Foreign language classroom as code-switching context

The present study adopts Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain’s (2009: 1) understanding of code-switching “as something which is natural for bilinguals to do – and not just proficient ones, but also aspiring ones – and classroom codeswitching as being inherently linked with bilingual codeswitching”. They continue that the justified and reasonable code-switching in the foreign language classroom reflects the natural speech of bilingual and multilingual speakers. In addition, Edmondson’s (2004) view is adopted when discussing classroom code-switching. That is, all the participants in the classroom share another language apart from the target language that is being taught, and in the present study it is Finnish. Set on this view, the foreign language classroom can be regarded as a multilingual setting for interaction since the speakers have both opportunities and obligations to use these two languages in communication.

According to Edmondson (2004: 158-159), in the language classroom language can be used either for communicational or pedagogic purposes. Pedagogic speech is limited to actual teaching whereas communicational speech has a broader definition as it includes talking in the L2 and about the materials which are used to learn the L2. These speech acts differ from one another also in the

used language. Pedagogic speech can be conducted either in the L1 or the L2 but communicational speech tends to be in the L2.

Ferguson (2003: 39 as quoted in Seedhouse and Üstünel 2005: 307-309) further summarizes that classroom code-switching can be broadly divided into the following three categories: “CS for curriculum access… CS for classroom management [and] CS for interpersonal relations”. The first category includes code-switching for such purposes as ensuring understanding and encouraging learners in interaction. Code-switching within classroom management entails disciplining and praising students, motivating them and gaining attention.

Finally, code-switching can be used to decrease social distance by switching to the L1 and building rapport with students.

Edmondson (2004) makes also a distinction between what he calls world-switching and code-world-switching. The first refers to switches which are used to signal a change in discourse type or pattern. That is, speakers shift between the different roles they have in the classroom. Code-switch, on the other hand, always involves a switch in the language. In other words, in world-switching only one language or both of the languages can be used but in code-switching two languages are always present.

Furthermore, Edmondson (2004: 165-172) notes a particular type of switch:

motivated switch. He explains that motivated, or speaker-oriented, switches are used when there is not enough knowledge or skills in the L2, and thus, the speaker is forced to switch to the L1. These switches are always psycholinguistically motivated as the L1 is used to compensate deficiency in the L2. Speaker-motivated switches can, however, be both unconscious and conscious, and further, they can either be or not be social and communicative. For instance, when students switch to the L1 when they realize that they have made a mistake, the switch is used as self-monitoring. However, the switch can also function as request for help if the speaker anticipates assistance from the teacher or peers, and then it has also an interactional aspect.

Cook (1991: 68 as quoted in Edmondson 2004: 157), on the other hand, regards language-switching and code-switching as different actions. According to him changing a language in order to enable or maintain communication is language-switching. He further explains that only when the speaker who switches from one language to another does not know the word or phrase in the other language can be seen as code-switching. On the contrary, if the speaker him or herself knows the word or phrase but the receiver does not, it is called language-switching as the change in the language is used as a communicative strategy to guarantee mutual understanding. Thus, Cook’s code-switching is similar to Edmondson’s speaker-motivated switches.

As for Auer (1998), he separates discourse-related and participant-related switches from one another. He defines discourse-related code-switching as a means to organize and structure conversations and by doing this the function at hand can be highlighted. Participant-related switches, on the other hand, are closely tied to the conversation and its members; the switch can occur because the speaker for some reason cannot say the word in one language or the speaker believes that switching to another language is preferred by the listener. In the latter case the switch is similar to Cook’s (1991 as quoted in Edmondson 2004) language-switching. It is important to acknowledge that participant-related switches are of different nature depending on the performer. When the teacher initiates a participant-related switch it can be used to scaffold and avoid communication problems. Students, on the other hand, can indicate insecurity in the use of the L2 through participant-related code-switching. It can be concluded that when the teacher uses participant-related switches they resemble language switching described by Cook (1991 as quoted in Edmondson 2004), whereas students’ participant-related switches are similar to interactional speaker-motivated switches described by Edmondson (2004).

Seedhouse and Üstünel (2005: 303) make yet another distinction in classroom code-switching: teacher-initiated and teacher-induced code-switching. The former is used to explain switches where the teacher him or herself switches the

language, while the latter refers to such language use by the teacher that is intended as encouragement for the learners to use the opposite language, in other words, inducing students.

As the definitions and discussion above demonstrate, code-switching is an inevitable part of classroom interaction, and thus, deserves to be studied from different perspectives. The present study focuses on the teacher’s language choice and the functions of each language in the teacher’s talk and all kinds of switches are present in the data but are not discussed further. That is, the focus is on why and in which situations the teacher uses the L1 and the L2.

4 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM CODE-SWITCHING

In this chapter, I will present a broad overview of previous classroom code-switching research that either has focused on a similar research topic or had a similar setting as the present study. First, I will discuss studies that are conducted abroad (chapter 4.1), after which, I will present Finnish studies (chapter 4.2).