013). So far, no research that
delves into teachers’ opinions about their own code-switching compared to their
actual practices in English classrooms as well as how teacher code-switching
changes throughout the whole course can be found in the Vietnamese context,
especially at the tertiary education level. The present study thus aims to examine
these issues with the hope of providing new insights into the phenomenon of
teachers’ code-switching in EFL classrooms for non-English majored students.
1.2. Aims of the study
Although the issue of L1 use in EFL classrooms has drawn attention of
numerous researchers, not many studies have been done on this topic in the
Vietnamese context, except for a few conducted to explore attitudes of teachers of
English and English-majored students. Furthermore, most research to date only
provides a one-shot investigation into teachers’ code-switching rather than explore
the issue for a longer period of time such as a whole course or semester. For that
reason, the present study hopes to fill in the gap in the literature on teachers’ codeswitching and their non-English majored students. Specifically, the aims of the
study are (1) to examine how teachers’ opinions about their code-switching are
similar to or different from their practices in EFL classrooms, (2) to explore how

3


teachers’ code-switching vary in terms of frequency and functions throughout the
entire course, and (3) to investigate students’ attitudes towards their teacher’s
code-switching in their English class.
1.3. Research questions
Based on what has been discussed so far, this study makes an attempt to
answer the three following questions:

(1) What are the similarities and differences between teachers’ opinions about and
practices of their code-switching in EFL classrooms?
(2) To what extent does teachers’ code-switching vary in frequency and functions
throughout their English course?
(3) What are non-English majors’ attitudes towards their teachers’ code-switching
in EFL classrooms?
1.4. Significance of the study
This thesis was carried out as an attempt to complement previous studies in
research methodology with the exploitation of triangulation of data. Moreover, the
duration of the data collection process was extended through different stages of
one English course rather than in only one or two class sessions. The researcher
believes that the findings will provide teachers and educators with a better
understanding of what opinions the teachers hold about the practice of codeswitching in teaching English and how they actually code-switch in class. Also, the
students’ attitudes towards their teachers’ code-switching will be revealed. All in
all, it is hoped that such results can help teachers realize how they can effectively
adjust their teaching methodology to keep a balance between the use of L1 and L2.
1.5. Scope of the study
This study was conducted at the Center for Foreign Languages, University
of Science, Vietnam National University – Ho Chi Minh City (hereafter US, VNUHCMC). Pursuant to the university’s regulations, all students must take several
4


English courses and achieve a certificate in English language proficiency at the
intermediate level to be qualified for their graduation. As a result, besides studying
their majors, the students usually register for English classes at the University’s
Center for Foreign Languages.
This thesis is a case study with the participation of three teachers who were
in charge of pre-intermediate English classes and their students, with the total
number of 124. Given the fact that the target participants were at the preintermediate level, the use of Vietnamese in English classrooms by both the
teachers and their students was virtually inevitable. Due to constraints of time and

resources, this study focuses on only the teachers’ code-switching, i.e. what they
think about the phenomenon and how they actually practice it in their class, and
their students’ attitudes towards this practice. Details of both the teacher and
student participants will be discussed in Section 3.4 of Chapter 3.
1.6. Outline of the thesis
This thesis is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 is the introduction,
including (1) background to the study, (2) aims of the study, (3) research
questions, (4) significance of the study, (5) scope of the study, and (6) outline of
the thesis. The second chapter gives a review of the literature related to the
definition of code-switching, functions of code-switching, and the practice of using
L1 in the English classrooms in different contexts around the globe, including in
Vietnam, through numerous studies by both foreign and local researchers in the
field. Chapter 3 comes next with the methodology employed during the study,
including the description of the research design, the pilot study, participants,
research instruments, data collection and analysis procedures. Chapter 4 focuses on
the analysis of data gained from the research instruments, followed by discussion
of the results and findings of the whole study. The last chapter provides a
conclusion and gives some implications as well as suggestions for further research
on the topic.

5


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
To form a theoretical background to the study, this chapter is going to review the
literature on the following areas: (1) definitions of key terms, including codeswitching, (2) functions of code-switching, (3) two different viewpoints on L1 use
in L2 learning and teaching, (4) teachers and learners’ attitudes towards codeswitching in different EFL contexts, and (5) code-switching in EFL classrooms in
Vietnam. The chapter will end with a conceptual framework of the study.
2.1. Operational definitions of key terms

2.1.1. Mother tongue, the first language (L1), and the second language (L2)
When it comes to the terminology related to L1 use in language teaching, it
can create considerable confusion for researchers to distinguish the terms ‘first
language’, ‘native language’, ‘mother tongue’ and ‘own language’. That is because
different authors often use various terms to refer to the same concept (Hall & G.
Cook, 2012). They are usually treated as synonyms and can be used
interchangeably in most cases since the distinction is not always clear.
According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, ‘mother
tongue’ is defined as the first and main language that one learns when he or she is
a child. In this sense, ‘mother tongue’ is synonymous with ‘native language’ or
‘native tongue’, which is different from the language one learns at school or as an
adult. Also found in the dictionary, ‘first language’ is the language one first learns
as a child. Therefore, it can be concluded that the three terms ‘first language’,
‘native language’ and ‘mother tongue’ are synonyms, which all mean the language
learnt before any other languages. However, this may not be applicable to some
contexts. In Khati’s (2011) study, the author provided an example for such a case:
A child from the Hayu community in Nepal speaks Nepali as his first language,
but his mother tongue is Hayu, which has its own linguistic system. For that
reason, the term ‘first language’ in this case is not the same as ‘mother tongue’.
6


Similarly, Hall and G. Cook (2012) indicate that in many educational settings, the
shared language of all students is not their ‘first’ or ‘native’ language. For
example, German is the language used in German secondary schools, but it is not
the first language of those who may be new arrivals from Turkey or Poland.
As for the language students are being taught at school, ‘second’ may be
imprecise since many have already been bilinguals or even multilinguals.
Moreover, according to Graddol (2006), as the use of English becomes more and
more global, the distinction between English as ‘second’ and ‘foreign’ language is

being blurred; therefore, “in some senses English has become the second language
of the whole world” (Hall & G. Cook, 2012, p. 274). From all the reasons above,
Hall and G. Cook (2012) suggest two new terms: ‘own language’ for the language
students already know, and ‘new language’ for the language being learned,
although they still acknowledge the currency of various terms used by different
authors.
In this study’s context, all of the teachers and students share Vietnamese as
their mother tongue, except for only a few rare cases that may come from ethnic
minorities. Besides, English has long been the prominent foreign language taught
in secondary and high schools in Vietnam, and it continues to be the obligatory
subject for almost all non-English majored undergraduates, including those at US,
VNU-HCMC. As a result, within the scope and setting of this study, the terms
‘mother tongue’, ‘first language’ (L1), ‘native language’, and ‘own language’ were
used interchangeably since all the research participants are from the same ethnic
group, i.e. Kinh people. In other words, Vietnamese is their mother tongue and
also their first language. In the same vein, this study refers to English as the
participants’ foreign language or second language (L2).
2.1.2. The concept of code-switching
2.1.2.1. Code-switching in bilingualism
The concept of bilingualism has been viewed from various perspectives, but
the most common one concerns how fluently one can speak two different
7


languages. According to Myers-Scotton (2006), a person who is considered
bilingual does not necessarily mean that he has acquired “complete mastery of two
languages” because “speakers are rarely fluent in two languages” (p. 3). In a
dissertation by Nguyen, T. H. (2013), she had a discussion about how the term is
defined by different groups of experts in the field. While the first group use
bilingualism to refer to those who can use two languages equally well or at least

have a native-like control of two languages, the second group state that one can
still be regarded as a bilingual even though that person has a low level of
proficiency in either of the two languages that he/she can speak. Not agreeing with
these two somewhat extreme perspectives, the third group of researchers describe
bilinguals as people who can speak two languages alternately without mentioning
the speakers’ proficiency level of either language.
In bilingual communities, code-switching is a phenomenon that occurs very
frequently, and it has drawn the attention of numerous researchers for several
decades; therefore, various definitions of the term have been proposed since then.
In one of the most widely-cited articles about this field, Poplack (1980) stated that
“Code-switching is the alternation of two languages within a single discourse,
sentence or constituent” (p. 3). Sociolinguistically, each dialect can be considered
as a language code; therefore, code-switching is defined by Gardner-Chloros
(2009) as “the use of several languages or dialects in the same conversation or
sentence by bilingual people” (p. 4). Being capable of speaking two languages,
bilinguals often resort to code-switching in order to help them convey their
message more effectively, especially in conversations. As Gumperz’s (1982)
definition, conversational code switching is “the juxtaposition within the same
speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical
systems or subsystems” (p. 59). More specifically, a speaker frequently uses a
second language to make his message as clear as possible or to respond to another
person’s statement. More recently, V. Cook (2008) refers to code-switching by a
simpler definition, which is the process of “going from one language to the other
in mid-speech when both speakers know the same languages” (p. 174).

8


From what has been discussed so far, a number of definitions of codeswitching have been put forward by different scholars, depending on their own
perspective. In other words, it is almost impossible for everyone to agree with one

single definition of this term. In the opinion of the author of this thesis, however,
van der Meij and Zhao (2010) may be the one who, to some extent, come up with a
generally comprehensible summary of the concept: Code-switching is the mixing
of words, phrases, and sentences from two distinct grammatical (sub) systems. A
distinction should also be made between structural approaches and functional
approaches in studying this phenomenon, in which the former focuses on “the
what of language alternation and the regularities behind these appearances”,
whereas the latter explores “the why of such alternations” to find out the reasons
for and effects of code-switching (van der Meij & Zhao, 2010, p. 397). A lot of
studies have been conducted to investigate the characteristics of code-switching
from the sociolinguistic perspective; however, that is not the focus of this research.
In this thesis, the researcher would like to examine a narrower aspect of the
phenomenon of code-switching in a specific context, i.e. teachers’ code-switching
in EFL classrooms.
2.1.2.2. Code-switching in language learning and teaching
Developed from what used to be considered as “possibly a somewhat
peculiar…act” (Luckmann, 1983, as cited in Auer, 1998, p. 1), code-switching has
been recognized as a systematic phenomenon for it is able to help “shed light on
fundamental linguistic issues” (Auer, 1998, p. 1). This recognition indicated a shift
in research interest from what used to mainly emphasize the socio-psychological
analysis of code-switching to a focus on pedagogical implications in foreign
language classrooms.
In classroom settings, code-switching can be defined as the alternating use
of more than one linguistic code in the classroom by any of the classroom
participants (e.g. teachers, students, teacher aids) and this practice includes both
code-mixing (intra-clausal/sentential alternation) and code-switching (alternation
at the inter-clausal/sentential level) (Lin, 2008). The discussion of this
9

phenomenon can become more complicated, and somewhat confusing, due to the
overlapping fields of study as discussed in Lin (2013), for example L1 use in
second and foreign language classrooms, incorporation of L1 in foreign language
teaching and learning, or the use of mother tongue in foreign language classrooms,
etc. to name but a few.
Basically, the distinction between “code-mixing” and “code-switching” lies
in the linguistic level at which the phenomena arise, i.e. within the clause or
between clauses, sentences or utterances respectively (Muysken, 2004). However,
as this study was not aimed at differentiating the different types of code-switching,
the term “code-switching” is used to cover both cases. Since the teacher and
student participants in this study all speak Vietnamese as their mother tongue (or
L1) and English as their foreign language (L2), this study refers to code-switching
in EFL classrooms as the changing back and forth between English and
Vietnamese by both teachers and learners.
2.2. Functions of code-switching in second language learning and teaching
One of the earliest linguists who suggested a list of functions of
conversational code-switching is Gumperz (1982). Through his analyses of several
tape-recorded conversations, he identified quotations, addressee specification,
interjections, reiteration, message qualification, and personalization versus
objectivization as six main functions of conversation code-switching (Gumperz,
1982, pp. 75-80). Although this list can illustrate some of the most common uses
of code-switching, it is “by no means exhaustive” as he noted (p. 81). However,
Gumperz’s list of code-switching functions, as well as others suggested by a
number of subsequent researchers, was remarked by Auer (1995) that such listing
is “problematic” because the conversational categories are often “ill-defined” and
such typologies often confuse conversational structures, linguistic forms and
functions of code-switching or code-alternation as he called (p. 120). For that
reason, Nilep (2006) noted that code-switching may perform several functions in a
particular interaction, which makes any finite list of functions become “more or
less arbitrary” (p. 10), so he suggested that researchers had better observe actual

10


interaction rather than rely on the general effects of code-switching they had
assumed.
In the classroom context, Lin (2013) summarized the functional view of
language from Halliday (1994, as cited in Lin, 2013), who asserted that codeswitching in second or foreign language classes can be seen as a communicative
resource to help classroom participants (the teacher or students) gain three
purposes through what he called “metafunctions”. The first one is ideational
metafunctions. That is when the teacher switches to students’ L1 to translate or
annotate key L2 terms, explain, elaborate or exemplify L2 academic content to
help ease the access of students with low proficiency level to the L2 textbook or
curriculum. Another one is textual metafunctions, in which the teacher uses L1 to
highlight topic changes or mark out transitions between different activity types.
Finally, students’ L1 can be utilized in order to serve interpersonal metafunctions,
i.e. to signal and negotiate shifts in frames and footings, role-relationships,
identities and change in social distance as well as appealing to shared cultural
values or institutional norms.
Also having a similar categorization to Halliday’s but with the focus on
teachers’ code-switching, Ferguson (2003) grouped the functions of codeswitching in various studies into three broad categories: code-switching for
curriculum access, code-switching for classroom management discourse and codeswitching for interpersonal relations. As for curriculum access, he explains that the
teachers in those studies code-switch to clarify the meaning of some sections of the
text or annotate key textbook terms first introduced in English for students who
have difficulty in working out the language of those texts themselves. This
function of code-switching matches the above-mentioned ideational metafunctions
proposed by Halliday, for code-switching plays an important role in providing
access to English medium content and scaffolding knowledge construction for
students with limited resources in English language. Switches to the shared
language of the teacher and students are also exploited in the management of
classroom discourse. More specifically, they occur when the teacher needs to

11


contextualize a shift away from lesson content or some off-lesson situations – to
teach a student to behave in a more appropriate way, to deal with latecomers or to
encourage students’ contribution. In the same vein, Merritt, Cleghorn, Abagi, and
Bunyi (1992) postulated that code-switching functions as an “attention-focusing
device”, which is used when the teacher wants to have students shift their focus of
attention or change their activity. The third category of function of classroom
code-switching is when the teacher wants to build rapport with individual students,
create greater personal warmth and encourage more student involvement, or
sometimes negotiate different identities.
Before Ferguson’s (2003) typologies were provided, V. Cook (2001)
affirmed that there are a number of ways for the L1 to be used positively in
teaching and learning the L2, such as for the teacher to convey meaning, explain
grammar and organize the class, and for students to use as part of their
collaborative learning and individual strategy use. In the conclusion of his article,
he also provides some suggestions for L1 use in a way it can benefit both the
teacher and students as follows:
-

to provide a short-cut for giving instructions and explanations where the
cost of the L2 is too great

-

to build up interlinked L1 and L2 knowledge in the students’ minds

-

to carry out learning tasks through collaborative dialogue with fellow
students

-

to develop L2 activities such as code-switching for later real-life use
(V. Cook, 2001, p. 418)

To recapitulate, code-switching can serve a variety of functions in the
classroom settings at different levels if it is used in a selective and judicious way
by the teacher as Adendorff (1993) puts it in the following remark:
“Code-switching is in fact highly functional, though mostly
subconscious. It is a communicative resource which enables

12


teachers and pupils to accomplish a considerable number and
range of social and educational objectives.”
(Adendorff, 1993, p. 142)
Although many studies have shown multiple positive functions of codeswitching, not all classroom participants express the same attitudes towards the use
of L1 in educational settings, and this is going to be discussed in the next section.
2.3. Opinions on L1 use in L2 learning and teaching
2.3.1. Arguments against L1 use in EFL classrooms
Opinions against the use of L1 can be traced back to the appearance of
different language teaching approaches. While the Grammar-Translation method
strongly supports L1 use in L2 classrooms since translation is the medium of
instruction, the Direct Method, followed by the Audio-lingual approach,
recommends avoidance of L1. The premise of the Direct Method was that second
language learning reflected first language acquisition with substantial oral

interaction, little grammatical analysis and no translation (Miles, 2004).
The practice of using nothing but the target language in L2 classrooms was
long supported by a conference report at Makerere University in Uganda in 1961
with five tenets taken as the “truth”: (1) English is best taught monolingually; (2)
The ideal teacher of English is a native English speaker; (3) The earlier English is
taught, the better the results; (4) The more English is taught, the better the results;
(5) If other languages are used much, standards of English will drop. These tenets
are described as “five fallacies” of modern English language teaching by
Phillipson (1992, p. 185), yet their implications and influence are undeniably
widespread.
Since the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach was
introduced in the 1970s, it “has served as a major source of influence on language
teaching practice around the world” (Richards, 2006, p. 1). This method puts
emphasis on the teaching of communicative competence rather than grammatical
13


competence. CLT’s proponents also support the use of L2 as a main medium of
instruction in classrooms, although a judicious use of L1 is acceptable to a certain
degree (Larsen-Freeman, 2000).
To sum up, most arguments against the use of learners’ mother tongue in
second language learning come from the two main assumptions that L1 can be an
interference in the L2 learning process and the more target language students are
exposed to in their classrooms, the better they acquire it.
2.3.2. Arguments in favor of L1 use in EFL classrooms
The use of students’ mother tongue, or L1, in English language classrooms
has been a contentious subject for decades. Along with opinions on anti-L1 use in
EFL classrooms, there still exist numerous theorists and researchers expressing
support for the use of mother tongue. Their arguments are mainly based on the
benefits L1 can bring to learners and teachers in different situations.

In his influencing article titled “The mother tongue in the classroom: A
neglected resource?”, Atkinson (1987) indicated some general advantages of
mother tongue use. The first and most important of these is that translation
techniques are regarded as “the preferred learning strategies” by most learners in
most places (p. 242). Another significant role of mother tongue is that it allows
learners to fully express themselves (Bolitho, 1983, as cited in Atkinson, 1987). In
addition, the use of L1 can result in efficient use of time spent in the classroom to
achieve a particular purpose, such as explaining difficult vocabulary items or
grammar rules. From his experiment of exploiting mother tongue in his own
teaching, Atkinson (1987) pointed out some uses of L1 by both the teacher and
students which he found helpful, including eliciting language (all levels), checking
comprehension (all levels), giving instructions (early levels), cooperation among
learners, discussions of classroom methodology (early levels), presentation and
reinforcement of language (mainly early levels), checking for sense and testing.
Sharing the opinions on L1 use with Atkinson, Auerbach (1993) concluded:
“Starting with the L1 provides a sense of security and validates the learners’ lived
14