See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299657682

The strengths and weaknesses of code switching and bilingualism in the

language classroom.

Working Paper · May 2013

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.5051.1762

CITATION READS
1 28,623

1 author:

Entisar Khalifa Aljoundi

University of the Witwatersrand
6 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Entisar Khalifa Aljoundi on 05 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Introduction

The South African society experienced a period of unequal and fragmented education during
Apartheid. The educational system during the Apartheid era favoured the white schools and
students while the non-whites were faced with widespread poverty and alienations which resulted
in serious bitterness and wide spread protest all over the country. In 1994 a South Africa moved
into a new democratic dispensation, their came equal rights for all and the right for basic education
for everyone (National curriculum statement, DoE, 2002). Due to the fact that there was a need for
serious change in education in South Africa, the Department of Education introduced code
switching and bilingualism. As a form of teaching and learning in the South African classrooms in
order to provide all learners with the right to basic education and address the imbalances of the past
as the previous system of education was segregated and had failed to educate the majority of the
country‟s population (DoE, 2002). In this article, the strengths and weaknesses of code switching
and bilingualism in the language classroom will be argued, as it is widely observed in multilingual
and multicultural communities. This essay supports the idea that the use of code switching builds a
bridge and connects from the known to unknown and may be considered as an important element
in language teaching when used efficiently. Classroom code switching is a natural and expected
practice of students and teachers who share a common first language. In other words, the language
that comes between during when the code switching is performed is the native language of the
students, and the foreign language that students are expected to gain competence in. Therefore, this
essay will briefly define of code switching and bilingualism. More so, a discussing how code
switching comes into use either by the teachers‟ or the students‟ discourses especially in foreign
language classrooms. Also, this paper will analyse the use of code switching in the classroom
using scholars who proposes the use of code switching and those who opposes the use of code
switching. Then this paper will argue the strengths and weakness of code switching in bilingual
classroom.

1.1.The definition of Code switching and Bilingualism

1.1.1. What is code switching?

The concept or word code switching does not have a homogeneous definition. It can be defined as
the shifting or change of ascent by a speaker from one language to another language. According to
Kaschula and Anthonissen (1995, p.73) “code switching is „the use of more than one language in
the course of a single communicative episode”. Also, Numan and Carter (2001, p.275) define code
switching as “a phenomenon of switching from one language to another in the same discourse”.
Kaschula, & Anthonissen (1995, p.73) argues further that code switching can be said to be “such
switching as involving the use of two or more languages in the same conversation, usually within
the same conversational turn, or even within the same sentence of that turn”. Eastman (1992, p. 45)
refers to “code switching as a language contact phenomenon which is characteristic of urban
multilingual communities”. Through these definitions, it is clear that code switching in classrooms
is a phenomenon that happens within bilingual and multilingual societies.

1.1.2. What do we mean by bilingual?

Bilingualism can be defined as a person who can listen, read, speak and write in two languages
(Baker, 1988). Wei (2000) argues that the word „bilingual‟ primarily describes someone with the
possession of two languages. For example as a home language or mother tongue and then later
acquire another majority language in the community or at school. Furthermore, Wei (2000, p.26)
describes bilingualism as “language is the property of the group, bilingualism is the property of the
individual. An individual use of two languages supposes the existence of two different language
communities”. However, it does not necessarily mean that a bilingual person is fluent in both
languages and that bilingual means literacy in two languages. An example of this is proposed by
Baker (1988, p.2) take a hypothetical case “a pupil may be able to understand spoken English and
Welsh, speak English fluently but Welsh only haltingly, read in Welsh with a reading age of six
and in English with a reading age of eight, write poorly in English and not at all in Welsh”.

One of the advantages of bilingual people is having two experiences of two cultures; this reflects
on students at school when they come with these experiences. Also Baker (1995) argues that with
each language comes a different system of behavior, folk sayings, stories, traditions and histories
etc. Also, to be bilingual is to be able to communicate freely within the community and across
societies. Another advantage is in thinking; children have two or more words for each object and
idea. Moreover, Baker (1995, p.12) asserts that “a bilingual may be able to think more flexibly and
creatively. In essence, being able to move between two languages may lead to more awareness of
language and more sensitivity in communication”. Moreover, bringing up children to be bilingual
has various consequences. According to Baker (1995, p.10) “bilingualism has educational, social,
economic, cultural and political consequences”.

1.2. Using code switching between the teachers and students in the classroom

The use of code switching in its naturally occurring context; in other words its functions in the
discourse of bilingual individuals can be seen according to Trudgill, (2000, p.105) “in speakers
switch to manipulate or influence or define the situation as they wish and to convey nuances of
meaning and personal intention”. It may be suggested that code switching can be used for
self-expression and is a way of modifying language in the respect of personal intentions. Code
switching may be used in order to build good relationships among members of a bilingual
communities for example: a person conversing with a friend might say I am going to buy some
gelato to his friend and the friend replies back Ok, me too. Following this example and
conversation it is observed that they have code switched from English to Italian, the word gelato
means ice- cream in the Italian language. The language shift that is performed between people
reflects their ethnic identity and functions as a bridge that builds unity among them according to
Palmer (2009 p: 58):

Teachers who understand the power of discourse and the impacts of students‟ race, class, gender, sex etc are able to
make sense of bilingual . Their identities in their participation in classroom talk and learning will be better and able to
uncover ways to manage classroom conversation for more equitable linguistic balance. Also, the students whose
identities are preserved and reinforced as they interact in the classroom will better be able to achieve academic
competencies in any setting.

It is necessary to keep in mind that a language classroom is a social group. Therefore a

phenomenon related to naturally occurring daily discourse of any social group has the possibility
to be applicable to and valid for any language classroom. Metila (2009) asserted that context may
also demand for the use of code switching because it is deemed the most appropriate and most
acceptable to use in a particular situation. The teachers‟ use of code switching is not always
performed consciously; which means that the teacher is not always aware of the functions and
outcomes of the code switching process. “The use of code switching, therefore, is a conscious
choice, especially because speakers are aware of the social consequences of this particular action”
(Metila, 2009, p.46). Therefore, in some cases it may be regarded as an automatic and unconscious
behavior.
Also, contrary to this claim Kaschula and Anthonissen (1995, p.81) assert that “it has appeared that
speakers have a variety of possibilities they do not make random decisions on which form of
language they will use in a given situation. For each form there is a related communicative
function which the speaker wishes to be operative”. The same thing applies to students and
teachers in the classroom. In some topic cases of code switching, the teacher changes his/her
language according to the topic that is under discussion. This is mostly observed in grammar
instruction, where the teacher shifts his/her language to the mother tongue of his/her students in
dealing with a particular grammar points, which are taught at that moment. In these cases, the
students‟ attention is directed to the new knowledge by making use of code switching and
accordingly making use of native tongue ( Abad, 2005). At this point, it may be suggested that a
bridge from known (native language) to unknown (new foreign language content) is constructed in
order to transfer the new content and meaning is made clear in this way (Baker, 1995).

Also, Baker (1995) further argues that code switching is used by the teacher in order to build
solidarity and intimate relations with the students. In this sense, one might speak of the
contribution of code switching for creating a supportive language environment in the classroom.
According to Metila (2009, p.44 ) “the pedagogical and communicative functions of classroom
code switching justify its use in teaching and learning contexts, but it is recommended that codes
switching be restricted to informal classroom activities”.

Student code switching is equal in use between a native language and a foreign language. The
student makes use of the native equivalent of a certain lexical item in target language and therefore
code switches to his/her native tongue. This makes the student use the native lexical item when
he/she does not have the competence in using the target language explanation for a particular
lexical item. During a conversation in the target language, the students fill the stopgap with native
language use. It may be suggested that this is a mechanism used by the students in order to avoid
gaps in communication, which may result from the lack of fluency in the target language (Baker,
1988). The student tends to avoid a misunderstanding or tends to utter words indirectly for specific
purposes and this is one of the strengths of code switching. Code switching is also known to
improve class participation by inducing a relaxed class atmosphere that allows students to recite
and to understand more often.
In regards to code switching in the classroom; when the teachers or students are code switching,
they sometimes mix between two language grammar, and this seems like a weak point for both
languages. There are more than one grammatical system acquired that appear during their
discourses; it is the free morpheme constraint which states that codes may be switched after any
constituent in discourse. Also code switching tends to occur at points in discourse where
juxtaposition of two languages does not violate a surface syntactic rule of either languages (Wei,
2000). These two grammatical constraints which seems to operate during code switching happens
at any discourse as mentioned. The difference between fluent bilinguals and non-fluent bilinguals,
according to Wei (2000, p.216) is that “fluent bilinguals tend to switch at various syntactic
boundaries within the sentence, while non-fluent bilinguals favour switching between sentences,
allowing them to participate in the code-switching mode without fear of violating a grammatical
rule of either of the languages involved”.

The teacher uses code switching in order to transfer the necessary knowledge for the students for
clarity (Wei, 2000). Therefore, following the instruction in target language, the teacher code
switches to native language in order to clarify meaning, and in this way stresses importance on the
foreign language content for efficient comprehension. However, the tendency to repeat the
instruction in the native language may lead to some undesired student behavior. A learner who is
sure that the instruction in foreign language will be followed by a native language translation may
lose interest in listening to the former instruction which will have negative academic
consequences; as the student is exposed to foreign language discourse limitedly. In a study
conducted by Metila (2009) where teachers were interviewed and revealed that they had no
alternative but to code switch in order for pupils to understand material content. Palmer (2009,
p.45) found that “for children just as for adults code-switching was about communicative
competence and about maintaining a sense of control in a conversation, not about lack of language
proficiency”. Various studies had shown that code switching benefited students and teachers.
These studies also maintain that classroom codes switching should be allowed, this is due to the
supposed advantages that code switching gives to learning.

In this respect, code switching stands to be a supporting element in communication of information

and in social interaction; and it therefore serves for communicative purposes in the way that it is
used as a tool for transference of meaning. As early as 1953, the United Nations Educational
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1953, p.11) reported on the use of vernacular
(native) languages in education and discussed the issue of which language to use with a bilingual
child. Findings of that report stated:

It is axiomatic that the best medium for teaching a child is his mother tongue. Psychologically, it is the system of
meaningful signs that in his mind works automatically for expression and understanding. Sociologically, it is a means
of identification among the members of the community to which he belongs. Educationally, he learns more quickly
through it than through an unfamiliar linguistic medium.

The above statement, supports the concept that the native or home language is the best medium for
working with children and it adds to the child‟s ability to communicate in the second language
(English). This might become important when a special educator is working with a bilingual child
who has a language disorder. Although more researchers are asserting the value of allowing code
switching of languages in the classroom, while few of the researchers are in support of the
development of a curriculum that draw explicitly on children‟s bilingual competencies. In other
words, as a result of these issues there arose a conflict among classroom teachers in either the use
code switching in their bilingual classrooms.

1.3.The strengths and weaknesses of code switching

1.3.1. The strength of code switching in a bilingual classroom

According to Metila (2009) code switching helps to improve class participation by inducing a
relaxed class atmosphere that allows students to perform much better. Abad(2005) contends with
Metila that code switching manages to lower the effective filter and this consequently establishes
rapport and creates an atmosphere of informality in the classroom between the teachers and
students aiding in a more democratic and critical learning environment for the students. More so,
Lee (2006) in his research affirms that the discourse(code switching) used by the students outside
the classroom should be allowed inside the classroom discussion process because it helps the
students contribute in the discussions process and bridges any social and cultural gap. Jacobson
(1990) argues that socio-psychological factors play a significant role in code switching in a
bilingual classroom. He further argues, that code switching helps the speakers to express
themselves and present pragmatic meanings.
In essence, using code switching in the classroom fosters a positive ambience according to Metila
(2009).Bautista (1996) concurs with Metila that code switching can transform the atmosphere of a
classroom from being too formal to informal thereby allowing collaborations among the students
in group works and also aids in the interactions and discussions in the classroom. According to
Bautista (1996) code switching is the simplified strategy that students with poor English language
proficiency use. Whilst Metila (2009) agrues that the use of code switching in a bilingual
classroom fulfills a pedagogical function when it makes a challenging subject matter
comprehensible to students. In other words, the use of code switching in a bilingual classroom
seems beneficial because it helps in explaining abstract concepts and in defining difficult terms to
students. This indicates that code switching makes explanations easy to understand for the students
by the teachers. Code switching helps students to communicate easily with one another and in the
classroom, it helps students to understand lesson contents, helping the students seek clarification
concerning some topics. It also helps the students to bridge communication gaps in the classroom.
Lastly the use of code switching in a bilingual classroom aids in the modification of classroom
ambience.

1.3.2. Weaknesses of Code switching

According to Metila (2009) in the research he conducted, he affirms that code switching by
mathematics teachers were said to negatively affect learning. In his analysis, he reveals that
teachers‟ code switching confused students and consequently affected their lesson comprehension.
In short, students whose teachers discussed and explained with less disruption like code switching,
and marked definitions obtained higher achievements. Furthermore, negative views on code
switching continue to give teachers, administrators, and even parents a cause for concern. Abad
(2005) explained that parents are worried about their children‟s language development. Also,
Baker (1995, p.76) asserted that “if a child does not have a social, motivational, educational or
personal problems, do not immediately focus on bilingualism as the first cause.”

On a logical note, educators and linguists argue on whether code switching facilitates or impedes
learning, that when a child‟s two languages are both underdeveloped, that he/she might be unable
to cope using the curriculum in the school in either languages (Baker, 1995). Some parents do not
like their children mixing two languages; they expect the two languages to become separate.
According to Palmer (2009, p.42) “many multilingual speakers believe that code-switching is a
sign of linguistic weakness or inadequacy and many bilingual teachers work hard to fight
code-switching when it occurs in their classrooms”. Palmer also mentions that “code-switching is
a source of trouble only when one party is not used to the meanings of the words or phrases used in
all languages”.

Consequently, a question arises if a child is learning through a new language; will this affect
attainment at school? Baker (1995, p.180) answers this question suggesting that if code switching
has been from a minority language to a majority language, there is a possibility that the childs‟
attainment will suffer in school. That is if the child feels their minority language, their parents,
their home and heritage and culture have been rejected, such children may feel dislocated, have
low self-esteem and lack academic self-confident.

Also, Kaschula, and Anthonissen (1995, p.73) concur with Baker and regards “code switching
as a sloppy use of language, which is regarded as a corruption of their mother tongue and an
indication of the language deficiency of the speaker”. Supporting this, Kaschula and Anthonissen
(1995, p.74) argue further that “code switching is a type of skilled performance which occurs
regularly and systematically in all multilingual communities”. Metila (2009) also assert that in
light of all the conflicting findings of studies regarding the role of code switching in the classroom,
teachers are confused on whether they should or should not allow their students to code switch in
the classroom. Therefore, these scholars assert that code switching in bilingual classrooms is
embedded with lots of negative issues that could affect a childs‟ self-attainment in school which
according to Baker (1995) argues that when a language minority child moves to a school or
different geographical location where their minority language is not valued, or when an older child
moves to a school that he/she will not be able to cope with the curriculum if it is in a new language

1.4.Conclusion

This essay, discussed the strengths and weakness of code switching in a foreign language
classrooms which was presented with references to its uses in a bilingual community. As
indicated, the use of code switching in the classroom by the students and teachers during discourse
or lectures shows that code switching is either used consciously and unconsciously by them.
Additionally, using code switching in a language classroom will be considered as a useful strategy
for classroom interaction and communication, that is if its aim is to make meaning clear and to
transfer knowledge to students in an efficient way. Also, we need to consider the long term effect
of using code switching which might affect the students experiences while interacting with the
native speakers of the target language. Code switching in this aspect may be a bulkhead which
prevents alternate visibility. Therefore, the teacher who uses code switching in their classroom
during discourse has a vital role to play in preventing this long-term damages on foreign language
learning process. Where two languages are well developed, then bilingualism is more likely to lead
to cognitive advantages than disadvantages ( Baker, 1995).

References
Abad, L. ( 2005). Code-switching in the classroom: A clash of two languages. Faculty Research
Journal of Miriam College. 36-52.
Baker, C. (1988). Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. England: Multilingual
Matters .
 Baker, C. (1995). A Parents’ and Teachers’ Guide to Bilingualism. Bridgend, England:
Multilingual Matters publishers.

Bautista, M. L. (1986). English-Pilipino contact: A case study of reciprocal borrowing.

English in contact with other languages, 491-510.

Eastman, C.M. (1992). Codes switching as an urban language-contact phenomenon. In C.M.

Eastman (Ed) Codes switching. (pp.1-17).Clevedon: Multilingual matters

Jacobson. R. (1990). Codes witching as a worldwide phenomenon. New York: Peter Lang.

Kaschula, R. & Anthonissen, C. (1995). „Code switching and code mixing‟. In Communicating
across cultures in South Africa. Johannesburg: Hodder & Stoughton.

Lee, C. (2006). Language for learning Mathematics: Assessment for learning in

Practice. New York: Open University Press, McGraw Hill

Metila, R. A. (2009). Decoding the Switch: The Functions of Code switching in the Classroom.
Education quarterly. 67 (1), 44-61

Numan, D. & Carter, D. (2001). Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Trudgill, P. (2000). Socio linguistics. London: Penguin

Palmer, D. K. (2009). Code-Switching and Symbolic Power in a Second-Grade Two-Way

Classroom: A Teacher's Motivation System Gone Awry. Bilingual Research Journal, 32(1), 42-59
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235880902965854

UNESCO. (1953). The use of vernacular languages in education (Monographs on Fundamental

Education, 8). Paris: UNESCO

Wei, L. ( 2000 ). The Bilingualism Reader. London: Routledge.

View publication stats