Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.

org
ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online)
Vol.3, No.14, 2013

Functions of Code-switching in Bilingual Classrooms

1
Abdur Rehman Tariq, 2Hafiz Ahmad Bilal, 3Naeem Abbas, 4Asad Mahmood
2
Department of English, University of Sargodha, Sargodha
1,3,4
Department of English, University of Lahore, Sargodha Campus,Pakistan
1
eskapyst@gmail.com, 2ahmadbilal.uos@gmail.com, 3naeemabbasrajpoot@gmail.com
4
asadkharal85@gmail.com
*Email of the corresponding author: naeemabbasrajpoot@gmail.com

Abstract
The significance of role of code switching and code mixing in classrooms where medium of instruction is
second/foreign language is approved reality. Observations of bilingual/multilingual classrooms show that
teachers use code switching and code mixing in different situations for different purposes. This study aims at
knowing the functions of CS (code switching) and CM (code mixing), use teachers in classrooms and the
significance of the functions. The data for this study would be collected from teachers, teaching at intermediate
level, of government and private colleges, using survey technique. The data would be analyzed statistically using
SPSS software. The finding of this study would develop awareness about the use of CS and CM in bilingual
classrooms. This study is significant as it would create flexibility in teaching methodologies of teachers.
Keywords: Code, Code switching, code mixing, SL, FL

1. Introduction
In bilingual/multilingual societies, mixing of languages is a common phenomenon. In countries like Pakistan, a
multilingual society, the code mixing is frequent part of speeches. In bilingual/multilingual classrooms of
Pakistan where students and teachers know two or more languages, code mixing is common. In Pakistan where
English language is given the status of compulsory subject and is used as medium of instruction at school and
college level, teachers/educators certainly use code switching and code mixing. Martin-Jones (2003:6) explains
that it is the routine of bilingual teachers and students to use code-switching as a helping tool to keep the flow of
classroom talk. Another use of code-switching is the segregation of different types of communication: to indicate
the change between brain storming and the start of the lesson; to draw the difference between the talk about
managing classroom and talk regarding lesson topics; to point out a specific listener; to differentiate between
reading a text from the discussion about the text.
Switching from one language/code to another is known as CS and mixing two or more languages/codes in one
utterance is known as CM. Different scholars suggested different definitions of code, code switching and code
mixing. Garden-Chloros (2009) explains “code is understood as a neutral umbrella term for languages, dialects,
styles/registers, etc.” (p.11). Code-switching is exchange of two or more languages within a statement or a
discussion. (Hoffmann 1991:110). Mayers-Scotten (1993) illustrates both concepts as: happening of code
switching is inevitable when a bilingual exchanges two languages while conversing with other bilingual whereas
code mixing is the convergence of vocabulary items of different languages in a sentence.
Code switching is a topic of great interest. A great number of researchers have done research on it with different
view points. This study is interesting to know the functions of code switching and code mixing in the class
rooms. Teachers use code switching and code mixing in different situations to perform different activities. Karen
Kow (2003) enumerated in her paper some feasible situations for code switching. Given are the few conditions,
- lack of one word in either language
- Some ideas are expressed easily in native language
- For clarification of misinterpretation
- To develop influence of communication for effective purpose
- One wishes to express group solidarity
Different researchers listed different functions of code switching and code mixing. Baker, C. (2006) listed the
different functions of code switching. He says that code switching can be used to emphasize an important notion,
to substitute the unfamiliar word in second language, to explain notion having no cultural identity with other
language, to release tension and create humour, to introduce new topic.
Concerning the role of code switching and code mixing, there are different view points. Some say it a low
strategy used by the teachers not proficient in target language use. They are of the view that it damages the
proficiency of learners. Those teachers who favour the communicative technique in the classroom of foreign
language learning do not tolerate even a single word of mother language. The advocators of target language view
it as not compulsory for learners of target language to comprehend every word said by the teacher and they think
that the process of learning is damaged by switching to the mother language. (F. Chambers, 1991; Halliwell &
Jones, 1991; Macdonald, 1993). Some others take it as a useful tool in classrooms. Those who favour it take it as

29
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online)
Vol.3, No.14, 2013

an effective strategy in multiple aspects. Cook (2001) considers the use of code switching a natural response in a
bilingual classroom. Probyn (2010) takes it a useful strategy to get desirable ends.

2. Literature View
According to Gumperz code switching is “the juxtaposition within the same speech ex-change of passages of
speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems” (p.59). Cook takes it a process of “go-ing
from one language to the other in mid-speech when both speakers know the same languages” (p.83). Lightbown
defines it “the systematic alternating use of two languages or language varieties within a single conversation or
utterance” (p.598). In simple words, shifting from one language to another language during a speech is known as
code switching while mixing of two or more languages in a sentence is identified as code mixing.
Much debate has been done on the issue of functions of code switching. These functions consist of translation of
new words that are unknown, explanation of grammatical rules, class administration (Mingfa Yao, 2011),
clarification (Ajmal Gulzar, 2010), stressing important notions, creating understanding and harmony with
students, and assisting in apprehending by referring words of others.(Liu Jingxia, 2010; Eda Üstünel & Paul
Seedhouse, 2005).
Code switching has also been received criticism but much has been delivered in its favour. Teachers meet in
classrooms with such students as are totally unaware of the language, medium of instruction. In such cases the
only helpful tool is the native language that is switched or mixed with foreign language by the teachers.
Teacher’s “code-switching is an effective teaching strategy when dealing with low English proficient
learners”(Badrul Hisham Ahmad, 2009, p. 49). Li (2000) does not consider it inefficiency of bilingual speaker
while speaking with other bilingual rather she takes it as a routine characteristic.

3. Research Methodology
The researcher of this study selected, cross-sectional survey technique as a tool to collect the data from the
sample of population comprises on the bilingual teachers. The variables of this questionnaire are formed to
collect the precise information related to the issue, this study interested in. Researchers interested in education
research use survey research commonly. The researchers get information from people, large in number by
asking questions. Gulzar (2010) quotes (Fraenkela & Wallen, 2000) putting questions about the issue to explore
is known as survey. According to Gulzar (2010) Oppenheim (1992) clarifies the need of this design of research
in the following words:
To investigate the link between variables, survey is done. There is similarity between laboratory test
and survey design as in both the aim is the investigation of a particular hypothesis.
A considerable debate has been done on this interested issue, code-switching in classrooms of foreign language,
around the world. Code-switching severs many pedagogical purposes in bilingual classrooms. Flyman-Mattson
and Burenhult (1999) advocate that “teachers switch code whether in teacher-led classroom discourse or in
teacher-student interaction, may be a sophisticated language use serving a variety of pedagogical purposes” (p.
25)
According to Martin-Jones (1995) the role of CS in bilingual classroom is:
Whilst the languages used in a bilingual classroom are bound to be associated with different cultural values,
it is too simplistic to claim that whenever a bilingual who has the same language background as the learners
switches into shared codes, s/he is invariably expressing solidarity with the learners. Code-switching is
employed in more subtle and diverse ways in bilingual classroom communication. Teachers and learners
exploit code contrasts to demarcate different types of discourse, to negotiate and renegotiate joint frames of
reference and to exchange meaning on the spur of the moment (p. 98).
Liu Jingxia (2010) states the functions of code-switching in Chinese classrooms. She says the functions of code-
switching are: “translation of unfamiliar words”, “explanation of grammar”, “managing class”, “ helping
students apprehending difficulties” and “indicating sympathy and friendship to students”, “putting stress on
important notions”, “citing sayings of others”, “shifting topics”, “getting students’ concentration”, “assessing the
understanding”, etc.
Gulzar (2010) enumerates the different functions of code-switching, which include: “i. Linguistic insecurity, ii.
Topic switch, iii. Affective functions, iv. Socializing functions, v. Repetitive functions.” According to the study
of Guthrie (1984) Chinese code-switching servers five functions: i. translation, ii. we code iii. procedures and
directions iv. clarification, and v. for checking understanding.
Olmedo-Williams (1981 in Soodeh Hamzehlou, Adlina Abdul & Elham Rahmani 2012) “describes nine
categories of CS from her study of language mixing in classroom settings. These categories include emphasis,
sociolinguistic play, clarification, accommodation, lexica1ization, attracting attention, regulating behavior, and
miscellaneous switches. She believes that lexicalization and clarification are related to the ability to express
oneself better in the other language on a given topic.”

30
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online)
Vol.3, No.14, 2013

3.1 Analysis of functions of code switching in bilingual classrooms

Variables Number of Subjects % Mean S.D.
1. Starting New Topic
Agree 24 60
Strongly Agree 15 37.5
Disagree 1 2.5 1.4250
.54948
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Neither agree nor disagree 0 0
Total 40 100
2. Lack of Vocabulary
Agree 15 37.5
Strongly Agree 9 22.5
Disagree 10 25 2.1750 1.1068
Strongly Disagree 6 15
Neither agree nor disagree 0 0
Total 40 100
3. Emphasis
Agree 21 52.5
Strongly Agree 16 40
Disagree 1 2.5 1.6250 .86789
Strongly Disagree 1 2.5
Neither agree nor disagree 1 2.5
Total 40 100
4. Clarification
Agree 22 55
Strongly Agree 16 40
Disagree 1 2.5 1.5500 .78283
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Neither agree nor disagree 1 2.5
Total 40 100
5. Translation
Agree 22 55
Strongly Agree 12 30
Disagree 5 12.5 1.6250 .80662
Strongly Disagree 1 2.5
Neither agree nor disagree 0 0
Total 40 100
6. Friendly environment
Agree 18 45
Strongly Agree 9 22.5
Disagree 6 15 2.2000 1.43581
Strongly Disagree 1 2.5
Neither agree nor disagree 6 15
Total 40 100
7. Assessing the understanding of students
Agree 22 55
Strongly Agree 11 27.5
Disagree 5 12.5 1.7250 1.03744
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Neither agree nor disagree 2 5
Total 40 100
8. Repetition
Agree 21 52.5
Strongly Agree 5 12.5
Disagree 12 30 1.9250 1.14102
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Neither agree nor disagree 2 5

31
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online)
Vol.3, No.14, 2013

Total 40 100
9. Explaining grammar
Agree 21 52.5
Strongly Agree 15 35
Disagree 4 10 1.6500 .86380
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Neither agree nor disagree 1 2.5
Total 40 100
10. Managing class
Agree 17 42.5
Strongly Agree 12 30
Disagree 6 15 2.0250 1.16548
Strongly Disagree 3 7.5
Neither agree nor disagree 2 5
Total 40 100
Starting new topic
The analysis shows that 24 subjects (60%) agreed with this function, starting new topic, of code switching. 15
subjects (37.5%) strongly agreed and 1 subject (2.5%) disagreed with the use of this function. No subject
strongly disagreed and no subject remained neutral about this function. 1.4250 was the mean of the sample of
this variable and .54948 was the standard deviation of this variable.
Teachers give significance to code-switching while switching the new topic as they want to make the
understanding of students clear as much as possible. They do not take risk to convey everything in the target
language. Flyman-Mattson and Burenhult (1999) quote two reasons: the teachers do not want students to
misunderstand the message as it is very important, or they used code-switching to get the attention of the
students.
Lack of vocabulary
The analysis shows that 15 subjects (37.5%) agreed and 10 subjects (25%) strongly agreed to the use of this
function. 10 subjects (25%) disagreed and 5 subject (12.5%) strongly disagreed while no subject gave any
response. 2.1750 was the mean of the sample and 1.10680 was standard deviation of this variable.
While communicating on particular topics, bilinguals face difficulties in choosing suitable words to speak at the
moment. Aichuns (n.d.) says they are not bilingual in true sense as they acquire skills in the target language.
There is possibility that at the moment of speaking, they do not remember the requisite word. Consequently, they
move to the collection of lexemes of native language and choose the required words to express his views.
Emphasis
The result of the analysis shows that 21 subjects (52.2%) agreed and 16 subjects (40%) strongly agreed to the
use of this function in bilingual classrooms. 1 subject (2.5%) disagreed and 1 subject (2.5%) strongly disagreed
to the use of this function. 1 subject (2.5%) neither agreed nor disagreed. 1.6250 was the mean of the sample and
.86789 was the standard deviation of this variable.
Code-switching is used to give emphasis. Some points, teachers think, need emphasis. They want to convey
them effectively and properly. Consciously or unconsciously, they switch from target language to the mother
language. Sometimes, they feel the need of citing the saying of native culture to stress the point, for this purpose
the do code-switching. Eldridge (1996) asserts that “messages are reinforced; emphasized or clarified where the
messages have already been transmitted in one code but not understood” (p. 303).
Clarification
The analysis shows that 22 subjects (55%) agreed and 16 subjects (40%) strongly agreed to the use of his
function. 1 subject (2.5%) disagreed and no subject strongly disagreed. I subject (2.5%) neither agreed nor
disagreed. 1.5500 was the mean of the sample and .78283 was the standard deviation of this variable.
Aichuns (n.d. in Ajmal Gulzar 2010) says the anxiety of teachers about the unknown vocabulary items instigate
them to code-switching. When teacher feels that students are not apprehending the meanings in target language
vocabulary, then s/he translates in Chinese language for clarification. Eldridge (1996 in Gulzar 2010) asserts
that when messages are not comprehended in one language (target language) they are explained in other
language (mother language).
Translation
The result of the analysis shows that 22 subjects (55%) agreed and 12 subjects (30%) strongly agreed to the use
of this function. 5 subjects (12.5%) disagreed and 1 subject (2.5%) strongly disagreed. No subject remained
neutral to the use of this function in bilingual classroom. 1.6250 was the mean of the sample and .80662 was the
standard deviation of this variable.
Krashen (1985) has view about translation:

32
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online)
Vol.3, No.14, 2013

The teacher does not speak much in a language and translates what he said in the target language. When
translation occurs, students do not pay attention to the English language (target language). Moreover, the teacher
does not use different techniques like gestures, realia or paraphrase to make the meaning understandable in
English language, as the translation offers itself. (p. 81)
Creating friendly environment
The result of the analysis shows that 18 subjects (45%) agreed and 9 subjects (22.5%) strongly agreed to the use
of this function. 6 subjects (15%) disagreed and 1 subject (2.5%) strongly disagreed. No subject agreed nor
disagreed to the use of this function. 2.8000 was the mean of the sample and 1.43581 was the standard deviation
of this variable.
Sometimes, teacher does code-switching to be friendly with students. He tries to socialize with students to get
the positive results. Sometimes, he does code-switching to motivate them by quoting the maxims of the native
language. Sometimes, he uses it to shows his feelings of pleasure and wrath. Crystal (1987 in Gulzar 2010)
explains that when a person wants to show unity to a socially recognized group of people, he usually takes help
from switching. When the receiver reacts with the same switch, a relationship is developed between encoder and
decoder. (p. 14).
Accessing the understanding
This analysis shows 22 subjects (55 %) agreed and 11 subjects (27.5%) strongly agreed. 5 subjects (12.5%)
disagreed and no subject strongly disagreed to the use of this function. 2 subjects (5%) neither agreed nor
disagreed. 1.7250 was the mean of the sample and 1.03744 was the standard deviation of this variable.
Teachers want their students to understand their speech therefore, they do not take the risk of convey their
speech just in L2. To access the understanding to the students they switch from L2 to L1. In friendly
environment they access the understanding to the students. If they feel need to say the speech again they do it in
native language. Flyman -Mattson and Burenhult (1999) give major reason of teachers’ code-switching from L2
to L1 is that they want students to comprehend their communication. Gumperz (1982) and Kamwangamalu and
Lee (1991 in Brice 2000: 102) noticed the repetitive function for assessing the understanding.
Repetitive Function
The result of this analysis shows that 21 subjects (52.5%) agreed and 5 subjects (12.5%) strongly agreed. 12
subjects (30%) disagreed and no subject strongly disagreed to the use of this function. 2 subjects (5%) neither
agreed not disagreed. 1.9250 was the mean of the sample and 1.14102 was the standard deviation of this
variable.
Flyman-Mattson and Burenhult (1999) describe that “the repetition in the first language can be either partial or
full and is often expanded with further information, but more frequently code-switching is used as a repetition of
the previously uttered sentences” (p. 11).
Explaining Grammar
The analysis shows 21 subjects (52%) agreed and 15 subjects (35%) strongly agreed. 4 subjects (10%) disagreed
and no subject strongly disagreed. 1 subject (2.5%) neither agreed nor disagreed to the use of this function in
bilingual classroom. 1.6500 was the mean of the sample and .86380 was the standard deviation of this variable.
Liu Jingxia (2010) gives the view of Polio and Duff: teachers do not show their willingness for teaching
grammar in foreign language. They give some reasons as, “time saving, grammar oriented exams and worries
about too much pressure on the studies”. According to her Martin Jones stated teachers’ teaching grammar
sequence as L2-L1-L2.
Managing Class
The analysis shows 17 subjects (42.5%) agreed ad 12 subjects (30%) strongly agreed to the use of this function.
6 subjects ( 15%) disagreed and 3 subjects (7.5%) strongly disagreed. 2 subjects (5%) neither agreed nor
disagreed. 2.0250 was the mean of the sample and 1.16548 was the standard deviation of this variable.
Class organization also involves the selection of language. Some teachers switch to the mother language after
having tried vain attempts to manage the class in the target language. Frustration comes out through native
language. Instructions are given in native language to perform different activities. Franklin observed 68% of the
teachers favoured 8% L1 for activity instruction.

4. Remarks on the findings

The result of this analysis showed that a large number of teachers gave their consent to the use of the functions
of code-switching in bilingual classrooms. The opinions of teachers were different from one another about the
functions of code-switching in bilingual classrooms but no one rejected any function. The statistical data
explained that teachers used the above mentioned functions for the purpose of code-switching according to the
need of situation. Teachers used code-switching to accommodate their own and students’ needs.

33
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online)
Vol.3, No.14, 2013

5. Conclusion
Findings and analysis of this study highlight that the functions of code-switching in bilingual classrooms occur
especially with reference to Pakistani classrooms. Teachers prefer the functions of code-switching in different
conditions to fill the communication gap. As a result, this study suggests that the use of code-switching as a
strategy should be encouraged to teach the foreign language in bilingual classrooms. Students’ level should also
be kept in mind while using code-switching. Aguirre (1988) describes that in classrooms where students and
teachers are culturally and linguistically varied, the code-switching is inevitable as teachers use it as a strategy to
learn students the target language. Code-switching offers a chance both for students and teachers to
communicate without any restriction in the classroom. The outcome of this investigation shows that the use of
CS is not a sin. Though, the use of CS receives much criticism but still in the light of the result of this study, we
can say that the use of CS is significant in bilingual classrooms.

REFERENCES
1. Aguirre, A., Jr. (1988). Code-switching and intuitive knowledge in the bilingual classroom. In D. Bixler-
Marquez and J. Ornstein-Galicia (eds.) Chicano Speech in the Bilingual Classroom. New York: Peter Lang.
2. Ahmad, B. H. (2009). Teachers‟ code-switching in classroom instructions for low English proficient
learners. English Language Teaching, 2 (2), 49-55. [Online] Retrieved April 12, 2011, from
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt /article/download/2363/2228
3. Aichuns, L.(n.d.) Teacher Code switching between English and Chinese in English as a Foreign Language.
Retrieved on March 28, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http:// www.google.com. Or liumarie 712@
Yahoo.com.
4. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Multilingual Matters LTD
5. Cook V. Second language learning and language teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press and Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited 2000.
6. Flyman-Mattsson, A. & Burenhult, N.(1999). Code switching in Second Language Teaching of French.
Retrieved on June 20, 2007, from
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:GbFBmAtk8TAJ:www.ling.lu.se/disseminations/pf/47/Flyman_Bu
renhult.pdf+classroom+discour se+in+bilingual+context&hl=en
7. Fraenkela, J.R, and Wallen N.E. (2000). How Design and Evaluate Research in Education. The McGraw-
Hill Companies, Inc. USA
8. Franklin N, Tversky B. Searching imagined environments. J Exp Psychol 1990; 119: 63-76.
9. Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Gulzar, M. A. (2010). Code-switching: Awareness about its utility in bilingual classrooms. Bulletin of
Education and Research, 32 (2), 33-44. [Online] Retrieved April 24, 2011, from
http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/ier/PDF-FILES/2- Malik%20Ajmal%20Gulzar.pdf
11. Gumperz JJ. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1982
12. Guthrie, M. (1984). Contrasts in Teachers’ Language Use in a Chinese-English
13. Jingxia, L. (2010). Teachers‟ Code-Switching to the L1 in EFL Classroom. The Open Applied Linguistics
Journal, 3, 10-23. [Online] Retrieved February 24, 2011, from
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toalj/articles/V003/10TOALJ.pdf
14. Lightbown PM. L2 Instruction: time to teach. TESOL Q 2001; 35: 598-99.
15. Li, W. (2000). Dimensions of bilingualism. In Li (Ed). The bilingualism reader (pp. 2-21). London:
Routledge.
16. 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.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
18. Soodeh Hamzehlou, Adlina Abdul & Elham Rahmani (2012) Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol.
2, No. 11, pp. 2219-2225, November 2012 © 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland.
doi:10.4304/tpls.2.11.2219-2225
19. Probyn, M. (2001). "Teachers' Voices: Teachers' reflection on learning and teaching through the medium of
English as an additional language in South Africa." International Journal of Bilingual and Bilingualism,
4(4).
20. Yao, M. (2011). On Attitudes to Teachers‟ Code-switching in EFL Classes. World Journal of English
Language, 1 (1), 19-28. [Online] Retrieved March 25, 2011, from
http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/wjel/article/view/199/87

34