A Study of Reasons for Codeswitching in Pakistani Context

LITERATURE REVIEW

It was essential for the research to take a glance of some other useful researches of different

scholars regarding Code-switching in classroom context. Bloom and Gumperz (1972) adapt a

positive view for Code-switching in language learning for the first time and are also considered

as the pioneer researchers in Code-switching. “In their study on language use through

observation and analysis of tape recordings in a Norwegian fishing discussed Code-switching

and the language situation which speakers found themselves in” (Rasouli, 2016). On the other

hand Rasouli (2016) also stated, “Valdés-Fallis (1976), Poplack (1980) and Gumperz (1982)

came up with the classifications of code switching functions, direct quotations, emphasis,

clarification or elaboration, contextual switches, lexical need switches, triggered switches and

others”. A number of researchers (Lai, 1996; Cole, 1998; Critchley, 1999; Schweers, 1999;

Burden, 2001; Tang, 2002; Greggio & Gil, 2007) have argued that Code-switching can be a

useful tool in assisting English language teaching and learning process (Rasouli, 2016). Others

(like Skiba, 1997) saw an opportunity for language development because Code-switching allows

the effective transfer of information from the senders to the receivers. Though the development

is minimal and slow, it is still a positive indication of the learning progress. Tien and Liu (2006)

stated that low proficiency students considered Code-switching in their EFL classes as helpful

towards gaining better comprehension especially when providing equivalent comprehension as

well as giving classroom procedures (Ahmad, 2009).

Code Switching in a Bilingual Situation of the L2 Classroom

cultural communities. The ELTL classroom is a bilingual or multi-lingual society where Code-

switching comes into use either in the teachers’ or the students’ discourse (Sert, 2005).

According to Gumperz (1982), bilinguals mainly and unconsciously switch between two codes

in order to make a communicative effect that is dependent on the sum of the structural units of

the two switched codes (1982, p. 61). Strategic Code-switching can also be a verbal

contextualization cue by which speakers construct and negotiate meanings and identities. For

instance, Code-switching is almost exclusively produced in peer group interactions and is

utilized as an in-group identity marker, often indicative of certain ideologies and experiences that

a particular group members share (Code-Switching and social identity construction among

Arabic-English bilinguals: A stance perspective.). In this interaction or conversation the

functions of Code-switching in this discourse are very much significant to build understanding.

The understanding of discourse will provide language teachers with a heightened awareness of

its use in classroom and will obviously lead to betterment of instruction by either eliminating it

or dominating its use during the foreign language instruction (Sert, 2005). Classroom activities

through dialogues and group communications are most of the times helpful to understand the

concepts through switching the languages. An example as dialogue to perform Code-switching

was given by Holmes (1992:275):

“(The Maori is in italics. THE TRANSLATION IS IN CAPITALS)

Sarah: I think everyone’s here except Mere.

John: She said she might be a bit late but actually I think that’s her arriving now.

Sarah: You’re right. Kia ora Mere. Haere mai. Kei te pehea koe?

(HI MERE. COME IN. HOW ARE YOU?)

(HELLO MY FRIEND. I AM FINE)

Following this example, it was observed that Sarah and Mere code switch from English to Maori

during their conversation. The language shift these people perform reflected their ethnic identity

and functions as a bridge that built solidarity among them, which was also related to the high

intimacy level concerning their relationship.”

As Hudson (1996) said, the speaker who speaks more than one language selects any of them

according to the circumstances after considering which language will be comprehensible to the

person addressed; generally speaking, speakers choose a language what the other person can

understand (p. 51). At the same time Trudgill (2000) argued, “Speakers switch to manipulate or

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

intentions” (2000:105). People switch language either for the sake of understanding the concepts

and others’ cultural or political ideas or just because of their poor knowledge in L2. This is a fact

that, the proficiency in two or more languages is highly desirable for the learners and this

frequently happens in children too. Firstly, children switch from one language to another but

within their L1 and secondly, the switching used by the young children is somehow terrible

because they are not able to keep their own language separate, but indeed, it is highly skilled and

natural in the children (Cook, 2001). Teachers use to switch from one language to another in a

bilingual classroom to elaborate a certain point they are explaining and this alternation between

the languages is referred by Sociolinguists as ‘Code-switching’(Swann & Sinka, 2007).

Teacher is a performer who performs Code-switching unconsciously in the classroom so; it is

unconscious behavior, most of the times, because the teacher is not aware of functions and
outcomes of Code-switching. Therefore, in some cases it can be regarded as automatic and

unconscious behavior.

Different Terminologies for Code Switching

Different terms are being used for code switching such as Code-switching, Code-mixing,

Borrowing, or Code-alternation. Boztepe quoted “In particular, at issue here is the perceived

distinction between the terms Code-switching and Borrowing (Gysels, 1992; Myers-Scotton,

1992; Poplack, 1980, 1981), on the other hand Code-switching and code-mixing by (Kachru,

1978; 1983; Sridhar & Sridhar, 1980)”. The term Code-switching is an umbrella under which all

the terms are subsumed. Myers-Scotton (1993b) agreed with the same concept about Code-

switching “alternations of linguistic varieties within the same conversation” (p. 1). Gumperz

(1982) referred the term as “the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of

speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems” (p. 59). Some researchers

(e.g., Auer, 1995) use the term Code-alternation as a hyponym to replace Code-switching, but it

is marginally used in that sense. The term alternation is, in fact, used in the literature to refer to

instances of one language being replaced by the other halfway through the sentence, and it is

mostly, but not always, associated with longer stretches of Code-switching (Boztepe).

Code-switching is broadly used as Intra-Sentential and Inter-Sentential Code-switching. Intra-

sentential Code-switching is to switch language within the sentence, whereas, Inter-sentential

Code-switching to switch between sentences as the relevant unit for analysis. Others (Kachru,

1983; Singh, 1985; Sridhar & Sridhar, 1980), however, reserved the term Code-switching for

inter-sentential switches only, and instead preferred to use Code-mixing for intra-sentential

switches. Boztepe discussed, “the reason is that only Code-mixing (i.e., intra-sentential code

switching) requires the integration of the rules of the two languages involved in the discourse.
But as far as the structural constraints are concerned, the intra- vs. inter-sentential distinction can

equally well distinguish the two types of switches”. It would always remain a matter of

individual preference while using Code-switching or mixing in delivering a single speech and

communication in the classroom discourse (Issues in Code-Switching: Competing Theories and

Models). These terms are equally significant under an umbrella term that is Code Switching.

Functions of Code Switching in L2 classroom

The classroom context is a separate context that is a group of people belonging to those people

who are related to different societies and cultures (Sert, 2005). Two approaches for the study of

alternate use of more than one language in conversation were explained as; Structural and

Sociolinguistic approaches (Issues in Code-Switching: Competing Theories and Models).

Boztepie stated; the structural approach focused on the identification of syntactic and morpho-

syntactic constraints or constrains which were dealing with grammatical structural use of

language during Code-switching. While sociolinguistic approach to Code-switching signified the

discourse as; how social meaning is created and classroom becomes a bilingual society to

perform linguistic functions in the same discourse with the use of alternation between the

languages. “The structural approach tried to identify the structural features of morpho-syntactic

patterns underlying the grammar of Code Switching, whereas the sociolinguistic approach had

built on this in its attempts to explain why bilingual speakers talk the way they do” (Boztepe).

So, while dealing with the functions of Code-switching in students’ and teachers’ perspectives in

a foreign language classroom, it should be kept in mind that the classroom is a social group, in

fact, a society in which Code-switching takes place. The impacts of Code-switching in a second

language learning classroom and its progress in learning L2 or supporting L2 with L1 for the

clarity of concepts and better understanding points out its significance to learn language. Teacher
is a performer who performs Code-switching unconsciously in the classroom so; it is

unconscious behavior, most of the times, because the teacher is not aware of functions and

outcomes of Code-switching. Therefore, in some cases it can be regarded as automatic and

unconscious behavior. As Svedsen (2014) said in his article “Meiring and Norman (2002)

showed, by distributing a questionnaire to 45 language teachers that teachers tend to use the

target language (TL) more extensively if the pupils are at a higher level.” Without any respect,

whether it is conscious or unconscious, this does serve some functions beneficial for classroom

learning through the phenomenon of Code-switching. Mostly, it happens during grammar

instructions, when teacher wants his students to know the grammar of target language, he/she

switches in L1 for the better understanding of principals of grammar of target language.

Therefore, the teacher shifts his language to the mother tongue of his students in dealing with

particular grammar points, which are taught at that moment. In these cases, the students’

attention is directed to the new knowledge by making use of Code-switching and accordingly

making use of native tongue. At this point it may be suggested that a bridge from known (native

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

content and meaning is made clear in this way as it is also suggested by Cole (1998): “a teacher

can exploit students’ previous L1 learning experience to increase their understanding of L2”. The

teacher transfer language (L2) to another language (L1) for the sake of clarity and more

understanding of the students in regarding language learning.

Ahmad (2009) quoted same view of more than one researches as “Code-switching should not be

considered as a sign of defect in the teacher. Instead, it is a careful strategy employed by the

teachers. Code-switching should be allowed whenever necessary with some learners in specific

situations (Schweers, 1999; Chick & McKay, 1999; Burden, 2001; Dash, 2002; Tang, 2002)”. As
it is the case for teachers’ Code-switching, the students are also not always aware of the reasons

for code switching as well as its functions and outcomes. Although they may unconsciously

perform Code-switching, it clearly serves some functions either beneficial or not. The students of

L2 classroom want to gain the competence in the target language like native speaker of that

language and then, use that language by correlating it with their own mother tongue because of

the deficiency in the target language, which makes the student to use the native lexical item

when he/she has not the competence for using the target language explanation for a particular

lexical item. There is not perfect proficiency like native speakers but the impact of Code-

switching would be helpful in understanding target language. Therefore, Code-switching is

essential for better understanding to clear the concepts with the aid of mother tongue. As Hudson

(1996) claims, “The purpose of Code-switching seems to be to symbolize a somewhat

ambiguous situation for which neither language on its own would be quiet right.” (p. 53). Then,

in this case, the student makes use of the native equivalent of a certain lexical item in target

language and therefore code switches to his/her native tongue. So “equivalence” functions as a

defensive mechanism for students as it gives the student an opportunity to continue

communication by bridging the gaps resulting from foreign language incompetence. So, the

Code-switching is very helpful in bridging the two languages for better comprehension of target

language. According to Ahmad (2009) “the declining level of English proficiency among

students has brought about the need to find out how to tackle the issue. Teachers, consequently,

have been employing Code-switching as a means of providing students with the opportunities to

communicate and enhancing students’ understanding.” Furthermore, Code-switching helps to

facilitate the flow of classroom instruction since the teachers do not have to spend so much time

trying to explain to the learners or searching for the simplest words to clarify any confusion that
might arise (Ahmad, 2009). This indicates the various positive and facilitating functions of

Code-switching approved by both the teachers and learners such as explaining new vocabulary,

relaxing the learners, explaining grammar, talking about class tasks and assessments and

establishing contact with learners.

Different Researches on Code Switching in Pakistani Context

Gulzar (2014) have made a research to verify the phenomenon of Code-switching in an Urdu and

EFL classroom. The purpose of his research was to investigate whether Code-switching or Code-

mixing assists the English language learning with the aid of Urdu as mother tongue in EFL

classroom or not. Sample was consisting on 230 participants out of which 205 were students and

25 were the teachers. Questionnaire was used as a tool to collect the data for a non-experimental

correlational type of the research. The research was concluded that Code-switching is a

profitable strategy to learn language in an EFL classroom. Nadeem (2012) also administered a

research on the Teachers and Teacher Educators were having no formal ESL/TEFL/TESOL/ELT

and they had been teaching in different Universities. The approach of this study was mixed and it

was done on 150 Teachers and 20 Educators what methodology was adopted by them in

delivering their lectures in B.Ed and M.Ed classes. The same opinionative was handed over to

the Teachers and Teacher Educators to know their responses towards medium of instruction. The

result of this study reflects that most of the Teachers feel comfortable in delivering their lectures

in both the languages e.g. English and Urdu rather than focusing on English language only (Rana

Irshad & Ahmad Rana & Saeed Ahmed & Mian Abdul Rauf & Ghulam Murtaza Seemab).

Malik (2009) had studied the code switching and code mixing as facilitators in TEFL and EFL

class, at Allama Iqbal Open University in Pakistan. The research was concerning with the

attitude of teachers and students while they were interacting with each other. Through this
research teachers’ style of communication with the students of EFL classroom and Students’

behavior in response were strongly observed. Two qualitative research methodologies, the

ethnography of interactions and teachers’ interviews, and one quantitative research methodology,

students’ questionnaire have been selected to collect and analyze the data. The research was

conducted in Pakistani context where the majority of learners belonged to bilingual societies.

The research concluded that Code-switching can be used as an extra source in a Second

Language Classroom but should not be a language learning strategy.

(Irshad, Saeed, Rauf & Murtaza) had conducted a research on the study of Code-switching to

find out impacts of Code-switching and Code-mixing in Urdu EFL class and attitude of the Urdu

EFL students towards Code-switching and Code-mixing. The study was descriptive in nature

which was based on survey. A questionnaire on 5Lickart Scale was designed to conduct a

survey. The target populations were the 60 graduate students of the Government College

Pakpattan in the southern Punjab Pakistan. Data was collected directly from the students engaged

in class room activities. Later on collected data was analyzed on SPSS version 21 and the results

were shown in Mean score, Standard Error and Standard Deviation. The research reached the

conclusion that Code-switching and Code-mixing plays a very important role in teaching and

learning English. In the light of students’ analysis, the use of this technique in Urdu EFL class

makes the teaching and learning of English effective and successful. From the students’ point of

view, the learning outcomes can easily be achieved by using this technique. So according to the

opinion of majority of the sixty students, Code-switching and Code-mixing in Urdu EFL class

can be used as a facilitator.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Code Switching

the learners in a foreign language learning classroom because it is being used just because of the

deficiency in using target language. On the other side different views are also enhancing the

significance of Code-switching for L2 learning classroom as many of the linguists believe it to

be useful by making communication easier and enhancing learning of the target language (Rios,

2013). Moore (2002) viewed; Code-switching is a helpful strategy for students to satisfy their

main needs. For this reason, classroom code-switching has a lot of benefits for second language

learners. Moore (2002) also quoted “Code-switching provides a natural short-cut to content and

knowledge acquisition; their bilingualism is integral to the process of accomplishing their

discourse (Zimmerman, 1998, as cited in Greer, 2007, p.5)”. In addition, both students and

teachers feel more comfortable engaging in Code-switching in informal contexts with peers. This

indicates that the alternation of codes is a conscious habit among most of the bilinguals, and only

on a few occasions does it seem to occur unintentionally or unconsciously. Switching from L2 to

L1 or vice versa seems to entail a purpose; it is a conversation keeper, a tool that allows the

learner to cope with the difficulty of expressing one’s thoughts in a foreign language. Code-

switching should not be encouraged by teachers, but it should not be harshly punished in initial

stages of the learning process. The learners themselves will realize in time their own deficiencies

and limitations, and it is through positive reinforcement that the need to switching codes will

eventually diminish or disappear altogether (Rios, 2013).