Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts

From: Ferguson, G. 2003 ‘Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts Functions, attitudes and policies’ in Makoni, S. and Meinhof, U. (eds) 2003 African and Applied Linguistics. AILA Volume Review Volume 16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp

Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts Functions, attitudes and policies Gibson Ferguson Code-switching in the classroom across a range of curricular subjects is a widespread phenomenon in multilingual, language contact settings in Africa and, indeed, world-wide; yet it is not infrequently regarded unfavourably by educational policy-makers. This paper reviews the literature on classroom functions of code-switching in post-colonial contexts, commenting on the merits and limitations of recent research. It also examines some of the conceptions of language underlying official and lay attitudes. Finally, as befits a paper examining classroom code– switching from the somewhat unusual perspective of language planning in education, it evaluates a number of policy proposals addressing the issue of how code-switching might more effectively be exploited as a communicative and pedagogic resource in instruction. The paper overall is constructed so as to inform the attitudes, practices and policies of policy-makers, teacher educators and teachers.

In Africa, and quite a number of post-colonial societies elsewhere, the official medium of education at upper primary and secondary levels continues — very often — to be the former colonial language: English, French or Portuguese. The educational disadvantages of teaching through what is for many pupils essentially a foreign language have been widely documented, but unfortunately, given the vested interests of elites in English or French and the popular perception that English in particular is the key to socio-economic opportunity (see De Swaan 2001, Ferguson 2000), there seems little likelihood of an early change of policy on medium. This being so, applied linguists wishing to ameliorate an unfavourable educational situation may draw greater profit from focusing their attention on how classroom practices can facilitate or obstruct higher levels of educational achievement. Fortunately, there is at the level of practice considerable evidence that teachers have evolved pragmatic strategies for coping with situations where pupils have limited proficiency in the official language medium. One of these is that they alternate between languages, that is, they code-switch. The problem, however, is that — despite a body of literature supportive of its functionality (see below) — the practice lacks legitimacy and is consequently neglected or marginalised in teacher education. Official attitudes are at best neutral (though the policy climate in contemporary South Africa may be becoming more favourable), and at worst downright negative. Nowhere is disapproval more clearly documented than in Hong Kong where there have been repeated official calls for teachers to refrain from what is called 'mixed code' teaching. Lin (1996:49) cites a South China Morning Post report (May 13th 1994) of Chris Patten, the last colonial governor of Hong Kong, saying: "What we don't want is for young people to be taught in Chinglish, rather than either English or Chinese, and that's what we are trying to avoid at the moment."' The purpose of this paper is to explore the sources of the negative attitudes to code-switching illustrated above and to examine policy options from a language education planning perspective. Initially, however, we review studies of classroom code-switching in postcolonial contexts and comment on the merits and limitations of that literature.

1

1. Functions of classroom code-switching: a review As Martin-Jones (1995, 1997, 2000) has pointed out, there has been considerable change over the years in the methodologies and theoretical orientations of classroom code-switching research. In the early years emphasis fell on the frequency of switches and on cataloguing the functions of individual switches. From the 1970s, however, drawing on interaction analysis, microethnography, etc, researchers have been able to reach a better understanding of the meanings generated by code-switching (CS) by taking account of the sequential follow of classroom talk. In particular, code alternation, irrespective of the indexical value of the participating languages, can convey meaning by functioning as a `contextualisation cue'. The term, originating with Gumperz (1982), refers to the verbal or non-verbal signals made by interactional participants to indicate a change of 'footing' (Goffman's (1974) term), a change of topic, an imminent turn completion, a modification of attitudinal tone, and so on. It is a concept that has been enthusiastically seized on by researchers to document various contextualising functions performed by code alternation. It needs to be said, however, that such functions are open-ended, for, as Auer (1998) has pointed out, the meanings generated by code juxtaposition are as unlimited as the discourse contexts in which switching occurs. A second point is that detailed analysis of the sequential flow of classroom?"" characteristic of conversation-analytic approaches, should not detract from complementary consideration of the wider sociolinguistic context. Language attitudes and patterns of language use beyond the classroom very likely do impact on what happens within the classroom walls, and it is desirable, therefore, in the interpretation of classroom CS to relate local speech dynamics to the wider sociolinguistic situation. Another development within the field is the increased diversity of research sites, even within the post-colonial settings that we have chosen to focus on. This is reflected in the table below, which provides an overview of some recent, significant studies of classroom CS. As may be apparent, there is a fair degree of similarity between the studies in the functions that they claim for classroom CS. For convenience, these may be collapsed into three broad categories: CS for curriculum access. Basically, to help pupils understand the subject matter of their lessons. CS for classroom management discourse. e.g. To motivate, discipline and praise pupils, and to signal a change of footing iii. CS for interpersonal relations. E.g. To humanise the affective climate of the classroom and to negotiate different identities. i. ii.

Curriculum Access: CS — in a range of studies — plays an important role in talk around written text and in teacher's commentary on, and annotation of, the meanings of these texts. The purpose clearly is to mediate textual meanings for pupils who have limited control over the language of those texts, a predicament that is more likely and graver in the grades immediately following the switch to English medium.

2

A good example of the bilingual negotiation of the meaning of classroom texts is provided by Martin (1999:51-52). The extract below, from a grade 4 geography class in Brunei, illustrates how the teacher switches from English to Malay in order to: (i) encourage and elicit pupil participation, (ii) clarify the meaning of certain sections of text, a process that Martin (1999:53) refers to as `unpacking the meaning, (iii) demarcate reading the text from commentary on it.

3

Code-Switching Excerpt 1 (Martin 1999: 51)

Teacher and pupils are negotiating bilingually the meaning of a sentence in the pupils' textbook which reads: "Then there are insects who like to eat vegetables, so Zainal (the farmer) sprays chemicals to kill the insects". 357 358 359

Ps: T: Ps:

Then there are are insects are insects who like to eat the vegetables, so Zainal sprays

360 361 362/ 363 364

T: Ps: T: P:

chemicals chemicals to kill the insects Ok. Stop. Lapas atu apa yang dibuat oleh si-Zainal? (after that what is done by our Zainal?) {spray

365

P:

{dia makan (he eats)

366 367 368 369

T: P: T: P:

Ah? spraying spraying? spraying apa? (what does he spray?) {racun (poison)

370 371 372 373 374

P: T: P: T:

insect racun. He sprays. Chemicals. Untuk apa dia spray chemical atu? (Why does he spray the chemicals?). Untuk membunah. (to kill) serangga (insects) apa pasal serangga perlu dibunuhyna? (why do the insects need to be killed?)

375 376

Ps: T:

makan sayur (they eat vegetables) Kerana ia makan vege ++++ {tables

377

Ps:

{tables

378 379

T: T:

aah. Serangga makan vegetables atu. (the insects eat the vegetables) Ok. sambung (continue)

On line 362 above, the teacher's utterance 'OK' marks the boundary between a joint reading of the text and a bilingual exegesis, which opens with a teacher question and a pupil response in Malay. The Malay question presumably functions, among other things, as a 'bringing-in' device. In the next few lines the teacher's questions in Malay provide scaffolding for collaborative negotiation of the meaning of the text. In studies from Hong Kong, notably those of Lin (1996) and Johnson and Lee (1987), CS functions somewhat similarly to 'annotate, as Lin (1996:70) puts it, key textbook terms first introduced in English. Thus, in the short extract below, the term 'climate, first cited in English, is explained in Cantonese, with some further final elaboration in English. Code-switching Excerpt 2 (Lin 1996: 70) 546 547 548

Climate jauh haih gong keuih chyuhn nihn pihng-gwan ge tin hei dim yeung yeung. (Climate is (to say) the average weather condition during a whole year) haih gong pihng-gwan ge, all right? (it's talking about the average, all right?) Jik haih gong muih-yat-nihn la, gam jik haih wah....

4

549

(that is, during a year; so in other words....) di erence between weather and climate is the weather is telling us the daily changes, all right? The daily changes. But climate is the average weather condition during a whole year. All right?

Another similar pattern, exemplified below in the extract from a geography lesson, is for a topic to be introduced in English, then elaborated on and explained in Cantonese, before being further developed in English. Code-Switching Excerpt 3 (Lin 1996: 71) 056

The sea is here. This is the sea.....the sea.

058

Now, you can see this is a big piece of land...

059

Yat louh gam san seuhng heui la, hah, hou chih Gauluhng Bundou gamyeung. (it extends right across, like the Kowloon peninsula) Ok, a big piece of land with a part of it going into the sea. Haih maih yauh yat bouofahn san jo cheutheui hoi gam ga? (is there part of it going into the sea?)

060

What these various examples illustrate is the significant role of CS in providing access to English medium text and in scaffolding knowledge construction for pupils with limited English language resources. The Management of Classroom Discourse Across a range of settings, in Africa and elsewhere, CS also functions as a resource for the management of classroom discourse. Specifically, code contrast often contextualises a shift of 'frame' (Goffman 1974) away from lesson content and toward some 'off-lesson' concern — to discipline a pupil, to attend to latecomers, to gain and focus pupils' attention, for example. It may also demarcate talk about the lesson content from what we may refer to as the management of pupil learning; that is, negotiating task instructions, inviting pupil contributions, disciplining pupils, specifying a particular addressee, and so on. The extract below, from a secondary school English lesson in Jaffna, Sri Lanka illustrates how the negotiation of task instructions, as opposed to performance of the task itself, is marked by a switch from English to Tamil. Code-Switching Excerpt 4: (Canagarajah 1995: 180) Teacher: We will practice question forms next. (to pupil 1): Ninkaal vaankoo (You come) [Pupil comes forward and teacher gives her a picture to hold] Teacher (speaking to class): - Card, iva inta paTattuaal enTu yosiyunkoo. (Okay, imagine that she is the person depicted in the picture) Teacher (speaking to pupil 2: - Ini niir ummuTaya keeLvikalay vaasiyum. (Now, you read your questions) Pupil 2: Who are you? Pupil 1: I am a policeman. Teacher: Write down complete answers for these questions. (writes questions on board in English) Pupi: Miss, board-ilai irukkiratayum eLutirattaa? (Miss, should we also write what's on the board?)

5

Switches into the shared native language of teacher and pupil are also common in and around disciplinary episodes, as the following examples from Lin (1996) and Canagarajah (1995) illustrate. They mark a suspension of the current pedagogical activity and an appeal to behavioural norms that the pupil may share as a fellow 'cultural member. For moral discourse, it seems that the preferred language is that of the community. Code-Switching Excerpt 5: (Lin 1996: 64) The Maths teacher is moving round class checking homework 024 025

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

Code-Switching Excerpt 6 (Canagarajah 1995: 183) Teacher: What? You have forgotten how comparatives are formed? IaRekku unkaLukku enna naTakkutupilLayal? Avataanam veerai enkayo yoosiccu konTiukkiriinkaL mans? Nanatai koacam kaTTupaTuttunkoo papam. (What is happening to you today, children? No concentration. Your thoughts are wandering somewhere. You must control your minds.) Under the same heading of classroom management, we can also highlight finally the use of CS as an `attention-focusing device' (Merritt et al 1992:117); that is, the code contrast functions to redirect pupils' attention — very often at the opening of a new topic. Below is an example from a Form 1 secondary school science lesson in Malta. Code-switching Excerpt 7 (Camilleri 1996: 101) Teacher: Right. Can I have silence now. (learners quiet down) irridkom toqoghdu attenti hafna. Ghal-lesson Ok ghaliex hija. Sa nibdew unit gdid. Xi ftit mill-a arijet li. Sa naghmlu. F'dan it-unit as jkolkom zgur fl-ezami allure tridu toqughdu attenti iktar. (I want you to give your full attention to the lesson ok because it is. We are going to start a new unit. Some of the things that we are going to do. in this unit are definitely going to come out in the exam and therefore you must pay more attention.) Interpersonal relations in the classroom Although it clearly overlaps with the previous one, the third category of function highlights the fact that the classroom is not only a place of formal learning but also a social and affective environment in its own right, one where teachers and pupils negotiate relationships and identities. In many classrooms, English indexes a more distanced, formal teacher — pupil relationship and the local language — Tamil, Cantonese, Zulu or Maltese — a closer, warmer more personal one. To build rapport with individual pupils, create greater personal warmth and encourage greater pupil involvement, the teacher may, therefore, when the occasion is suitable, switch to the local language.

6

The extract below, from Adendorff (1993:150), is an illustrative instance of a code-switch to Zulu to praise an individual. Code-switching Extract 9 (Adendorff (1993:150) A secondary school geography lesson Teacher What is a flood plain? Pupil A A flood plain is a heap of soil or sand which is deposited on banks of a river or a stream when the river or a stream has been in flood. Teacher (confirming the answer with raised volume): Very good, Siggemezana, uyasehensake silwane. (Siggemezana, you are really working very hard.) The switch to Zulu at the end here endorses and adds to the force of the previous, somewhat formulaic English 'very good. Praise in English, it seems (see Lin 1996), is not perceived as so genuine as that given in the local language. In similar vein, Merritt et al (1992:116) and others also note the role of insertional code-switches to mitigate, soothe and encourage. e.g. Teacher: Try. Come on. Mwingine (another person). In parallel with its role in the management of the affective climate of the classroom, CS is also a resource for navigating between different identities. Teachers are at the same time both members of a profession and members of the local community. For much of the time, they play out their role as teachers in situations clearly defined as pedagogical, but from time to time they may wish to step out of their teacher's persona and stress co-membership — with their pupils — of the local vernacular community, as, for example, when they scold or praise pupils (see above). These shifts in identity are largely accomplished by switches from English to the local language and back again. Finally, classroom CS not only reflects but may also, as several authors (e.g. Merritt 1992, Canagarajah 1995) observe, socialise pupils into patterns of multilingualism in the society beyond. Specifically, what pupils learn from classroom CS, for the most part inadvertently, is how two or more codes may be alternated in the service of communication and how language switches may register the different identities that speakers choose to emphasise from moment to moment. Comments on the literature The studies above achieve — from a policy perspective — at least two important purposes. First, by documenting, in some detail, the patterns and functions of code alternation, they collectively make a persuasive case that classroom CS is not, as some educational authorities have implied (see Boyle 1997:83), a dysfunctional form of speech behaviour, but on the contrary an important, even necessary, communicative resource for the management of learning, especially for pupils with limited proficiency in the official instructional medium. Almost all authors are keen to assert this position, as the following sample quotes indicate. "..Code-switching provides a crucial means of accomplishing lessons across the curriculum.. " Camilleri (1996:107) "Code-switching is ...highly functional, though mostly subconscious. It is a communicative resource which enables teachers and pupils to accomplish a considerable number and range of social and educational objectives." (Adendorff 1993: 142) "Code-switching provides an additional resource for meeting classroom demands." (Merritt et

7

al 1992:118) Second, they indicate that a more complex bilingual reality, that it would surely be unwise to ignore, underlies official policies on media of instruction. Set against these considerable achievements, there are, however, a number of limitations. First, the case for classroom CS might be pressed more persuasively if CS in content classes were clearly distinguished from the rather different, and perhaps less easily defended, phenomenon of CS in language subject classes. Not to do so risks confounding two separate issues: the value of CS in what amounts to a bilingual instructional medium and the methodological question of whether, and to what extent, language subject instruction best proceeds monolingually (exclusive use of the target anguage) or interlingually (for a discussion of this issue with reference to CS see Macaro 2001). Second, the literature is relatively insensitive to CS as a linguistic phenomenon, treating it as somewhat homogenous and undifferentiated. Which, of course, it is not, as Muysken's (2000) recent typology distinguishing between alternation, insertional switching and congruent lexicalisation suggests. One reason for inviting a greater degree of linguistic sensitivity is that different forms of switching, and in particular different intensities of interpenetration, tend to associate with different attitudes and these, in turn, may elicit different policy stances. Third, CS studies have tended to lack a longitudinal and a comparative dimension. The former could contribute to more informed policy-making by telling us how CS practices change in the years following the switch of medium. Does, for example, CS decline as students' proficiency in the official language medium improves? The latter, by contrasting classroom CS in different sociolinguistic settings, could also add to our understanding of the factors producing different patterns of code-switching. Fourth, and finally, studies in this field tend to be predominately descriptive and, useful though these are, the consequence is that we lack detailed empirical information on the consequences of CS for learning and teaching. A greater degree of intervention in future research studies seems indicated; but, given the well-known difficulties of experimental intervention in educational settings, it is perhaps more realistic for the present to argue for small scale action research projects.

2. Attitudes to classroom code-switching Given the sizeable literature on the pedagogic value of classroom CS, it is a little surprising that official attitudes have tended to remain so stubbornly negative. It may be worthwhile, then, to examine their sources a little more closely than is customary, for, if nothing else, improved understanding might enhance persuasive efforts on behalf of CS. It is useful to recall at the outset that linguists themselves have not always shown any great enthusiasm for mixed speech. Indeed, as Milroy and Muysken (1995) remind us in the introduction to their volume on code-switching, much of twentieth century linguistics took the monolingual speaker in a homogenous speech community as the normal, unmarked case. This monolingual perspective is perhaps most clearly represented in Chomsky's celebrated comments (1965:3) on the scope and focus of linguistic theory. "Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogenous speech community.....".

But, of course, it is easy to exaggerate. There still have been many scholars interested in

8

language in use and in bilingualism, but even here, among the most eminent, such as Weinreich, the prevailing attitude seems to be that while bilingualism is fine, it is best kept tidy. Thus, in his influential volume `Languages in Contact', Weinreich (1953) remarks that the ideal bilingual " . ....switches from one language to another according to appropriate changes in the speech situation, but not in an unchanged speech situation and certainly not within a single sentence". The preference for tidy bilingual speech is maintained in the much later work of Swain (1983, 1986), who asserts — on the basis of her Canadian experience — that bilingual education is most effective when the two languages are deployed separately, rather than mixed in the course of anyone lesson — an approach that has been labelled 'bilingualism through monolingualism'. Turning from linguists to the lay public, one might venture that negative attitudes towards CS arise partly from language standardisation and an associated 'standard language ideology' (Milroy 1999), constituent elements of which are beliefs, reinforced by education and the media, that: – – –

the standard language (e.g. standard English) is distinct from and superior to other varieties of the language there are correct and incorrect ways of speaking, and that correctness is clearly bounded the standard language is a symbol of national identity, and that, as such, its purity and uniqueness should be upheld

Language standardisation and state formation are, of course, are closely related, and these beliefs may well, therefore, be mixed up with others which stem ultimately from ideologies of nationalism, and European nationalism in particular, one might add. Central to the latter is the view that the world divides naturally into nations and that each nation has, or should have, its own unique national language pure unto itself. Related to the above are further beliefs about language itself, which many laymen view in quite strongly institutional and nominal terms. Not infrequently are languages are conceived as not only thing-like, but as animate things with a life cycle of birth, decay, death and so on. Joseph (in press) makes this, and a related point, when he remarks of native speakers of different languages that they commonly partake in "...a linguistic culture which tends in most societies to be based around a conception of language as an institution — a very noun — like conception, which tends to get realised in physical form like printed texts including grammars and dictionaries. In many cultures over the centuries, it has transpired that this institutional conception of the language has become so powerful as to be taken by most people within the culture as being the real language, while what they do is somehow less authentic, a corruption of the real thing." Of course, it is not difficult for linguists to demonstrate the naivety of such lay beliefs. Thus: pure languages no more exist in nature than pure races; the delimitation of individual languages is highly problematic for linguists — so much so that individual languages may be regarded as much political and social constructs as linguistically discrete entities. Also, far from being an indicator of deficiency in the use of one or both languages, there is ample evidence that code- switching (or mixing) in fact requires high levels of bilingual proficiency. And so on. It would be unwise, however, to dismiss such beliefs as beneath serious consideration. First, they do influence the actions of policy-makers. Second, and more importantly perhaps, they gather strength from not being entirely baseless. Purism, for example, often seen in this context as a negative force, has at various times been a central element in the language standardisation and nation-

9

building process, as the story of national language academies reminds us. A significant part of the mission of the Spanish Academy, 'La Real Academia de la Lengua Espanola', for example, remains that of defending the standard language against undesired foreign influence, as is celebrated in its motto `limpia, fija y da esplendor'. In the case of endangered languages undergoing rapid relexification from a dominant language, it is also the absence rather than the presence of purisitic sentiment that maybe considered pathological. The proper conclusion maybe, then, that a degree of purism is essential to maintain the autonomy and identity, and hence survival of a language. The popular view of languages as bounded institutional entities is also not a total misconception. Clearly, the powerful standard languages (English, French, Spanish etc) are distinct from each other; they are institutions; indeed, they are large-scale capital investment projects, as Coulmas (1992) suggests. What is mistaken, however, and reductionist, is the belief that they are only this. The opposing view that language is really a set of verbal practices, what people do, and that languages as institutions are artificial, or secondary is equally erroneous if it is considered the only valid conception of language. Both conceptions, Joseph (in press) points out, need to be maintained in a sort of creative tension, for "...both are equally real, and each has its own importance". It is not so much the case, then, that those who deplore CS are wrong in every article of their underlying assumptions, though they may indeed be under-informed, but that they adopt a limited, one-sided view of language and misunderstand the nature of bilingual speech. From attitudes, we turn finally to a brief evaluation of policy proposals addressing the treatment of classroom code-switching by teachers, teacher-trainers, and education authorities generally.

3. Classroom code-switching from a language in education planning perspective: A brief evaluation of policy proposals Recommendations for policy toward classroom CS maybe divided — for convenience of discussion — into three categories: Proposals for a strict separation of languages in content subject instruction. These discourage any form of mixed code teaching. ii. Proposals accepting the concurrent use of two languages but requiring that mixing be systematised and controlled iii. Proposals which accept the utility of code-switching, and advocate awareness-raising through teacher education. i.

We comment briefly on each of these. Though it now has relatively fewer academic advocates, the idea that bilingual education should proceed though a strict separation of languages on the basis of curricular subject or time of day has unsurprisingly tended to attract the support of educational authorities (see Jacobsen 1990, Boyle 1997). The rationale appears to be on the one hand that second language acquisition proceeds more satisfactorily when pupils are exposed consistently to one language at a time; and on the other, that permissiveness toward mixed code teaching will lead eventually to the better known local language, Swahili say, displacing the official language medium, English. This, however, is unconvincing. CS is not only very prevalent across a wide range of educational settings but also seems to arise naturally, perhaps inevitably, as a pragmatic response to the

10

difficulties of teaching content in an language medium over which pupils have imperfect control. Moreover, because teaching is an adrenalin-fuelled activity, making numerous competing demands on one's attentional resources, much switching takes place below the level of consciousness. Teachers are often simply not aware of when they switch languages, or indeed if they switch at all. In these circumstances, and especially where CS is endemic in the community, as it is in many African settings, it seems quite unrealistic to impose a requirement that teachers abstain from mixed code teaching. It is also probably counterproductive given the consistent findings of the literature that code contrast is a very useful communicative resource in managing learning. As to the matter of language acquisition, there is in fact, as Jacobsen (1990) notes, a dearth of research evidence of the adverse effect of concurrent use of two languages in instruction on the acquisition of those languages — though there is no shortage of assertion. We do, however, have some evidence that bilingual children can successfully acquire two languages, even though the input they receive is mixed and from varied sources. The idea that mixed code teaching might impede pupil's acquisition of the two participating languages or lead to the eventual displacement of one or other of the languages in class is also implausible on other grounds. Significant though it is in the African context, teacher talk is not the only, or even the most significant, potential source of language input. At home and in the community pupils will hear the local language; at school there are subject lessons in English, and subject textbooks and other materials tend to be mostly in English.' Besides all this, in the community beyond the school language mixing may well be the normal unmarked mode of communication with monolingual language use perceived as artificial, pretentious even (see Meeuwis and Bloomaert 1998:76; Myers-Scotton 1993). It is also useful to recall, finally, the distinction between content subject and language subject classes. In the former case, the principal aim is to ensure that pupils understand the subject matter, and whatever reasonable means contribute to that goal merits sympathetic consideration. Language acquisition here is a secondary objective. In the latter case, however, the argument for CS is less strong and would need separate discussion since the main aim is to teach a language, usually a distinct standardised code. The second group of proposals require that the concurrent use of two languages during instruction be systematic, not 'random' or haphazard. One of the better known examples is the so-called 'New Concurrent Approach' developed in the United States for bilingual Spanish-English classrooms. As reported in Faltis (1989), the approach controls switching in the following ways: – – –

Only intersentential switching is permitted5 All switching is teacher-initiated Teacher switches must be in response to a consciously identified cue.

Jacobsen, the originator of the approach, advocates a programme of cue response training for teachers so that they learn to switch only in response to the sixteen cues that he identifies. Among these are praise/reprimand, subject matter review, capturing pupils' attention (Faltis 1989:122). There are, however, difficulties with this. First, one has to question the premises. The approach seems to assume that unregulated, mostly sub-conscious code-switching is unprincipled. But, as we have seen, the evidence is that teachers' switching behaviour is in fact very skilful — deployed as it is to scaffold knowledge, to manage classroom discourse and to humanise the affective climate of the classroom. It is remarkable in fact how closely these functions (see above) match up with

11

Jacobsen's cues. A second, more important objection has to do with feasibility and the nature of teaching. To respond consciously to set cues requires a degree of self-monitoring that is usually not possible in a busy classroom where, as remarked above, the teacher's attentional resources are usually fully stretched. One may also wonder why the number of cues should be arbitrarily set at sixteen. The fact is switching occurs in ongoing classroom discourse, and it is difficult to define with any exactitude in isolation from that discourse context a finite set of cues which should exclusively permit switching. In short, the approach is indifferent to local discourse considerations and is, partly on that account, mechanistic and of doubtful feasibility. Another interesting proposal for the control of concurrent language use comes from the very different context of Welsh medium schools in Gywnedd, North Wales, where Welsh native speakers are increasingly taught alongside Welsh second language learners in the same class. Here, language alternation during instruction is one response to the challenge of teaching pupils with varying abilities in the two languages. However, to be maximally effective Cen Williams, a researcher of the Gywnedd schools (see Baker and Pryse-Jones 1998:592-595), argues that it should be structured and systematic. Examples of unstructured, therefore unhelpful, language alternation are switching in mid-explanation and translation, that is, delivering the same content in one language and immediately after in another. Examples of beneficial alternation, by contrast, include: – – –

switching to the pupils' stronger language in group work and during one to one interaction to give a fuller explanation of an idea previously introduced in the other language bilingual lesson notes and handouts what is referred to as `translanguaging' (` trawsieithu); that is, having input in one language and output (speaking and writing) in another.

–

As with Jacobsen in the United States, the rationale for this sytematisation is to ensure a balance in the use of the two languages and to facilitate balanced development in the four skills across both languages. These ideas are certainly interesting and worth exploring for their potential application to the postcolonial settings we have been discussing. Of particular appeal, because it is similar to existing practices in which the meanings of written texts in English are negotiated and discussed in the other language, is the notion of translanguaging. That said, the transfer of educational ideas from one setting to a very different one is rarely straightforward and needs to be approached cautiously. Just to cite a few differences. In the post colonial settings there is less concern with achieving a balanced use of two languages, for here English, as official medium, is, and is intended to be, the dominant classroom language. Also, unlike those in Wales, pupils tend to be equally disadvantaged in their lack of proficiency in the medium of instruction. Finally, perhaps crucially, in many African countries resources do not permit the same flexibility of classroom groupings (e.g. group work based on worksheets), nor the relative luxury of printing out tailor-made classroom handouts. The third category of proposals, and the most persuasive because it is realistically based on existing pragmatic practice, is straightforward in conception, if not in implementation. This is the suggestion made by several writers (e.g. Adendorff 1993, Pennington 1996) that teacher education programmes incorporate awareness-raising of classroom code-switching into their curricula. The aims would be to: –

draw trainees' attention to the existence of language alternation in communities and classrooms,

12

–

–

and to reassure them that this is very common, in fact normal, behaviour in these settings highlight some of the functions that code-switching has in multilingual classrooms, and to make the point that it can be a useful communicative resource for helping pupils understand lesson content, for managing pupil behaviour, and for maintaining a good classroom climate. inform teachers that code-switched talk, like most talk, can be more or less helpful depending on when and why it occurs. Less helpful alternation, for example, might consist of straightforward repetition of the same content in the other language.

Discussion of the detailed means for achieving these goals is beyond the scope of this chapter, but it is clear that the study of lesson transcripts and classroom recordings, class observation, and discussion would have a significant role. The greatest problem of implementation, however, lies in convincing educational authorities of the legitimacy and utility of classroom so that they permit these changes in teacher education curricula in the first instance.

Conclusion The central argument of this paper has been that classroom code-switching is one potential resource for mitigating the difficulties experienced by pupils studying content subjects through a foreign language medium. To illustrate this potential, we have critically reviewed studies of classroom CS which describe similar, and useful, pedagogic functions of CS across a range of post-colonial settings. We may remark here in passing that though this volume, and this paper, focuses on Africa, studies from contexts beyond the geographical bounds of the continent are relevant in that the difficulties of pupils confronting English language medium instruction in other post-colonial education systems, are not entirely dissimilar and can be learnt from. In the second part of the paper, we have briefly investigated some of the ideological and conceptual sources of the suspicion that all too often attaches to classroom CS, suggesting that deeprooted attitudes may not be easy to change. Finally, we have evaluated some policy proposals for action toward classroom CS, commending those that involve greater attention to the phenomenon in teacher education curricula. A key point that emerges is that applied linguists might do better to focus more of their persuasive effort on policy change at a micro level, and somewhat less on the politically more charged macro level of change of medium of instruction. In particular, the profession might usefully expend energy on working for more relaxed policies on classroom CS. One plank in their argument might be that it is already widespread and probably inevitable given the circumstances of much teaching, and so one might as well engage with it in a professionally open way. A second is that is that there is no evidence that classroom CS is harmful; on the contrary, the literature is consistent on its utility as a communicative resource. That said, policy proposals are at present insufficiently grounded in empirical evidence as to the effects of different types of CS, and so we do need further research of an interventional kind. In the meanwhile, though there may be entrenched attitudes to confront, perseverance with persuasion is worthwhile, for classroom CS has pedagogic potential that remains under-explored. Notes Patten refers here not to the local variety of English, Hong Kong English, but to the mixed code teaching prevalent in Hong Kong 2. Translatable here as 'purifies, fixes, and glorifies'. 3. The main concern in migrant settings, the United States for example, is in some ways the reverse: 1.

13

namely, that the majority language, English, will gradually displace the pupils' home language, Spanish, from the classroom (see Baker and Pryse — Jones 1998). 4. Not to mention the strong parental pressure for pupils to learn English 5. As opposed to intrasentential switching, which is switching within the clause or even within the constituent. Intersentential switching, by contrast is switching at clause or sentence boundaries.

References Adendorff, R. (1993). Codeswitching amongst Zulu-Speaking teachers and their pupils: Its functions and implications for teacher education. Language and Education 7(3): 141-161. Arthur, J. (1994). English in Botswana primary classrooms: Functions and constraints. in C. Rubagumya (ed.), Teaching and Researching Language in African Classrooms, pp 63-78. Clevedon; Multilingual Matters. Arthur, J. (1996). Code-Switching and collusion: Classroom interaction in Botswana primary schools.Linguistics and Education 8: 17-33. Auer, P. (ed.) (1998). Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London: Routledge. Baker C. and M. Pryse-Jones (ed.). (1998). Encyclopaedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Boyle, J. (1997). The use of mixed-code in Hong Kong English language teaching. System 25 (1):83- 89. Camilleri, A. (1996). Language values and identities: Code-Switching in secondary classrooms in Malta. Linguistics and Education 8: 85-103. Canagarajah, S. (1995) 'Functions of Code-Switching in ESL classrooms: Socialising Bilingualism in Jaffna'. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6(3): 173-195. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Coulmas, F. (1992). Language and Economy. Oxford: Blackwell. De Swaan, A. (2001). Words of the World. Cambridge: Polity Press. Faltis, C. (1989). Codeswitching and bilingual schooling: An examination of Jacobsen's new concurrent approach. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 10(2): 117127. Ferguson, G. (2000). The medium of instruction in African education and the role of the applied linguist. In S. Makoni. and N. Kamwangamalu.(eds), Language and Institutions in Africa, pp 95-111. Cape Town: Center for Advanced Studies of African Society [CASAS book Series 51. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP. Jacobsen, R. (1990). Allocating two languages as a key feature of a bilingual methodology. In R. Jacobsen and C. Faltis (eds), Language Distribution Issues in Bilingual Schooling. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Johnson, R. K. (1983). Bilingual switching strategies: A study of the modes of teacher talk in bilingual secondary school classrooms in Hong Kong. Language Learning and Communication 2: 267-85. Johnson, R. K. and P. L. Lee. (1987). Modes of instruction: Teaching strategies and student responses. In R. Lord and H. Cheng (eds), Language Education in Hong Kong, pp 99-121. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. Joseph, J. (2002). Is language a verb? Conceptual change in linguistics and language teaching. In H. Trappes-Lomax and G. Ferguson (eds), Language in Language Teacher Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins [Language Learning and Language Education 41. Lin, A. (1996). Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination, resistance and Code-

14

Switching in Hong Kong schools. Linguistics and Education 8: 9-84. Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers. Codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision-making. The Modern Language Journal. 85(4): 531-548. Martin, P. (1996). Code-Switching in the primary classroom: One response to the planned and unplanned language environment in Brunei. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 17 (2-4):128-144. Martin, P. (1999). Bilingual unpacking of monolingual texts in two primary classrooms in Brunei Darussalam. Language and Education 13(1): 38-58. Martin-Jones, M. (1995). Code-Switching in the classroom; two decades of research. In L. Milroy and P. Muysken (eds), One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross - disciplinary perspectives on code-switching, pp.90-111. Cambridge: CUP. Martin-Jones, M. (1997). Bilingual classroom discourse: changing research approaches and diversification of research sites. In N. Hornberger and D.Corson (eds), Research Methods in Language and Education:. Encyclopaedia of language and education. Amsterdam: Kluwer. Martin-Jones, M. (2000). Bilingual classroom interaction: A review of recent research. Language Teaching 33:1-9. Meeuwis, P. and J. Blommaert. (1998). A monolectal view of code-switching. In Auer. P. (ed). Merritt, M. et al 1(992). Socialising multilingualism; determinants of codeswitching in Kenyan primary classrooms. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 13(1-2): 103121. Milroy, J. (1999) The consequences of standardisation in descriptive linguistics. In T. Bex and R. Watts (eds), Standard English : The widening debate. London: Routledge. Milroy, L. and P. Muysken. (eds). (1995). One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on Code-switching. Cambridge: CUP. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual Speech : A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: CUP. Ndayipfukamiye (1994). Code-Switching in Burundi primary classrooms. In C. Rubagumya (eds), Teaching and Researching Language in African Classrooms. Clevedon; Multilingual Matters. Ndayipfukamiye. (1996). The contradictions of teaching bilingually in post-colonial Burundi: From Nyakatsi to Maisons en Etage. Linguistics and Education 8: 35-47. Pennington, M. (1995). Pattern and variation in use of two languages in the Hong Kong secondary English class. RELC Journal 80-105. Pennington, M. (1996). Sensitising bilingual teachers to the use of two languages in the English class. In G. Sachs, M. Brock. and R. Lo (eds), Directions in Second Language Teacher Education. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. Swain, M.(1983). Bilingualism without tears. In M. Clarke and J. Handscombe (eds), On TESOL `82;Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching, pp 35-46. Washington DC: TESOL. Swain, M. (1986). Two ingredients to the successful use of a second language as a medium of instruction in Hong Kong. Educational Research Journal 1: 1-6. Trappes-Lomax, H. and G. Ferguson. (2002). Language in Language Teacher Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact. New York: Linguistics Circle of New York .Publication No 21.

15