1

Chapter 1

Introduction

In the past, the Speak English Policy in schools is anchored on L. Sauveur’s

(1860) argument that a foreign language could be taught without translation or the use

of the learner’s native tongue if meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration

and action. Moreover, the German scholar, F. Franke (1884), affirmed this by stating

that a language could best be taught by using it actively in the classroom rather than

using analytical procedures that focus on explanation of grammar rules in classroom

teaching. Teachers must encourage direct and spontaneous use of the foreign language

in the classroom.

However, with the advent of the K to 12 Program in the Philippines which covers

kindergarten and 12 years of basic education (six years of primary education, four years

of Junior High School, and two years of Senior High School), one of the salient features

of the K to 12 Program is the Building Proficiency through Language wherein Mother

Tongue-Based Multilingual Education is applied. This is anchored on the principle that

children learn better, are more active in class and learn a second language even faster

when they are first taught in a language they understand. Article XIV, Section 7 of the

1987 Constitution affirms the enforcement of this feature as it mandates the alternate

use of English or Filipino as medium of instruction. It also suggests the use of regional

languages as auxiliary media of instruction in the Philippine classroom settings.

With the stipulation in Article XIV, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution,

Philippines can be considered as one of the many countries in the world which adheres

to bilingualism. Macnamara (1976) characterized a bilingual as anyone who possesses a

minimal competence in only one of the four language skills, listening, speaking, reading
 2

and writing, in a language other than his mother tongue. One important characteristic of

the multilingual/bilingual is their ability to move between different languages: they can

speak one language at a time, behaving more or less like a monolingual; or mix

languages in the same sentence, clause, or even word resulting in a linguistic

phenomenon known as Code-switching (Li Wei, 2008). Code-switching is the

alternation in the use of two or more languages in the same discourse (Grosjean, 1982).

Modupeola (2013) specified that teachers employ code switching strategy as a

means of providing students with opportunities to communicate and enhance students

understanding. It further 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 search

for the simplest words to clarify any confusion that may arise. The teacher use code

switching by starting the lesson in the English Language and may move into the second

language and back. This ensures that the lesson is as communicative as possible. This

approach allows teachers to balance the use of language within a given contact. Sert

(2005) added that as teachers switch between codes, students’ attentions are gradually

drawn to the objective of the teaching. Here code switching helps the learner to start

from the “known to the unknown”. Situation of code switching in the classroom include

topic switch, affective switch and repetitive switch.

A myriad of research studies published online showed interest on code-switching

both foreign and local. These research works, however, centers on English-Tagalog,

English-Spanish, English-French, English-Chinese code-switching and none so far on

English-Hiligaynon. It is for this reason that these researchers proposed to determine

the prevailing patterns and functions of code-switching at Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod.

 3

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to determine the code-switching patterns and functions among

teachers and students at Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod for the First Semester, Academic

Year 2015-2016.

Research Questions

Specifically, this study aimed to provide answers to the following research

questions:

1. What code-switching pattern is used by bilingual teachers and students during

classroom interactions on the following phases of instructions?

a. Pre-instruction phase

b. Instruction proper

c. Post-instruction phase

2. Which of the following educational functions is most apparent in the code

switching of CSA-B teachers and students?

a. Translation

b. Procedures and Directions

c. Clarification/Explanation

d. Checking Understanding

e. Response

3. How frequent does the following switches occur between teachers and students?

a. Single word switches

b. Phrase switches

c. Clause switches

d. Sentence switches
 4

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

In the book Social Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa (1993),

Carol Myers-Scotton described her markedness model. According to Myers-Scotton, in a

multilingual community speakers already have the knowledge on what language choice

is expected in a particular conversational interaction, this knowledge is a product of

their previous interaction and accumulated experiences that were organized in what she

calls rights-and-obligations (RO) sets shared with other members of their community.

The markedness model serves as a framework which describes speakers’ language

choices as either unmarked (expected) or marked (unexpected) through the

interpretation of their social motivations.

The markedness model involves a principle and three maxims. The negotiation

principle claims that the choice of codes in a conversational exchange, points out the set

of rights and obligations which the speaker wants to be in force during the current

exchange. Following their principle are the three maxims. The unmarked choice maxim

directs, “Make your code choice the unmarked index of the unmarked RO set in order to

affirm that RO set.” This can occur in a conversation in which all the addressees were

known by all the speakers to be bilingual, thus code switching is already expected. The

marked choice when you wish to establish a new RO set as unmarked for the current

exchange. This is the result when a speaker’s code switching is an unusual or unexpected

choice, given a pre-established RO set. Myers-Scotton proposes that the purpose of all

code switching as a marked choice is “to negotiate a change in the expected social

distance holding between participants, either increasing or decreasing it” [1993b. 132]

by establishing a new RO set. The exploratory choice maxim states, “When an unmarked

choice is not clear, use code-switching (CS) to make exploratory choices as candidates
 5

for unmarked choice and thereby as an index of an RO set which you favor.” This is

evident if the interlocutor is unknown to the speaker. Furthermore, another key

assumption of the MM (Markedness Model) is the rational choice (RC) model, which

posits that rational choices serves as a motivation for speakers to make the language

choice they make. These choices depend upon the speaker’s calculation of what choices

will give the best outcomes, leading us to the conclusion that rational choices are

subjective.

Myers-Scotton’s “Matrix Language Frame” (1997, 2002), a grammar devised

specifically for code-switching data is based in the idea that all utterances have a

dominant underlying language or matrix. This ties in with the psycholinguistic notion of

one language being more “activated” in the brain, and with the notion of the socially

“unmarked language” developed in Myers-Scotton’s Markedness Model (1993). It

stipulates that in code-switched sentences, only the matrix language (ML) can supply

the closed-class (i.e. grammatical) words, except where there is embedded language

(EL) “islands” (i.e. inserted EL chunks).

Some critics of the markedness model argue that it relies too heavily on external

knowledge, including assumptions about what speakers understand and believe. Auer

(1998) argues that it is possible to account for code switching behavior without appeal to

the “conversation-external knowledge about language use” required by the markedness

model. Of course, it is possible for the analyst to learn which languages are typically

used in particular situations via, for example, ethnographic observation. Furthermore,

one can argue that speakers learn these norms as part of the language socialization

process. A stronger criticism remains, however: The markedness model requires the

analyst to make assumptions about each individual speaker’s knowledge and

 6

understanding of the speech situation. Code switching is then explained on the basis of

the analyst’s assumptions about speakers’ internal states (including shared judgments

about rights and obligations) rather than its effects on the conversation at hand.

Further, Auer (1995) points out that empirical studies have failed to reveal the strong

correlations between particular languages and speech activities that the markedness

model predicts.

Nevertheless, the markedness model is probably the most influential and most

fully developed model of codeswitching motivations. Myers-Scotton continues to refine

the model in ways that are consistent with current research on contact linguistics

(Myers-Scotton 1998;Myers-Scotton and Bolonyai 2001) and the so-called standard

theory (Chomsky 1965) of linguistics (Myers-Scotton and Jake 2001; Jake, Myers-

Scotton and Gross 2002).

Thomason (2001) defines code-switching as “the use material from two (or more)

languages by a single speaker in the same conversation” (p. 132). Li Wei (1998), on the

other hand, in his research of code switching in British-born Chinese in Tyneside,

suggests the three levels of code switching. According to him, there are three levels of

code switching refer to the systematize position of language alternation in the turn-by-

turn organize conversation. Code switching categorized into Level A is when one of the

speakers, in an organized conversation of two people, switches into a different language

in turn and being replied by a different language as well. This level is considered as

“Intersentential code-switching.” Level B is when a speaker uses two or more different

languages in one talk/speech. This Level is also considered as “Intrasentential code-

switching” (Poplack, 1980 in Li Wei, 1998). Level C is when a phrase, word, idiom, or

expression is being said in a different language within a sentence. This level can be
 7

considered as a temporary lexical borrowing because the terms are hard to explain in a

primary language (Li Wei, 1998).

In this study, the researchers looked forward to observe the different types of

code-switching patterns and their instructional functions inside the classroom.

 8

CSA-B
Teachers
holding
classes at
the M-AVR

Language
Choice
Code Code
Switching Switching
Rights
Patterns Functions
Duties

CSA-B
Students of
AY 2015-2016
First Semester

Figure 1.Schematic Diagram Illustrating the Theoretical Framework of the Study

 9

Significance of the Study

This study is deemed significant to the following groups and for the following

reasons listed below.

School administrators. The outcomes of this study may provide school

administrators with the concepts on the benefits of Code-switching which they may also

integrate into the repertoire of teaching strategies that their teachers are already

adapting.

Language Teachers. This study may widen the perspective of the teachers on

the diverse functions of language for effective instruction that they may apply for the

achievement of their desired learning outcomes.

Students. The findings of this study may benefit the students by minimizing

their inhibition in participating and engaging in classroom activities provided that

they’ve come to understand the functions of Code-switching in promoting effective

communication.

Future researchers. This study may empower future researchers by providing

them with basis that can broaden their interest in advancing the frontiers of human

knowledge.

Scope and Limitations

This study is limited to teachers and students holding their classes at the M-AVR

of Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod. Teachers are particularly from the College of Arts,

Sciences and Education Department. Target participants are restricted only to classes

during the First Semester, AY 2015-2016. Furthermore, the data to be gathered will rely

solely on audio recordings.

 10

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined operationally in this study:

Code-switching. This study adopts Grosjean’s (1982) definition of code-

switching as the alternation in the use of two languages (or even more) in the same

discourse.

Code-switching pattern. This refers to the frequency and the degree to which

a teachers and students shift from matrix to embedded language during the pre-

instruction phase, instruction proper until post-instruction phase in classroom

interactions and procedures.

Code-switching function. This refers to the practical purpose of teachers and

students in shifting from matrix to embedded language during classroom interaction

and procedures.

Matrix language. This term pertains to the Philippines’ second language,

English, which is used as a medium of instruction in educational institutions.

Embedded language. This term pertains to the regional language, Hiligaynon,

which serves as an auxiliary medium of instruction and supplements English language

inside the classroom.

Intra-sentential code-switching. This study adopts Kebeya’s (2013)

definition of intra-sentential code-switching which states that it is the switch from one

language to another within the same sentence. Thus a sentence will be made up of two

or more languages.

Inter-sentential code-switching. This study adopts Kebeya’s (2013)

definition of inter-sentential code-switching which states that it is the switch from one

language to another between different sentences. This implies that when the speech of
 11

an individual is divided into sentences, one sentence will be in one language while the

other sentence will be in a totally different language.

Tag-switching. This study adopts Gulzar’s (2014) definition of tag switching as

the insertion of a tag phrase and is usually identified in fixed phrases of greeting,

parting, etc.

Intra-word switching. This research adopts Bianco’s (2014) definition of

intra-word switching as the switch which occurs within a word itself.

Pre-instruction phase. This is operationally defined as a segment of

instruction wherein the teacher gains the learners’ attention, set learning objectives and

activate prior knowledge.

Instruction proper. This is operationally defined as the phase of instruction

wherein the material to be discussed is presented, necessary scaffolding is provided by

the teacher, performance from students are prompted and feedback from the teacher is

provided. This is anchored on Gagne’s theory on the 9 events of instruction.

Post-instruction phase. This is operationally defined as the period of

instruction wherein the teacher assesses student performance and enhances retention

and transfer. This is still anchored on Gagne’s theory on the 9 events of instruction.