International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism

ISSN: 1367-0050 (Print) 1747-7522 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Translingual practices in English classrooms in

India: current perceptions and future possibilities

Jason Anderson & Amy Lightfoot

To cite this article: Jason Anderson & Amy Lightfoot (2018): Translingual practices in English
classrooms in India: current perceptions and future possibilities, International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2018.1548558

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1548558

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 11 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 670

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbeb20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1548558

Translingual practices in English classrooms in India: current

perceptions and future possibilities
a
Jason Anderson and Amy Lightfootb
a
Centre for Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK; bEducation and Society, British Council,
Colombo, Sri Lanka

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper reports on an exploratory survey investigating both translingual Received 14 July 2018
practices in English language classrooms in India and attitudes towards Accepted 10 November 2018
translanguaging and L1 use among teachers surveyed. 169 teachers
KEYWORDS
from primary, secondary, tertiary and adult sectors responded to 33 Translanguaging; L1; mother
quantitative and six qualitative items investigating nine research tongue; ELT; English
questions. The majority of respondents reported making only occasional language teaching; India;
use of other languages in English language classrooms, most often for multilingual education
comparing and contrasting language features, explaining concepts,
managing the classroom and translating for learners. Only a minority of
teachers reported actively facilitating translanguaging during language
practice activities. English medium institutions were found to be less
tolerant of L1-use practices than non-English medium institutions. More
experienced teachers were more likely to express more pro-
translanguaging beliefs and report more L1-inclusive practices.
Important differences between urban, semi-urban and rural contexts
were also found, indicative of a need for varied, context-sensitive
approaches to multilingual practices in English classrooms across India.
We argue that there is a need for an explicit focus on use of other
languages in Indian English language teacher education and suggest
more cohesive support for translingual practices across the education
system. We also propose an additional ‘inclusive position’ to Macaro’s
(2001) three ‘codeswitching’ positions.

1. Introduction
Translingual practices are, and have always been, fundamental to communication in India. As a lin-
guistically diverse country, the flexible blending of features from different languages is common in
interactions from the home to the marketplace and from street signs and adverts to cinema and
high literature (see Meganathan 2017). While this blending has traditionally been referred to as
code-switching, the terms translanguaging (to describe the act; García 2009) and translingualism
(to refer to translingual practices in society at large; Canagarajah 2013) have recently been
adopted to recognise that such practices do not so much involve ‘switching’ between separate
systems, but instead involve drawing flexibly on resources from a single, unified languaging
system, appropriate to context, interlocutor and interaction. The competence underlying such prac-
tices has been referred to as ‘performative competence’ by Canagarajah (2013) and ‘translingual com-
petence’ by Anderson (2018). García (2009, 140) defines ‘translanguaging’ as ‘the act performed by

CONTACT Jason Anderson J.Anderson.8@warwick.ac.uk

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 J. ANDERSON AND A. LIGHTFOOT

bilinguals of accessing different linguistic features or various modes of what are described as auton-
omous languages, in order to maximise communicative potential’, the definition that will be used in
this article.
For much of the twentieth century, approaches to language teaching disseminated from histori-
cally monolingual communities in Europe and North America tended to favour target-language only
teaching (Hall and Cook 2012), what Cook (2010) calls ‘intralingual’ approaches. However, the recent
multilingual turn (García and Li 2014; May 2014; Sembiante 2016) has questioned this monolingual
assumption, instead arguing for approaches to education that are more inclusive of learners’ holistic
languaging resources. While this reorientation is significant, as part of the predominantly western dis-
course on the history of language teaching, it neglects an important reality: approaches to teaching in
many multilingual countries have often involved more pragmatic use of learners’ prior languaging
resources throughout the twentieth century (Lin 1996; Sridhar 1994).
By default, classrooms across India are multilingual in nature. Decisions about language(s) of
instruction are loosely governed by India’s national language in education policy: the Three Language
Formula. This recommends children are taught in their home language at primary level, with a second
Indian language taught as a subject along with (usually) English introduced later (Mohanty 2010). In
practice, the ‘home language’ of primary schools generally defaults to the state language and the
introduction of additional languages varies across the country. Meanwhile, the majority of state gov-
ernments are struggling to make decisions to retain students whose parents are considering opting
for low-cost private school education – often ‘English medium’, on paper, if not in practice (Erling,
Adinolfi, and Hultgren 2017). Policy documentation, including the legally binding Constitution of
India and its recent amendment, the Right to Education Act (Ministry of Law and Justice 2009), cham-
pions the multilingual nature of India and recognises the need for its preservation:
It shall be the endeavour of every State and of every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities
for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education. (Government of India 2012, Part XVII
Chapter IV, 177)

Medium of instructions shall, as far as practicable, be in child’s mother tongue [sic]. (Ministry of Law and Justice
2009, Chapter V section 29.1 (f))

The statement ‘as far as practicable’ is key and there is also clear evidence of support for a pragmatic
approach to multilingual education in national level education documents including the National
Council of Educational Research and Training’s (NCERT 2006, 12) position paper on English language
teaching which notes that, ‘Linguistic purism, whether of English or the Indian languages, must yield
to a tolerance of code-switching and code-mixing if necessary’, recognising the need for flexible,
translingual practices in English subject classrooms in India.
While discussion of translingual practices in academic literature has focused extensively on how
they can become incorporated into educational systems in multilingual communities in western
countries, there have been relatively few peer-reviewed studies on translingual practices in multilin-
gual communities in the east and the south (García and Li 2014; Kachru 1994; May 2011; Sridhar
1994). Thus, in light of India’s linguistic diversity, its naturally translingual practices and its forward-
looking, L1-inclusive educational policy documentation, we aim firstly to explore recent research
on translingual/multilingual approaches in English language classrooms in India and secondly to
report on a survey conducted with English language teachers across India, investigating teachers’
self-reported practices and attitudes with regard to the use of other languages in the English class-
room. We discuss the implications of these research findings and make a number of recommen-
dations based on them.
Given the pervasiveness of linguistic terminology, and the need to describe holistic languaging
practices simply in the survey itself, we use the traditional term ‘L1’, but reconceptualise it as a holis-
tic, single resource: a ‘languaculture’ (Agar 1994) that may include features of a number of different
languages (e.g. the L1 of a learner from a Bengali family living in New Delhi may include features of
Bangla, Hindi, English and Urdu). We also use the term ‘other languages’ (OLs), especially in the survey
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 3

questions to refer to codes, dialects and other resources that are not traditionally associated with
English as the language under discussion.

2. Literature review
Aside from the recent arguments in favour of translingual practices in education discussed above, the
revival of support for L1 use in language learning has been relatively cautious in the West. Macaro’s
(2001, 535) three codeswitching positions summarise three predominant attitudes towards L1 use at
the turn of the century in the UK:

(1) The Virtual Position: The classroom is like the target country. Therefore we should aim at total
exclusion of the L1. There is no pedagogical value in L1 use. The L1 can be excluded from the
FL classroom as long as the teacher is skilled enough.
(2) The Maximal Position: There is no pedagogical value in L1 use. However, perfect teaching and
learning conditions do not exist and therefore teachers have to resort to the L1.
(3) The Optimal Position: There is some pedagogical value in L1 use. Some aspects of learning may
actually be enhanced by use of the L1. There should therefore be a constant exploration of ped-
agogical principles regarding whether and in what ways L1 use is justified.

It is notable that even Macaro’s ‘Optimal Position’ appears to be more tolerant (seeking justifica-
tion), rather than inclusive (recognising it as part of the learner’s identity and resources) of other
languages, despite his regular advocacy for L1 use (see Macaro 2005). This L1-tolerant position is
reflected in several more recent publications on L1 use in the West where ‘judicious’ use of L1 is
often recommended (see, e.g. the edited volume by Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain 2009, 5, 17, 34).
However, the use of languages in classrooms in multilingual countries such as India is less explored
– to what extent have approaches here been either tolerant or inclusive of learners’ other languages?
For the remainder of this literature review we focus on studies from India, all of which attest to more
widespread use of OLs in the classroom. Readers interested in the more general arguments and evi-
dence for and against L1 use are advised to read Hall and Cook’s (2012) detailed overview.
Rahman’s study of English language teaching in Assam (2013) used classroom observation, inter-
views and questionnaires to collect data. He noted that 65% of 25 teachers surveyed use L1 (65% of
this usage involved explaining concepts to learners), and 95% of 300 learners surveyed felt that they
needed the help of Assamese in English classes. He concluded, ‘carefully used, Assamese (L1) can play
a facilitative and supportive role in the English classroom’ (221). His recommendations include the
flexible use of linguistic resources through encouraging students ‘to use Assamese vocabulary in
English sentences’ (220), judicious use of L1 depending on variables such as cognitive level of learners
and teaching objectives, and the recommendation that use of L1 should be ‘legalise(d)’ (221) to lead
to more systematic use. Rahman calls for standardised guidelines to support this, and the need for
active support for such policies at school level by head teachers and others in the teaching-learning
community.
As part of a larger study on English as a medium of instruction (EMI) education, Erling, Adinolfi, and
Hultgren (2017) observed 11 teachers working in both private low-cost English-medium schools and
a Hindi-medium government school in Bihar, all at upper primary level. They report that 10 of the 11
observed teachers used a combination of languages (Hindi and English) for instruction, with just
under half of the time spent speaking in Hindi. Hindi was mainly used for classroom management
purposes or paraphrasing parts of a text: ‘In the [low cost English medium schools], there was an over-
whelming sense that classroom codeswitching was a legitimate practice that was needed due to stu-
dents’ developing competence in English’ (106). The students, when they spoke, mainly used English
but this was predominantly in response to choral drilling or other repetition of what the teacher had
said. Interestingly, the teachers and head teachers did not report any conflict with the use of ‘dual
language’ instruction (the use of Hindi and English in the classroom) when interviewed. However,
4 J. ANDERSON AND A. LIGHTFOOT

there were several instances of teachers reporting that the use of other more local languages is ‘not
allowed’, for example by head teachers. One teacher reported, ‘I do not speak Bajjika here with chil-
dren because it does not feel good. A complaint may go to the parents immediately’ (120).
Chimirala’s (2017) more extensive survey of teachers of all subjects in English-medium state
schools in Andhra Pradesh analysed data from 276 questionnaires and 40 interviews. She found
that 95% of teachers reported using languages other than English in the classroom (69% of this
usage involves explaining concepts and difficult words), but that only 71% allow their students to
use other languages. Chimirala uncovers ‘conflicting discourses’ in the extensive interview data,
but notes that the majority of teachers recognise that ‘if learners have to connect to the lesson,
they should be allowed to use their multilingual repertoires’ (165–166). She cautions that ideologies
driven by both institutional norms and pre-service and in-service programmes are perpetuating a
monolingual mindset inappropriate to the multilingual diversity of India, a mindset that, she
suggests, may account for the behaviour of the 24% of teachers who reported using L1 in class
but, paradoxically, did not allow their learners to do so.
Durairajan (2017) reviewed 19 studies of more L1-inclusive approaches and strategies
implemented in Indian English language classrooms since 1981, mainly at secondary level. This
included 16 studies since 2000 using L1 in a scaffolding role, and three earlier studies into bilingual
learning. The most consistent finding across these studies was an increased sense of empowerment
and self-confidence among learners through L1-mediated learning, but she also notes reports of
improved fluency in storytelling, greater metalinguistic awareness, better recall and use of vocabu-
lary in English. Of particular note are three studies into the use of L1 for planning and organising
writing that ‘showed remarkable improvement’ (313). Durairajan recommends using L1 to tap exist-
ing capabilities, to plan for L2 use, to encourage greater use of bilingual texts, and, importantly,
suggests curriculum designers need to reconceptualise linguistic competence as a holistic entity
‘to enable growth across languages’ (314), envisaging a translingual competence of sorts to
replace the monolingual mindset that Chimirala (2017) alludes to. Durairajan concludes that ‘a
course in multilingual education practices ought to be mandated in all teacher education pro-
grammes’ (314).
While this research reveals both extensive, principled use of OLs in some contexts, and an interest
in understanding and using OLs in the English classroom especially within a social constructivist fra-
mework, it is clear that at least in some cases this is inhibited by the perpetuation of a more mono-
lingual mindset through the practices of both institutions and practitioner culture, leading to a state
of ‘guilty multilingualism’ (Coleman 2017, 31), in which L1-use practices are often stigmatised and
drawn upon secretly. This mirrors findings from studies conducted in comparable contexts, which
highlight teachers’ reticence to use languages other than the prescribed medium of instruction in
the classroom for fear of retribution by their supervisors or due to a general belief that it is not ben-
eficial for student learning (e.g. Clegg and Afitska 2011; Ferguson 2003; Probyn 2009).

3. Methodology
3.1. Aims and research questions
The aim of our survey was presented in the survey introduction: ‘to better understand how teachers
of English in India do or don’t make use of other languages in the English language teaching and
learning process’. Our intention was to investigate such practices from a more holistic, translingual
perspective than traditional research on ‘L1 use’ in the classroom has tended to do (e.g. De la
Campa and Nassaji 2009; Duff and Polio 1990; Hall and Cook 2013), as appropriate to the translingual
heritage and practices of India. Our research questions were exploratory, as follows:

(A) Use of languages other than English in relation to teaching contexts

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 5

(A1) To what extent do teachers of English in India feel free to make use of OLs in their
classrooms?
(A2) Does this vary depending on contextual factors, such as medium of instruction (MOI),
shared language availability and type of institution?
(B) Translanguaging in the community and classroom
(B1) How extensively is translanguaging reported in communities around schools?
(B2) Do translanguaging practices extend into English language classrooms?
(C) Teachers’ self-reported classroom practices
(C1) In what ways are OLs involved in English language learning (as reported by respondents),
and to what extent is translanguaging part of this?
(C2) To what extent do teachers actively encourage, rather than simply allow, use of OLs in the
classroom?
(D) Teachers’ beliefs and opinions concerning OL use
(D1) What attitudes and beliefs exist among teachers of English in India towards OL use in the
classroom?
(D2) What contextual factors correlate with more OL-inclusive opinions among these teachers?
(D3) Are teachers’ attitudes towards OL use consistent with their self-reported classroom prac-
tices?

3.2. The questionnaire

The questionnaire (see Appendix for wording of all items as presented to respondents) consisted of
four sections, with 33 closed, quantitative items and six open-ended opportunities to add qualitat-
ive comments (mainly at the end of sections, as recommended by Dörnyei [2003, 48]). As well as
asking questions commonly presented in surveys investigating L1 use (e.g. use of OLs for classroom
management, explanation or translation activities; Chimirala 2017; Hall and Cook 2013), we also
included one item on whether teachers actively encourage use of other languages (item 26),
and several items to explore translanguaging practices (items 19, 21–24). Two items investigated
whether teachers engaged in comparative analysis of languages (16 and 18). Six items were also
included to elucidate teachers’ beliefs regarding OL use (28–33), including one (28) based on
Macaro’s (2001) three codeswitching positions (see Literature Review above), but adding a
fourth ‘inclusive’ position in anticipation of more OL-inclusive practices among Indian teachers
(see Figure 8 below for wording: position names were not included in the questionnaire itself).
Guidelines by Dörnyei (2003, 2007) were followed, with careful attention to ensure that the
survey was appropriate in length and organisation, and that specialist terms (e.g. translanguage,
comparative analysis) were avoided. Email addresses were requested (in case of the need to
clarify or further investigate qualitative responses), but optional. The survey was piloted with 10
teachers working in, or with experience of, similar teaching contexts to those targeted. Based on
this piloting, several minor changes were made to improve clarity, including rewording of survey
items to simplify structure, and choice of lexis.

3.3. Administration
The survey was administered online using Google Forms. Respondents provided informed consent
and also confirmed that they were teachers of English in India before proceeding to the survey
itself. Invitations to participate were sent out via the British Council’s networks in India (project data-
bases and social media sites for English language teachers). The survey link remained live for two
weeks, with two reminders sent to potential respondents. The limitations of this non-probability vol-
unteer sampling are discussed below.
Early analysis of demographic data indicated the presence of distinct contexts suspected to relate
to a rural-urban divide. Those who had provided email addresses were contacted to ask whether they
6 J. ANDERSON AND A. LIGHTFOOT

taught in urban, semi-urban or rural communities.1 76 replies were received (45% of total survey
respondents), enabling cross-tabulation of this variable with others, although this variable was not
included in contextual factor analyses in sections A-D due to smaller sample sizes.

3.4. Data analysis

Quantitative data was analysed using SPSS 24. Frequency counts and exploratory graphs were used
to check for potential correlations. Several statistical tests were also performed to examine the sig-
nificance of potential correlations with respondent characteristics and contextual variables. Fisher’s
exact test was used in all cases as dependent variables were categorical and involved low frequencies
for some values (Field 2009).
Qualitative data was analysed in two ways. As is typical in survey studies (Dörnyei 2003), it initially
served to inform, support and expand upon the statistical data. As such, responses mentioning
specific questions were categorised and codified, then selected to provide exemplification or clarifi-
cation of points made. However, given the extent and ‘richness’ of the qualitative data (over 5000
words), it was also deemed appropriate to analyse it as a whole. This involved a second categorisation
and codification stage, to enable key narratives to inform the Discussion section of the paper along-
side, rather than subordinate to, the quantitative data. Quotes selected included those that were
representative of common opinions, challenges or narratives and those that revealed specific,
often innovative insights into the respondents’ worlds.

4. Findings
4.1. Respondents’ characteristics and contexts
169 teachers completed the 33 quantitative items in the survey. 70 of these also provided additional
qualitative data (see Appendix for frequencies and percentages). Figure 1 summarises key demo-
graphic data reported, revealing that most had extensive teaching experience, almost half (47%)
were secondary teachers, the majority were working in state-school education, and represented a
balance of teachers working in both EMI and non-EMI institutions (Marathi [12%], Hindi [10%], and
Kannada [9%] were the most common non-English mediums reported). Learner proficiency levels
reported were mainly in the A1-B2 range and, reflecting what we know about multilingualism in
India, 80% of the teachers reported speaking three or more languages.
Table 1 compares six contextual factors for urban, semi-urban and rural locations, suggesting a
rural-urban continuum, with values for teachers working in semi-urban contexts typically lying
part-way between those in urban and rural contexts.

Figure 1. Respondent characteristics (n = 169).

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 7

Table 1. The rural-urban continuum (n = 76). *1 = beginner; 2 = elementary/pre-intermediate; 3 = intermediate/upper

intermediate; 4 = advanced.
% of respondents in
% of respondents % of respondents Mean no. of Mean no. of each context who
in each context in each context Mean reported languages that languages share languages
who work in who work in EMI learner English respondents reported in other than English
Context (n) private schools schools proficiency* reported speaking community with students
rural (24) 12 17 1.67 3.17 2.67 88
semi-urban 39 46 2.52 3.26 3.04 74
(23)
urban (29) 34 74 2.72 3.41 4.81 62

Figure 2. Teachers’ perceptions of freedom to use other languages. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of
rounding.

4.2. Use of languages other than English in relation to teaching contexts

(A1) To what extent do Indian teachers feel free to make use of OLs in their classrooms?

Item 7 investigated this question. Figure 2 displays responses. Just over half felt they were either dis-
couraged from using OLs or told to use only English.

(A2) Does freedom to use OLs vary depending on contextual factors?

Exploratory graphs indicated correlations with several contextual variables, which were tested for
significance. Unsurprisingly, MOI was significant, with respondents in EMI schools much less likely to

Figure 3. Freedom to use other languages by medium of instruction. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of
rounding.
8 J. ANDERSON AND A. LIGHTFOOT

Figure 4. Freedom to use other languages by teacher experience. Notes: Only 7 respondents had 0–1 years’ experience. Percen-
tages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

indicate freedom to use OLs (Fisher’s χ2(2, n = 169) = 32.813, p ≤ 0.001; see Figure 3). Likewise, tea-
chers who shared OLs with their learners expressed more freedom to use them than those who
did not (Fisher’s χ2(4, n = 169) = 25.182, p ≤ 0.001). Institution type was significant, with teachers in
private schools less likely to indicate freedom to use OLs (Fisher’s χ2(4, n = 169) = 32.491, p ≤
0.001), and, interestingly, teacher experience was also significant, with more experienced teachers
being more likely to indicate freedom to use OLs (Fisher’s χ2(6, n = 169) = 18.114, p = .003; see
Figure 4).
Of 28 qualitative responses offered at the end of Section A, 11 specifically mentioned item 7, and
another five were evidently referring to this issue. Most chose to explain how or why they used OLs,
several of whom were clearly well-informed in their choices:
In my English language class I do use code mixing or code switching so that my learners can also confidently
respond in English using same technique. In this way I help them in their second language acquisition.

Among these, ‘guilty multilingualism’ (Coleman 2017) was detectable in six responses, as, for
example, in the following:
Sometimes I have to use Mother tongue when the tribal students are unable to understand the concept. The basic
knowledge of the students is very poor. They are not well prepared in their primary classes.

4.3. Translanguaging in the community and classroom

(B1) How extensive is translanguaging reported in communities around schools?

Responses indicated that two (27%), three (36%) or four (15%) languages were present in the majority
of local communities around respondents’ schools, with higher linguistic diversity found in urban
contexts (a mean of 4.81 languages, compared to 2.67 in rural contexts; see Table 1). A number of
the 74 qualitative responses following this question indicated extremely high linguistic diversity,
for example by listing all the languages in question:
English, Marathi, Hindi, Gujarati, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Urdu

Several chose to add additional ‘dialects’, including the following respondent who selected ‘3
languages’ and added:
Besides there are regional dialects which overpower the atmosphere. The dialects are Bhilori, Pawari and Ahirani.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 9

Figure 5. Translanguaging in the community. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

Figure 6. English in community translanguaging. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

Items 9 and 10 investigated translanguaging in the community (see Figures 5 and 6). Almost all
respondents indicated that translanguaging is present in interactions in the local community, and
many reported that English played a prominent role in this, with 56% indicating either ‘regular use
of words and expressions’ or ‘a lot’ of English.

(B2) Do translanguaging practices extend into English language classrooms?

Responses to item 11 (see Figure 1) indicated that the majority of teachers share a language other
than English with most/all (55%) or some (33%) of their learners, clear evidence of the potential to
exploit this shared resource in the classroom, however, in many cases this lingua franca may be
the official state language, rather than learners’ ‘mother tongue’, where this is different.
The majority of respondents reported that the mixing of languages in English lessons by students
was either very common (34%) or quite common (36%). Comments provided for section B (n = 29)
shed some light on translanguaging in the classroom, most involving neutral or slightly negative atti-
tudes towards such practices:
Hindi is used most of the time for inter-personal communication, both inside and outside the classroom.
Yes, it’s common with students to mix Gujarati with English when they don’t know English counterparts of some
words.
My students mix English and Tamil. Telugu and English. Because when they don’t understand a concept they mix
it up.
10 J. ANDERSON AND A. LIGHTFOOT

Figure 7. Respondents’ self-reported reasons for using other languages. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of
rounding.

4.4. Teachers’ self-reported classroom practices

(C1) In what ways are OLs involved in English language learning (as reported by respondents), and to
what extent is translanguaging part of this?

Figure 7 summarises responses to 15 items designed to elicit teachers’ reported practices concerning
OL use (see Appendix for exact wording). The majority reported using OLs ‘occasionally’ or ‘never’.
Comparison of languages (both ‘how they express things’ and comparing sounds between
languages) and teacher explanations in OLs were the most frequently reported uses of OLs, followed
closely by use of OLs for translation and classroom management. Skills activities involving trans-
languaging were comparatively rare among responses, especially those involving writing and trans-
lingual texts. There was greater tolerance of OLs in speaking activities, with 34% indicating
‘occasionally’, and 18% ‘regularly’, allowing students to mix languages.
The majority of comments offered for Section C of the survey either described in more detail how
they use OLs, or justified their use of OLs, with several feeling the need to make specific reference to
students’ backgrounds (especially rurality):
Due to lack of knowledge of English in rural area we have to use their local language to give instructions, gui-
dance, etc.

A small number of responses reported proactive use of OLs to support or scaffold learning in English:
If there is a text or poem which is available in their mother tongue, I recommend my learners to read it.

(C2) To what extent do teachers actively encourage, rather than simply allow, use of OLs in the
classroom?

Figure 7 also shows responses to item 26. 57% of respondents reported never actively encoura-
ging use of OLs, and a further 34% only doing so occasionally. 7% selected ‘regularly’ and only
four respondents stated that they ‘always’ encourage use of OLs. Only three qualitative responses
to Section C indicated encouraging use of OLs, two of which, interestingly, were from teacher trainers:
I occasionally encourage teacher trainees to translate from other languages to English especially in my writing
classes.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 11

One respondent made a distinction between ‘encouraging’ and ‘allowing’ OLs:

I never [en]courage them to use other language. But I allow them to use other language as most of them can’t
express themselves properly in English.

4.5. Teachers’ beliefs and opinions concerning OL use

(D1) What attitudes and beliefs exist among Indian teachers towards OL use in the classroom?

The first item (28) in this section sought to investigate attitudes towards OL use among respondents,
drawing on our adapted version of Macaro’s (2001, 535) codeswitching position statements. Figure 8
shows wording and responses. While just over half the respondents selected the optimal position, 33
respondents (20%) selected the inclusive position, justifying its inclusion.
A number of teachers chose to expand on the options they had chosen in the comments for
section D, representing the four positions (virtual, maximal, ‘optimal’ and inclusive) well:
Virtual position:
I have a strong feeling that English lessons should be taught only in English and it should not be mixed with L1.

Maximal position:
Depends on the prerequisite I mean we may ask them to use other languages initially later we should not encou-
rage the use of other languages. If they use any other language how will they learn English.

‘Optimal’ position:
I occasionally use Kannada in my explanation of lessons. But strictly allow only English for writing in English
lessons. I never encourage using other languages during English class, but when it is entirely difficult for the
child to express in English, I allow them to mix up Kannada (to open up).

Inclusive position:
In group work or pair work, the students are allowed to talk in their own language, so that they feel comfortable to
share their views, then they report in English.

Item 29 investigated teachers’ opinions regarding when English should be introduced in Indian
schools, the so-called ‘MOI debate’ (Simpson 2017, 13). The majority perceived that English should
only be taught as a subject at primary level (53%), or not at all until secondary level (16%). See
Figure 9.
Items 30 and 31 investigated teachers’ attitudes to translanguaging in the classroom and in future
careers. While almost all teachers recognised translanguaging as either natural (80%) or inevitable

Figure 8. The four OL-use positions. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.
12 J. ANDERSON AND A. LIGHTFOOT

Figure 9. English teachers’ opinions on MOI in India. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

(15%) in the classroom, fewer seemed to recognise the likelihood of students needing to translan-
guage with English in their future careers (only 29% considered that they will need to mix languages
frequently or all the time). Given recent findings reporting the likely translingual futures of adult lear-
ners of English from less multilingual countries than India (Anderson 20182), this difference is of note.
Items 32 and 33 elicited teachers’ opinions on two Likert scale items. Responses to item 32 indi-
cated that 46% of respondents believe languages should be treated separately to avoid confusion
compared to 34% who disagree with this opinion, and responses to 33 indicated that there was
majority agreement for the opinion that teaching should always build on students’ prior knowledge
(82% chose either ‘agree strongly’ or ‘agree’).

(D2) What contextual factors correlate with more OL-inclusive opinions among Indian teachers?

Exploratory graphs were used to examine relationships between items 28–30 and 32, and respon-
dents’ characteristics and contextual variables, with Fisher’s exact test used to identify significant
associations. For item 28 (respondents’ choices between the four OL-use positions) MOI was, unsur-
prisingly, found to be significant, with teachers working in EMI schools more likely to adopt virtual
positions and teachers in government and government-aided schools more likely to adopt the
other three positions (Fisher’s χ2(3, n = 169) = 15.780, p = .001). Whether teacher and learners
shared OLs also proved significant for item 28. None of the teachers who did not share OLs with lear-
ners adopted the inclusive position, and those who did share OLs were found to be less likely to
adopt virtual positions (Fisher’s χ2(6, n = 169) = 31.568, p ≤ 0.001).
For item 32 (whether languages should be treated separately to avoid confusion), two interesting
correlations were found, with teacher experience and learner proficiency. Teachers who had more

Figure 10. Teachers’ beliefs on treating languages separately by experience.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 13

Figure 11. Teachers’ other language inclusivity scores by other language use positions.

experience (Fisher’s χ2(12, n = 169) = 23.164, p = .010), and teachers who reported higher English
proficiency levels among their learners (Fisher’s χ2(12, n = 169) = 22.390, p = .017) were less likely
to believe that languages should be treated separately in teaching practices (see Figure 10).

(D3) Are teachers’ attitudes towards OL use consistent with their self-reported classroom practices?

In order to assess how well respondents’ chosen OL-use positions from item 28 correlated to their
self-reported classroom practices, frequency ratings for items 13-27 were converted to numeric scales
(0 = never; 3 = always) and averaged to create multi-item scales (Dörnyei 2007, 103) indicative of each
teacher’s willingness to include OLs in their practices, termed ‘OL-inclusivity scores’. These ranged
from 0 (indicating an average of ‘never’) to a highest score of 2.5 (averaging half way between ‘reg-
ularly’ and ‘always’) with a sample mean of 0.86. Mean values for the four OL-use positions were found
to correlate with respondents’ OL-inclusivity scores (see Figure 11), offering further validity for the
addition of the ‘inclusive position’ to Macaro’s (2001) model.

5. Discussion incorporating the voices of our respondents

The findings of this survey support those of previous studies revealing that other language use
is common in English language classrooms in India (e.g. Chimirala 2017; Rahman 2013). The fol-
lowing discussion of the more complex questions as to who uses which languages, when, why,
how and how much must remain tentative and cognisant of the limitations of the study (see
below).

5.1. How much OL use was reported, and what for?

The vast majority of respondents reported using OLs at least occasionally, with only two respondents
reporting that they never use or allow OLs. The sample mean OL-inclusivity score of 0.86 (0 = never;
1 = occasionally) indicates occasional use on average, but not for all purposes indicated. This is con-
sistent with the ‘English-mainly’ belief expressed in several qualitative responses offered, with terms
such as ‘practice’, ‘exposure’ and ‘use’ frequently used as justification:
I strongly agree that students who hesitate to speak in English in the class should be given lot of practise in con-
versations even though they make lot of grammatical mistakes. This builds up their confidence and they enjoy
learning the subject as well.

Of those teachers who make more use of OLs, a number still convey a sense of ‘guilty multilingualism’
(Coleman 2017), as both Chimirala’s study (2017), and the following respondent, indicate:
14 J. ANDERSON AND A. LIGHTFOOT

I’m a teacher of spoken English for secondary level students who have had very little exposure to spoken English.
Therefore, many concepts have to explained to them in L1 and sometimes they have to be allowed to express
their views in L1 to help them say it in English.

This sense of guilt is hardly surprising, given that 36% of respondents reported that use of OLs is dis-
couraged in their institutions, and a further 18% reported being told to teach using only English,
despite national policy and constitutional directives recognising the need for teachers to make use
of more flexible language use practices (Government of India 2012; NCERT 2006). These national-
level policies may be at odds with state-level concerns regarding the need to retain students
whose parents may be tempted to move them to low-cost private schools on the offer of EMI instruc-
tion (Simpson 2017, 10).
An important finding of this study is that the most commonly reported use of OLs among respon-
dents is for comparative analysis of languages (see items 16 and 18 in Figure 7 above). This use is
rarely asked about on questionnaires of OL use (e.g. Hall and Cook 2013; Levine 2003; Liu et al.
2004), although Hall and Cook (2013) found it was the most commonly added suggestion in qualitat-
ive responses. To our knowledge, the question on ‘comparing sounds’ has never been asked before,
but clearly appeared to be an important way of building English language awareness upon L1
knowledge.
Among the least commonly reported OL uses, skills practice involving translanguaging (especially
translingual writing) stands out, reflecting both the more conservative entrenched norms of writing
(Canagarajah 2013), and the ‘negative attitudes’ towards translanguaging in academic contexts
prevalent in many countries (Simpson 2017, 12), although the flexibility of a number of respondents,
especially to allow more use of OLs to scaffold the emergence of English, should be noted:
At the primary and secondary stage I feel using another language as a scaffolding device to teach English is fine.
The children can lean on to Hindi or mother-tongue to learn English. Using only English in the classroom, may
induce a feeling of alienation which may discourage them from learning English or slow down the process of
learning.

The association between teacher experience and use of OLs suggested by items 7 and 32 is notable,
with more experienced teachers reporting freedom to use OLs and willingness to mix languages in
class. Related to this, it is notable that several of the respondents who selected the inclusive position
with regard to OL use were teacher educators, such as the following respondent:
In order to develop their listening skills, I’ve exposed them to Hindi songs before sharing English songs. For our
Cultural evenings, we encourage them to present some typical song or dance from their country (for foreigners)
or state (for Indians).

When combined, this evidence suggests that more experienced, more knowledgeable practitioners
in India are more likely to be L1-inclusive in their beliefs, perceptions and self-reported practices.

5.2. MOI and EMI

While there were clear, obvious correlations between MOI and whether teachers reported being
allowed to use OLs, another correlation is of note, that of a much higher percentage of respondents
working in EMI schools in urban locations (74%) compared to semi-urban (46%) and rural (17%)
schools (see Table 1). Further analysis of the data revealed that 25 of the 77 respondents who
work in EMI schools reported above-average OL inclusivity scores, indicating that they have
adopted more OL-inclusive practices, despite the official status of their institutions, as similarly
found by Erling, Adinolfi, and Hultgren (2017). This appears to be evidence of what Simpson calls
‘the rise of low-fee private schools – frequently labelled ‘EMI’, though actual language practice
may be unknown’ (2017, 7). Although most respondents who provided qualitative data had little
difficulty expressing themselves in English, the errors in the following comment from a teacher
working in an EMI school reveal that at least some of those asked to teach only in English may
not have levels of English adequate to the task (also noted by Erling, Adinolfi, and Hultgren [2017]):
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 15

This on and off of proper use of Eng is because ,despite of having an English medium school ,students are from
villages.

Interestingly, responses to item 29 (When should English be introduced?) indicate that most respon-
dents agreed with the recently published British Council position statement (Simpson 2017) and
other expert opinions on EMI in low- and middle-income countries (e.g. McIlwraith 2013), that
English should be studied as subject only at primary level, evidence that many teachers in this linguis-
tically diverse country recognise the importance of establishing a firm base in mother tongue(s) lit-
eracy before an exogenous language such as English is introduced.

5.3. The rural-urban continuum

Table 1 above provides evidence of something that most Indian teachers and teacher educators are
very much aware of, that is, the existence of a rural-urban continuum in English language teaching in
India. Important differences in a number of contextual factors shown in this table (e.g. mean number
of languages in the community) likely influence detectable differences in pedagogic practices, such
as higher mean scores for OL inclusivity in rural schools (1.00) when compared to semi-urban (0.87)
and urban (0.72) schools, something that is also echoed in the qualitative data. Several references (12
respondents) to ‘rural’ contexts, including ‘tribal students’, ‘village background’ and ‘rural children’,
are of note among the comments volunteered, with many respondents invoking rurality to explain
either the challenges they face, or the ‘need’ to use OLs:
Most of the students come from semi-rural area. They are very poor in English and therefore prefer to talk in Gujar-
ati mixing some common English words only.
Since i teach for rural children, sometimes it requires to explain it in other language to encourage them to
respond, make the concept clear.
In colleges of rural or semi-rural areas, English teachers and students are not encouraged.

When other important differences are considered, such as the higher levels of linguistic proficiency
and the lower likelihood of teachers sharing OLs with their learners in urban schools, it can reasonably
be assumed that urban teachers require different approaches to OL use in the English language class-
room. The following two comments from a teacher working in a government-aided secondary school
in Mumbai hint towards both the challenges he faces and the innovative practices he has adopted to
cope with these challenges:
As my school is in Mumbai but it is a slum, students use Hindi while they are with their friends, at their house they
speak Marathi.
For other students I take the help of other students who use good English in the class. Peer help is very important
in such situation.

It is in such super-diverse urban environments that much research on translingual practices in bilin-
gual education has been conducted (e.g. García and Li 2014; Jørgensen et al. 2011), and for such con-
texts that related resources have been developed (see, e.g. Celic and Seltzer 2013), resources that
may also be useful for such Indian teachers. In rural contexts where teachers are more likely to
share OLs with learners it is likely that both current pragmatic uses of OLs, and greater acceptance
and inclusion of the naturally translingual practices reported in local communities will help learners
to develop their linguistic resources holistically and humanely, this latter factor being particularly
important at primary level and in rural communities, where learners are likely to be most disadvan-
taged and vulnerable to dropping out of school.

6. Conclusion
6.1. Limitations
The limitations of the non-probability volunteer sampling used in this study are here acknowledged
(Hewson et al. 2003) and caution should be used when attempting to generalise from our findings.
16 J. ANDERSON AND A. LIGHTFOOT

While the fairly large sample size and diversity of respondent contexts suggests a reasonable balance
of representation across major contextual factors in Indian ELT, it is likely that respondents to our
survey have a greater than average interest in their professional development and in contributing
to the wider body of knowledge relating to language teaching and learning. Primary and tertiary tea-
chers are underrepresented in our data. Teachers without easy internet access are also likely to be
underrepresented.
The danger of interpreting self-reported data as evidence of actual classroom practice is also
acknowledged. As such, we have been careful in this paper not to assume such reports to be evi-
dence of actual practice. Likewise, where we have asked respondents to report on linguistic diversity
and translanguaging in the community, these reports have been interpreted as perceptions, rather
than evidence of such phenomena.

6.2. Recommendations
Alongside ‘guilty multilingualism’ (Coleman 2017, 31), our data reveal that a feeling of ‘guilty trans-
languaging’ is also tangible in the voices and self-reported practices of our respondents. While
translingual interactions involving English are a central feature of the performative competence
of Indians in their daily lives (Anderson 2017), it seems that comparatively few of the Indian tea-
chers we surveyed believe in encouraging the development of such competence in their class-
rooms, or purposefully make use of translanguaging practices to facilitate learning. This is likely
due to a range of influences and beliefs among these teachers, including the pressure to
(pretend to) teach only in English for some, disdain for hybrid languaging practices for others,
and conservative curricula and assessment criteria that lead many Indian teachers to force their
learners to use English in ways that contrast with their own behaviour, even in the classroom.
We suggest that teachers of English in India could incorporate more flexible, natural processes
to facilitate more learning and prepare their learners more appropriately for participation in
society at large.
We echo Durairajan’s (2017) call for an explicit focus on OL use in teacher education in India, and
also suggest that such support should recognise natural language-use practices present in society
and reflect this in pedagogic guidance offered to teachers, so that ‘both the content and the pro-
cesses of instruction for learners … might usefully be modified to prepare them for future translin-
gual environments’ (Anderson 2018, 32), a belief that several of our respondents have exemplified
when describing their own attitudes and classroom practices. Particularly at primary level, where
the focus should ideally be on developing literacy in mother tongue or closest possible dialect
first whenever possible, and OLs including English after this, translanguaging can be seen as a legit-
imate way to scaffold learning. It can help to build new knowledge on current understandings and to
develop new ways of languaging from within current practices, thereby developing learners’ langua-
ging resources holistically. In relation to this, we believe our fourth ‘inclusive position’ is an important
addition to Macaro’s (2001) three codeswitching positions, and suggest that his so-called ‘optimal
position’ might more accurately be labelled a ‘judicious position’ given that the normative question
of which position is ‘optimal’ requires further research and is likely to vary depending on context.
Considering the diversity of contexts found within India itself, the question of exactly how classroom
practices should make use of learners’ languaging resources remains an area where much discussion
and local innovation is required, based on practitioner experience at grass roots level. Bringing this
discourse into the open makes it possible for teachers to share personal solutions and to reflect cri-
tically on their own language-use practices when teaching to identify more and less effective trans-
lingual practices.
Nonetheless, we also caution that the support for such practices needs to be provided at all levels
of the educational system for real change to happen. While policy documentation has long recog-
nised the need for what we advocate here, if the guidelines and edicts issued at state, division
and district level contradict national guidelines, coherent change becomes more difficult, teachers
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 17

receive mixed messages, and, perhaps most importantly, the materials that could support more trans-
lingual practices in the classroom do not get developed or promoted.
In this paper, we have endeavoured to shed light onto both current perceptions and future pos-
sibilities concerning translingual practices in Indian classrooms without, we hope, simplifying the
undeniable complexities relating both to socio-political contexts and the tasks of awareness
raising and skills development required in order to change mindsets and practices for the better.
At the root of these complexities lie fundamental questions of rights and equity that remain as rel-
evant today as they were a decade ago when A.K. Mohanty noted:
The exclusion and non-accommodation of languages in education denies equality of opportunity to learn, vio-
lates linguistic human rights, leads to the loss of linguistic diversity and triggers a vicious cycle of disadvantage
perpetuating inequality, capacity deprivation and poverty. (Mohanty 2009, 121)

Notes
1. ‘Semi-urban’ in India denotes population centres of 10,000–99,999 citizens (Government of India 1961).
2. Anderson (2018) found that 76.7% of 116 English language learners studying in the UK “perceived a need for
translingual practices in the future” (313).

Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful to all participants in this study and would like to thank them for their time and for sharing
their views. We also thank John Simpson for his comments on an earlier draft of this piece, and the anonymous reviewers
for their comments and critique.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Jason Anderson is a teacher educator, educational consultant, and award-winning author of books for language teachers.
He has taught languages, trained teachers, and developed materials to support teachers in primary, secondary, and ter-
tiary contexts, both pre-service and in-service, in numerous countries across Africa, Asia, and Europe. He has worked for
national ministries of education and development partners including UNICEF, the British Council, and VSO. His interests
include pre-service and in-service teacher education, translingualism in language teaching, and issues of appropriacy of
methodology and social context, especially in low-income countries.
Amy Lightfoot is the Regional Education and English Academic Lead for the British Council in South Asia. She leads on the
academic strategy and quality assurance of education projects and related research programmes across the region. She
has been working in the field of education for 20 years, with over a decade of specialising in South Asian contexts. She
has special interests and expertise in multilingual education, the use of digital platforms and alternative models for pro-
fessional development and the monitoring and evaluation of teacher competence and performance.

ORCID
Jason Anderson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3400-0135

References
Agar, M. 1994. Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Anderson, J. 2017. “Translanguaging in English Language Classrooms in India: When, Why and How?” Paper presented at
12th international ELTAI conference, Ernakulum, India, June 29–July 1.
Anderson, J. 2018. “Reimagining English Language Learners from a Translingual Perspective.” ELT Journal 72 (1): 26–37.
doi:10.1093/elt/ccx029.
Canagarajah, A. S. 2013. Translingual Practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
18 J. ANDERSON AND A. LIGHTFOOT

Celic, C., and K. Seltzer. 2013. Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB Guide for Educators (Revised). New York: CUNY-NYSIEB.
Accessed 22 May 2018. https://www.cuny-nysieb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Translanguaging-Guide-March-
2013.pdf.
Chimirala, U. M. 2017. “Teachers’ ‘Other’ Language Preferences: A Study of the Monolingual Mindset in the Classroom.” In
Multilingualisms and Development: Selected Proceedings of the 11th Language and Development Conference, New Delhi,
India, edited by H. Coleman, 151–168. London: British Council.
Clegg, J., and O. Afitska. 2011. “Teaching and Learning in Two Languages in African Classrooms.” Comparative Education
47 (1): 61–77. doi:10.1080/03050068.2011.541677.
Coleman, H. 2017. “Development and Multilingualism: An Introduction.” In Multilingualisms and Development: Selected
Proceedings of the 11th Language and Development Conference, New Delhi, India, edited by H. Coleman, 15–34.
London: British Council.
Cook, G. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching: An Argument for Reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De la Campa, J. C., and H. Nassaji. 2009. “The Amount, Purpose, and Reasons for Using L1 in L2 Classrooms.” Foreign
Language Annals 42 (4): 742–759. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01052.x.
Dörnyei, Z. 2003. Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration and Processing. New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duff, P. A., and C. G. Polio. 1990. “How Much Foreign Language is There in the Foreign Language Classroom?” The Modern
Language Journal 74 (2): 154–166. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1990.tb02561.x.
Durairajan, G. 2017. “Using the First Language as a Resource in English Classrooms: What Research From India Tells us.” In
Multilingualisms and Development: Selected Proceedings of the 11th Language and Development Conference, New Delhi,
India, edited by H. Coleman, 307–316. London: British Council.
Erling, E., L. Adinolfi, and A. K. Hultgren. 2017. Multilingual Classrooms: Opportunities and Challenges for English Medium
Instruction in Low and Middle Income Contexts. London/Milton Keynes/Reading: British Council/Open University/
Education Development Trust.
Ferguson, G. 2003. “Classroom Code-switching in Post-colonial Contexts: Functions, Attitudes and Policies.” AILA Review
16 (1): 38–51. doi:10.1075/aila.16.05fer.
Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: Sage.
García, O. 2009. “Education, Multilingualism and Translanguaging in the 21st Century.” In Social Justice Through
Multilingual Education, edited by T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. K. Mohanty, and M. Panda, 140–158.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
García, O., and W. Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave.
Government of India. 1961. Census of India. Vol 1, Part II-A(i), General Population Tables, New Delhi, India: Office of the
Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India.
Government of India. 2012. The Constitution of India. https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india/
constitution-india-full-text.
Hall, G., and G. Cook. 2012. “Own-language Use in Language Teaching and Learning.” Language Teaching 45 (3): 271–308.
doi:10.1017/S0261444812000067.
Hall, G., and G. Cook. 2013. Own-language Use in ELT: Exploring Global Practices and Attitudes. London: British Council.
Hewson, C., P. Yule, D. Laurent, and C. Vogel. 2003. Internet Research Methods. London: Sage.
Jørgensen, J. N., M. S. Karrebæk, L. M. Madsen, and J. S. Møller. 2011. “Polylanguaging in Superdiversity.” Diversities 13 (2):
23–37. http://www.unesco.org/shs/diversities/vol13/issue2/art2.
Kachru, Y. 1994. “Monolingual Bias in SLA Research.” TESOL Quarterly 28 (4): 795–800.
Levine, G. S. 2003. “Student and Instructor Beliefs and Attitudes about Target Language Use, First Language Use, and
Anxiety: Report of a Questionnaire Study.” The Modern Language Journal 87 (3): 343–364. doi:10.1111/1540-4781.
00194.
Lin, A. M. Y. 1996. “Bilingualism or Linguistic Segregation? Symbolic Domination, Resistance and Code Switching in Hong
Kong Schools.” Linguistics and Education 8: 49–84.
Liu, D., G. S. Ahn, K. S. Baek, and N. O. Han. 2004. “South Korean High School English Teachers’ Code Switching: Questions
and Challenges in the Drive for Maximal Use of English in Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly 38 (4): 605–638. doi:10.2307/
3588282.
Macaro, E. 2001. “Analysing Student Teachers’ Codeswitching in Foreign Language Classrooms: Theories and Decision
Making.” The Modern Language Journal 85 (4): 531–548.
Macaro, E. 2005. “Codeswitching in the L2 Classroom: A Communication and Learning Strategy.” In Non-native Language
Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession, edited by E. Llurda, 63–84. Boston, MA: Springer.
May, S. 2011. “The Disciplinary Constraints of SLA and TESOL: Additive Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition,
Teaching and Learning.” Linguistics and Education 22: 233–247. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2011.02.001.
May, S. 2014. The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education. New York: Routledge.
McIlwraith, H. 2013. Multilingual Education in Africa: Lessons from the Juba Language-in-Education Conference. London:
British Council.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 19

Meganathan, R. 2017. “The Linguistic Landscape of New Delhi: A Precursor and a Successor of Language Policy.” In
Multilingualisms and Development: Selected Proceedings of the 11th Language and Development Conference, New
Delhi, India, edited by H. Coleman, 225–238. London: British Council.
Ministry of Law and Justice. 2009. Right to Education Act. New Delhi: Ministry of Law and Justice. http://righttoeducation.
in/sites/default/files/Right%20of%20Children%20to%20Free%20and%20Compulsory%20Education%20Act%202009%
20%28English%29%20%28Copiable_Searchable%29.pdf#overlay-context.
Mohanty, A. K. 2009. “Perpetuating Inequality: Language Disadvantage and Capability Deprivation of Tribal Mother
Tongue Speakers in India.” In Language and Poverty, edited by W. Harbert, S. McConnell, A. Miller, and J. Whitman,
102–124. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Mohanty, A. K. 2010. “Languages, Inequality and Marginalization: Implications of the Double Divide in Indian
Multilingualism.” International Journal of Society and Language 205: 131–154. doi:10.1515/IJSL.2010.042.
NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training). 2006. Position Paper of the National Focus Group on
Teaching of English. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training.
Probyn, M. 2009. “‘Smuggling the Vernacular into the Classroom’: Conflicts and Tensions in Classroom Codeswitching in
Township/Rural Schools in South Africa.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12 (2): 123–136.
doi:10.1080/13670050802153137.
Rahman, A. 2013. “Role of L1 (Assamese) in the Acquisition of English as L2: A Case of Secondary School Students of
Assam.” In English Language Teacher Education in a Diverse Environment, edited by P. Powell-Davies, and P.
Gunashekar, 215–222. London: British Council.
Sembiante, S. 2016. “Translanguaging and the Multilingual Turn: Epistemological Reconceptualization in the Fields of
Language and Implications for Reframing Language in Curriculum Studies.” Curriculum Inquiry 46 (1): 45–61.
Simpson, J. 2017. English Language and Medium of Instruction in Basic Education in Low- and Middle-income Countries: A
British Council Perspective. London: British Council.
Sridhar, S. N. 1994. “A Reality Check for SLA Theories.” TESOL Quarterly 28 (4): 800–805. doi:10.2307/3587565.
Turnbull, M., and J. Dailey-O’Cain, eds. 2009. First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.

Appendix. Survey items as presented to respondents with responses

Item Values Freq. %

(A) Your teaching context and you
1. How many years of experience do you have teaching 0–1 7 4.1
English?
2–3 19 11.2
4–10 55 32.5
Over 10 88 52.1
2. What level do you teach English at? primary school 19 11.2
secondary school 79 46.7
tertiary school 19 11.2
adults 52 30.8
3. What type of institution do you teach in? government 62 36.7
government-aided 44 26.0
private 63 37.3
4. What is the medium of instruction in your institution? English 77 45.6
Other 92 54.4
If you chose other please name the language here: Marathi 21 12.4
[highest 3 frequencies provided] Hindi 17 10.0
Kannada 15 8.9
5. What is the level of English language proficiency of beginner (A0–A1 on the Common European Framework) 36 21.3
your students?
elementary / pre-intermediate (A1–A2 on the Common 61 36.1
European Framework)
intermediate (B1–B2 on the Common European 64 37.9
Framework)
advanced (C1+) 8 4.7
6. How many languages do you speak? 3 91 53.8
[highest 4 frequencies provided]
2 33 19.5
4 31 18.3
5 12 7.1

(Continued)
20 J. ANDERSON AND A. LIGHTFOOT

Continued.
Item Values Freq. %
Please list these languages 169 responses received
e.g. English, Hindi and Punjabi
7. Are you allowed to use other languages in English No. I am told to teach using only English. 30 17.8
lessons?
There is no policy, but using other languages is 60 35.5
discouraged.
Yes. I’m allowed/free to use other languages in English 79 46.7
lessons.
Comments for Section A 28 responses received
(B) Languages in your local community and school community
8. Approximately how many languages are present in 3 60 35.5
the community where you school is located? [highest
4 frequencies provided]
2 45 26.6
4 25 14.8
1 16 9.5
Any comments on question 8 74 responses received
9. How common is it for people in the community to mix Very common 77 45.6
languages or switch languages during conversations?
Quite common 57 33.7
Occasional 28 16.6
It doesn’t happen 7 4.1
10. How much English is present in this language A lot. 21 12.4
mixing?
Regular use of words and expressions. 74 43.8
Only a little vocabulary. 72 42.6
None. 2 1.2
11. Do you share any languages other than English with Yes. Most, or all, of the students speak another language 93 55.0
the students in your classes? that I know.
With some of the students only. 55 32.5
No. English is the only language I can use to 21 12.4
communicate with them.
12. How often do your students mix languages in Very common 58 34.3
English lessons?
Quite common 61 36.1
Occasional 44 26.0
It doesn’t happen. 6 3.6
Comments for Section B 29 responses received
(C) Your teaching practices regarding other languages
For each statement below choose one of the four options from ‘never’ to ‘always’:
13. I use other languages for classroom management Never 38 22.5
during English lessons.
Occasionally 89 52.7
Regularly 31 18.3
Always 11 6.5
14. I translate for my students during English lessons. Never 36 21.3
Occasionally 90 53.3
Regularly 36 21.3
Always 7 4.1
15. I use other languages to explain things. Never 30 17.8
Occasionally 95 56.2
Regularly 34 20.1
Always 10 5.9
16. I get my students to compare the way languages Never 20 11.8
express things.
Occasionally 93 55.0
Regularly 46 27.2
Always 10 5.9
17. I get my students to do translation activities during Never 62 36.7
English lessons, between English and another
language.
Occasionally 76 45.0
Regularly 27 16.0

(Continued)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 21

Continued.
Item Values Freq. %
Always 4 2.4
18. I compare the sounds from my students’ first Never 35 20.7
language(s) to English to help them with their
pronunciation.
Occasionally 77 45.6
Regularly 43 25.4
Always 14 8.3
19. I allow my students to speak other languages during Never 46 27.2
English lessons.
Occasionally 80 47.3
Regularly 33 19.5
Always 10 5.9
20. I allow my students to translate using resources such Never 56 33.1
as bilingual dictionaries during English lessons.
Occasionally 65 38.5
Regularly 36 21.3
Always 12 7.1
21. I allow my students to make notes in other Never 112 66.3
languages during English lessons.
Occasionally 40 23.7
Regularly 15 8.9
Always 2 1.2
22. I allow my students to mix English with other Never 77 45.6
languages for speaking activities during English
lessons.
Occasionally 58 34.3
Regularly 31 18.3
Always 3 1.8
23. I allow my students to mix English with other Never 139 82.2
languages for writing activities during English lessons.
Occasionally 26 15.4
Regularly 2 1.2
Always 2 1.2
24. I use texts and audio that include other languages Never 102 60.4
during English lessons.
Occasionally 53 31.4
Regularly 11 6.5
Always 3 1.8
25. I think about other languages my students may Never 45 26.6
know when preparing and teaching my lessons.
Occasionally 73 43.2
Regularly 43 25.4
Always 8 4.7
26. I actively encourage the use of other languages Never 96 56.8
during my lessons.
Occasionally 57 33.7
Regularly 12 7.1
Always 4 2.4
27. I use other languages to discipline my learners Never 78 46.2
during English lessons.
Occasionally 67 39.6
Regularly 19 11.2
Always 5 3.0
Comments for Section C 27 responses received
D. Your opinions on the use of other languages
28. Which of the four statements do you agree with A. Allowing other languages into English lessons does 13 7.7
most? not help learning. The classroom should be like an
English-speaking country. Skilled teachers can exclude
these other languages.
B. Allowing other languages into English lessons does 35 20.7
not help learning. However, perfect conditions for
teaching do not exist and so sometimes we have to
make a little use of other languages.

(Continued)
22 J. ANDERSON AND A. LIGHTFOOT

Continued.
Item Values Freq. %
C. Allowing other languages into English lessons can 88 52.1
improve learning. But we should keep it to a
minimum, and maximise English language usage.
D. Allowing other languages into English lessons can 33 19.5
improve learning significantly. We should make use of
these languages. Teaching English is about adding to
their ability to communicate.
29. Which of the three statements is closest to your In India, students should get a solid understanding of 27 16.0
belief regarding the teaching and learning of English? their first language, with English introduced as a
subject at secondary level.
In India, students should learn English as a subject in 89 52.7
primary school alongside developing skills in their first
language.
In India, students should be given the option to learn all 52 30.8
subjects in English medium from primary school level.
30. How do you feel about students mixing languages in A. It’s natural and fine. 21 12.4
English lessons?
B. It’s natural, but it should be minimised. 114 67.5
C. It’s inevitable, but it’s not a good idea. 25 14.8
D. It’s wrong. 9 5.3
31. How much do you think your students will need to A. They won’t need to mix English with other languages. 56 33.1
mix English with other languages in their future
careers?
B. They may need to a little. 64 37.9
C. They may need to frequently. 31 18.3
D. They will probably be mixing languages all the time. 18 10.7
Do you agree or disagree with the following two
statements?
32. Languages should be treated separately to avoid Agree strongly 25 14.8
confusion.
Agree 53 31.4
Neither agree nor disagree 33 19.5
Disagree 37 21.9
Disagree strongly 21 12.4
33. Teaching should always build on students’ prior Agree strongly 77 45.6
knowledge.
Agree 62 36.7
Neither agree nor disagree 9 5.3
Disagree 18 10.7
Disagree strongly 2 1.2
Comments for Section D 15 responses received
E. Anything else?
The aim of this survey is to better understand how 56 responses received
teachers of English in India do or don’t make use of
other languages in the English language teaching and
learning process. Before you finish the survey, is there
anything else you would like to tell us about this
issue?