LINGUISTICSAND EDUCATION 8, 17-33 (1996)

Code Switching and Collusion:

Classroom Interaction in Botswana
Primary Schools

Jo ARTHUR
Edge Hill Unit’ersity College

The hierarchical values attached to languages in Botswana are reflected in educa-

tional policy: English occupies a prestigious position as the language of education
beyond Standard 4, whereas Setswana and other indigenous languages are mar-
ginalized. Code switching by Standard 6 teachers is meant to encourage partici-
pation by pupils. However, pupils may not switch from English (the “on-stage”
languoge). They are merely actors in the joint “staging” of rituolised question-and-
answer performances-os directors and co-actors teachers have access to Setswana
(the “backstage” language). Some accounts claim that traditional cultural patterns of
interaction underlie these institutionalised recitation routines. I argue instead that it
derives from conventions imposed during colonial rule, including the requirement to
use a foreign language in the classroom. Code switching in my data offers insights
into the collusion of teachers and pupils in mutual face-saving over the adequacy of
their classroom interaction for the achievement of teaching ond leorning.

INTRODUCTION

This article is based on an ethnographic study of interaction between teachers and

pupils in Standard (Grade) 6 classes in two primary schools in northeastern
Botswana. I shall begin by describing the hierarchical values attached to lan-
guages in Botswana: English occupies a prestigious position as the language of
education beyond Standard 4; the medium of instruction during the first four
years of primary education is the national language, Setswana; the other lan-
guages of Botswana, spoken by a minority of up to 20% of the population, are
officially accorded no classroom role. The linguistic resources at the disposal of
the teachers and pupils I observed are then described. While acknowledging the
occurrence of discourse-related code switching (Auer, 1984) by teachers, I shall
focus on their more frequent use of participant-related code switching.
One of the functions of participant-related code switching by teachers was
encouraging participation by pupils. However, it emerges as a ground rule of
discourse in these classrooms that pupils answering teachers were not free to

Correspondence and requests for reprints should bc sent to Jo Arthur, School of Humanities, Edge
Hill University College, St Helen’s Road, Ormskirk. Lancashire L39 4QP, England.

17
18 .I. Arthur

switch from English, the officially approved classroom language. to Setswana. I

relate this finding to the asymmetrical roles of teachers and pupils in the joint
“staging” of ritualixed question-rind-answer performances which were typical ot
the lessons observed: whereas pupils are merely performers, teachers have access
to Setswana as the “backstage” language because they arc directors as well ;I> co-

actors.
Accounts of the institutionalised phenomenon of recitation routines in the
context ol‘cducation in Botswana (Prophet & Kowell, 1993). and elsewhere, l’or
example in Kenya (Cleghorn. Merritt. & Obagi. 1989). have hypothcsiscd it\
origins in traditional cultural patterns of interaction. I shall argue instead. in
agreement with Ellis (1987). that it derives I’rom conventions imposed during
colonial rule, including the requirement to use a foreign language as the medium
of instruction. The final instances of teachers’ code switching from English into
Setswana which I shall cite in my view offer insights into the collusion of
teachers and pupils in mutual face-saving over the adequacy of their classroom
interaction for the achievement of teaching and learning. This collusive inter-
pretation draws on the approach to conversation analysis of McDermott and
Tylbor ( 1987) and on Chick’s (in press) analysis of teacher-dominated routines in
Zulu-English classrooms in South Africa.

Context of the Study

The data in this article is drawn from audio recordings of classroom interaction in
Standard (Grade) 6 classes in two primary schools in wnirural locations in
northeastern Botswana. I spent three weeks as a participant observer in each
school, compiling fieldnotcs and audiorccording English. maths and science
lessons for subsequent analysis.
School I is located in an arca where Ikalanga (the mother tongue of an
estimated 10% to 20% of the national population) is the language of the local
community: School 2 is In an area where the national language. Setsuana, is
spoken by almost all as a first language. In Standard (Grade) 6 ciassrooms
English. the official language of Botswana, is the medium of instruction.

The Hierarchy of Languages

Ndayipfukamiye ( 1994) pointed out that the curriculum to which schoolchildren
are exposed goes hcyond the knowledge set out in syllabuses to encompas\
“concepts. actions. events, relations. belief‘s, values“ (p. 8 I ). Transcripts I and 3
are records of exchanges that make visible a usually hidden curriculum of hier-
archical language values in Botswana. They took place during English lessons in
classrooms where the pupils’ first language was Ikalanga (also known as
Seknlaka). and the teacher’s first language was Sctswana.
(T = teacher. P = pupil, Ps = pupils in chorus. Pupil’s names have been
delctcd from all transcripts.)
 Code Switching and Collusion 19

Transcript 1

T Which language is spoken in your country? Which language is spoken in your

country? Which language do we speak? (Pupil’s name)
PI 1 sp-I speak Setswana and Sekalaka
T The people of our country speak Sctswana and they and what’? Do they all
5 speak Sekalaka?
Ps No.
T No. Only the Kalangas speak Sekalaka, but (the majority) speak Setswana and
English. Most of them spoke speak Setswana and English Who can point to
the map of Botswana on that map of Southern Africa’? (Pupil’s name)
10 P2 This is Botswana.
T Good Boy. This is our country. Botswana.

In Transcript 1, the hierarchical values attached to languages in Botswana emerge

clearly and are conveyed to children as an uncontested
explicitly reality.
Ikalanga, the mother tongue of the children, is denied any national legitimacy
and their complicity in this denial is the price they must pay for the right of
inclusion as citizens of “our country, Botswana.” (The teacher’s use of pronouns
also reflects this theme of inclusive versus exclusive identity.) On a chart of
pupils’ writing about themselves on the classroom wall there was, however,
encouraging evidence of some resistance to such powerful messages: Perhaps
half of the pupils claimed to speak Ikalanga in addition to Setswana and English.
In the same lesson, it was made explicit to children that Setswana. the national
language they have struggled to learn since entering primary school, is of little
status or consequence internationally, where the so-called metropolitan lan-
guages or codes of wider communication such as French or the official language
of Botswana, English, hold sway.

Transcript 2

T What is the capital of the USA‘? (Pupil’s name)

PI The capital of USA is Washington.
T Good boy. [WRITES ON BOARD] Which city does Gary live in? Which city
does Gary live in’? (Pupil’s name)
5 P2 He lives, he lives in ( )
P3 He lives in New York
T Good. [WRITES ON BOARD] Which language does he speak? (Pupil’s name)
P4 He speaks English
T He speaks English [WRITES ON BOARD] And which one does he learn at
10 school? Which language does Gary speak at, learn at school’? (Pupil’s name)
P5 He learn Setswana in school.
T He learns Setswana in school. In America! Do they learn
20 .I. Arthur

Sctswana? (Pupil’s name)

Ph He learns French at school
15 T He learns French at school. Good

The hierarchy of language values in Botswana retlects a social order in which

the dominant elite have greatest access to English and are therefore concerned to
maintain its prestige. Setswana is the mother tongue of the majority of the elite,
as well as a lingua franca chrou~h(~ut the country, which accounts for its accepted
position as secondary in prestige only to English. The lack of prestige or even
official acknowledgement of the existence of the other languages of Botswana,
including Ikalanga, reflects the exclusion of minority groups, apart from a few
individuals who assimilate to the dominant Setswana culture, from social or
political power. According to Bourdieu (1977) symbolic domination: that is. the
consent of subordinated groups to the legitimacy of those in power. is normally
secured and reproduced through the institutions of state, primarily through
schools. The social order in Botswana is. in my view, embodied and reinforced
by the intera~tional classroom order which 1 shall describe in this article, in terms
both of the languages in which the interaction is encoded and of the differential
discourse rules which govern participation by teachers and pupils.

Language Repertoires of the Pupils and Teachers

In only one of the four classrooms I observed did the teacher and pupils share a
first language, as can be seen from the following table:

SCHOOL 1 SCHOOL 2
(in Ikalanga-speaking area) (in Sctswana-speaking area)
Teacher A--Sctswana speaker Teacher C-Setswana speaker
Teacher B-Setswana spcakcr Teacher D-lkalanga speaker

In School I, Teacher A was a newly appointed head teacher from the south of
Botswana who claimed to know no fkalanga, whereas Teacher B. who had taught
there for several years, was married to a Kalanga and was a fluent speaker of
Ikalanga. In School 2. Teacher C claimed to know a number of second languages
in addition to English; she alone was heard during a lesson to make a few
interjections in Ikalanga, as well as several in Afrikaans. Teacher D, the only
male. made no use of his native Ikalanga. There appeared to be no clear correla-
tion between the extent of overlap between the linguistic repertoires of teacher
and pupils in any given classroom and the amount of code switching by teachers.
Teacher A was the most consistent English-user. Although Teaohcr B code
switched between Setswana and English much more frequently than Teacher A,
she was never observed using Ikalanga in the classroom. Teacher C rnadc fre-
quent use of tag switches into Setswana, mainly by appending the invariant ga ke
re? (equivalent to canonical variations on the English im’t it?) to her statements
or through the interactional particle lo a bona? (do y114 sw:~): otherwise she did
not appear to switch more than Teacher D, the native Ikalanga speaker.
 Code Switching and Collusion 21

Such variation between teachers in the use of code switching is to be ex-

pected, and is in line with the observations of other researchers such as Zentella
(198 1) and De Mejia (1993). There were also more general differences in teach-
ing style, for example in how teachers preferred to position themselves while
teaching, whether they moved around the classroom, and in the way seating for
pupils was arranged in the classrooms. One likely important factor in teaching
style and in the way teachers related to pupils was length of service of the
teachers, which ranged from nearly 20 years in the case of Teacher C, who had
qualified as a mature entrant to the profession more than a decade before, to two
years in the case of Teacher D, who was the most recently qualified.

TEACHERS’ USE OF CODE SWITCHING

Attitudes Towards Code Switching

The teachers 1 observed operated under conditions of tension between institutional
pressure to adhere to language policy; that is, the exclusive use of English in the
classroom, and their professional and personal instincts to code switch in response
to the communicative needs of their pupils. My survey data from interviews and
questionnaires, and my experience of six years as a teacher educator in Botswana
confirm that, like the Zulu-speaking teachers observed by Adendorff (1993) in
South Africa, many Botswana teachers are ambivalent in their views of code
switching and reluctant or even ashamed to admit to its part in their classroom
practice. The educational climate can be characterised as prescriptive, with nation-
ally published syllabuses and teachers’ guides and a central agenda of preparing
pupils for the predominantly English Primary School Leaving Examination. Thus,
teachers are unlikely to advertise personal initiatives, including code switching,
which could be interpreted as deviation from official policy.

Discourse-related Switching
Although it is not the central focus of this article, it is important to acknowledge
the remarkably creative language use of teachers under such adverse conditions
as I have described. The teachers 1 observed at times used code contrast to fulfil
such pragmatic functions (Gumperz, 1982) as addressee specification, where
they wished to give encouragement or praise or reproof to individual pupils.
Code contrast also served as a framing device, typically to get pupils’ attention
when moving on to the next stage of a lesson or back to the central agenda.
Teachers thus used discourse-related code switching (Auer, 1984) in order to
provide contextualisation cues, which enabled them to refine the meanings they
conveyed to their pupils.

Participant-related Switching: Facilitative Strategies

Participant-related code alternation is defined by Auer (1984) as hearer-oriented.
Martin-Jones (1995) has drawn attention to its salience in classrooms, such as
22 .I. Arthur

those in Hong Kong studied by Lin ( I990). where retention of a foreign language
as a medium has led to communication difficulties for learners. in the IWO
following sections. I shall focus in turn on each aspect of the dual role I observed
teachers to play as facilitators: how they managed and encouraged participation
by learners; and how they tried to ensure understanding.

Encouraging Participation by Pupils

Holmes (1983) points out that tag questions may be LISC~ as markers of positive
politeness. one of their functions being to facilitate contributions from others. The
tag-switches used with varying degrees of frequency by all of the teachers I
objcrved were of this type. elicitin g a chorus of minimal responses (usually a
mixture of English TP.S and Sctswana ee) to punctuate a continuing teacher
monologue of statements such as, ‘That i\ why we say plants are living things. ga
ke re?’ Ndayipfukamiyc (1994) has observed that the same phenomenon in
primary classrooms in Burundi is likcwihe not intended by teachers as a gcnuinc
check on pupils’ understanding. Rather. it constitutes a ritualistic pseudochecking
with the concomitant convention that the only possible response is affirmative.
I-he switches from English into Sctswana that teachers used to cncoluragr
individual pupils to speak were, by contrast. more varied. Often the Setswana
terms employed explicitly expres\cd jolldarity, ah in Buela go godimo tsala ya
me (S~xwX up y~~Ji-ir&) from Teacher I>. All of the teachers were also observed
to use to individual pupils the Setswana polite forms of address mma and rra,
which are habitual in Botswana when addressing adults tither in Sctswana or in
English. An example from Teacher B is Leka mmu. Ke utlwe. (Trl\‘/nrrtlrrn~.WC
uw /istetzitzR. ) Since the pragmatic lorcc of thcsc forms is normally convcycd in
English by prosody rather than lexis. it is difficult to translate them into English
without giving an impression---sometimes but not always misleading----of sar-
casm.
The aim of the teachers in the examples I have given was to facllitatc contrlbu-
tions by pupils in English. The option of code switching was not available to
pupils. at least while the public performance of the lesson was under way and the
pupil was. so to speak, centre-stage. In contrast to the “follow-the-leader” prince-
pie of code choice identified by Zentella ( I98 I ) in bilingual classrooms in New
York. a strict asymmetry applies in these Botswana classrooms. The pupil in
Transcript 3. from a science lesson with Teacher B. apparently mistook the signal
sent by her teacher’s switch into Setswana f’or ;I genuine invitation to reply in
Setswana. The pupil’s response in Setswana in line 5 is therefore rc.jected:

Transcript 3
 Code Switching and Collusion 23

A a nang le metsi a senang leswe. A a senang malwetse ape.

Those with clean wnter. Which don’t have diseases.
5 P sediba
well
T In English. Uhuh. [Nominates another pupil.]

Transcript 4 is from an English lesson in which the topic is story-telling, and

pupils have heard the traditional story of the scorpion and the chameleon. Teach-
er B’s switch in line 11 is unusual in that she uses it to explicitly invite pupils to
contribute in Setswana from the cultural knowledge she knows they possess.

Transcript 4

T My chart has got pictures. By just looking at those pictures what do you think
is happening there? Oh, do you want me to begin first’? I think lizards and
insects are going to school and the scorpion does not want to go to school so it is
hiding itself under a big rock because it does not want to go to school. What
5 do you think? Because we don’t think in the same way do we?
PS No
T No we don’t. Yes (Pupil’s name). What do you think is happening there‘?
PI I think that they want to choose a king
T Uhuh. You think they want to choose a king. Uhuh. What do you think’? We
10 have different thoughts. We have different thoughts. Do you mean you are not
thinking’? A ko eme rra. Tlhe mma a ko o mpolelele gore wena o bona o
Stand up, rra. Please mma tell me how you see what is
kare go a reng. Lefa e le ka Setswana mpolelele. 0 akanye sengwe fela.
going on. Even in Setswana tell me. Think of anything.
Se o ka akanyang gore go ka dirafala.
Think of any that could be happening.
Okay. What creature is this, what is it’? Yes (Pupil’s name)
15 P2 Chameleon
T It’s a chameleon. Good. It’s a chameleon.

There is a clear contrast in Transcript 4 between the teacher’s open-ended

questioning and prompting in Setswana. which fail to elicit pupil responses, and
her subsequent reversion to a closed question in English, which is “successful”
inasfar as a one-word answer is elicited. Setswana, although the second language
of these pupils, would allow them much greater possibilities of self-expression
than English. The pupils do not appear, however. to give credence to their
teacher’s explicit legitimising of responses in Setswana. In this they differ, for
example, from those observed in Tanzanian secondary schools (Rubagumya,
1993), who switched to Kiswahili where it was condoned by their teacher on
grounds of their difficulty in English expression. However, it is perhaps not
surprising that the Botswana pupils in Transcript 4 do not accept their teacher’s
24 .I. Arthur

invitation to speak so publicly in Setswana during an English lesson, &spite her

attempts earlier in the lesson to construe the topic as the tetling of stories from
any source. To do so would involve breaking a ground rule of discourse in their
classroom, which. as Transcript 3 demonstrated. is at other times strictly en-
forced.

lnt~rcompre~ension Strategies
Bilingual classrooms, as characterised by Nussbaum (I 990) are sites of exo-
lingual communication, in which the high degree of divergence between the
linguistic repertoires of the participants leads to a need for intercomprehension
strategies. of which code switching is one. Such switching is further usefully
classified by Nussbaunl as either heter~~-facilitative on the part of teachers, that
is, anticipating and intended to preempt learners’ comprehension difficulties, or
self-facilitative on the part of learners. that is, resort to the Ll to fill in gaps in
knowledge of target language vocabulary or to prevent errors. I shall discuss each
of these strategies in turn in the following sections.

Code Switching by Teachers as a Hetero-Facilitative Strategy. Interlingual

reformulations occur in my data like those identified by Cambra-Gin6 (1991) in
French-as-a-foreign-language classrooms in Catalonia and by De Mejia ( 1993) in
early English immersion classrooms in Colombia. There are examples of literal
translations juxtaposed, of equivalence explicitly marked, and of paraphrase
where an equivalent lexical item is not available in Setswana. All are examples of
what is termed reiteration by Gumperz (1982) and pseudotranslation by Auer
(1984); no new information is added, the purpose in each case being facilitative
repetition rather than repair or qualification of meaning.

The Absence of Code Switching by Pupils as a Self-Facilitative Strategy. In

my data, code switching from English into Setswana as a facilitative strategy is
used exclusively by teachers. It is not available as a self-facilitative strategy to
the learners I observed, unlike those, for example, in the classrooms studied by
Lin (1990) in Hong Kong or Nussbaum (1990) in Catalonia. In only one instance
in my data did a nominated pupil appear to break the rule of responding in
English to a teacher’s question posed in English. Having stood to answer, as is
the con~~enti(~n in Botswana classrooms, he averted his eyes and said in a sub-
dued tone almost too low for the tape recorder to catch: Ke ne ke re ke bua yone.
The Setswana translates into English as I wus g&g w su_v thur, and refers to the
previous pupil’s answer. Setswana was, therefore, the language of apology for
failure to respond acceptably. Other pupils unable to answer tended to remain
silent and might be left standing in ignominy until later in the lesson when their
teacher gave them permission to sit down or when they .judged that they might be
able to do so unnoticed. The discourse rules internalised by learners in Botswana
classrooms deny them the freedom to use their first language as a means to
 Code Switching and Collusion 25

increase their participation, either quantitatively or through negotiating the les-

son agenda at any given moment.

Why don’t Teachers Make More Use of Code Switching

as a Hetero-Facilitative Strategy?
Nussbaum (1990) pointed out that hetero-facilitative switching is just one of a
range of intercomprehension strategies available to teachers; others include intra-
lingual repetition or simplification, and the use of gesture. The teachers I ob-
served appeared to prefer such alternatives, particularly that of repetition. Al-
though there was a significant incidence of code switching in lessons I observed
across three subject areas, my presence as a native English speaker undoubtedly
evoked an observer effect, which inhibited the use of code switching. In my view
there are, however, other factors that help to explain why more code switching,
particularly of a facilitative kind, was not observed. Subject syllabuses are in
many cases designed to progress on a spiral mode1 by revisiting the same topics
in each standard. The intention is that more in-depth understanding should be
progressively developed, but the result in practice is often a great deal of re-
presentation and revision of previously introduced material. Moreover, English
is exemplified and practised but seldom used communicatively in the teacher-
dominated routines common in these classrooms. The following section focuses
on the roles of teachers and pupils in these routines and suggests insights into
their nature which are offered by teachers’ code alternation.

“STAGING” THE LESSON

In most of the lessons I observed, the main activity was whole-class teaching,
often focused on a chalkboard or wall chart picture. The dominant recitation
pattern of teacher questioning and group or individual response was one that had
become familiar to me over several years of visiting Botswana primary schools
as a teacher trainer. In describing the lessons, I find their similarity to stage
performances striking: Pupils are called upon to say their lines, by a teacher who
is not only their co-actor but fulfils a number of backstage roles such as director,
prompt, and stage manager. Cambra-Gin6 (1991), has recourse to a similar
metaphor when she described what goes on in the French-as-a-foreign-language
classrooms she observed in Catalonia. She said they were reminiscent of a film
scenario that is being rehearsed. In their study of upper primary and junior
secondary classrooms in Botswana, Fuller and Snyder (1991) referred to “the
scripts that teachers follow”, concluding that these have little to do with the age
or developmental character of their pupils.

Centre-Stage Language Use

In the setting of traditional teacher-fronted classrooms which are, in themselves,
reminiscent of a stage, the convention in Botswana that nominated pupils stand
26 .I. Arthur

to answer a teacher’s question enhances the impression of public performance.

Also, teachers often exhort pupils to project their voices, as if to reach an
audience; for example, by telling them in Setswana Bua go godimo or in English
Sprcrk (~f~ud, my boy. As even these two utterances show, English was not used
exclusively during recitation routines. However, English predominated as the
language of on-stage public performance and Setswana as the language of ofl-
stage or backstage dealings. The juxtaposition of the two codes was clearly
imbued with social meanings that reverberated beyond the classroom.

Pupils as Performers
The questions put by teachers were overwhelmingly of the closed type. often
designed to elicit English vocabulary item-a genre of classroom language USC
described by Heath (1986) as a label quest. In cognitive terms, most questions
were undemanding, requiring merely recall of previously introduced material.
Chorus completion of teacher statements offers a kind of gap-filling exercise in
which pupils’ understanding is little probed, and the risk of their responding
unacceptably is minimised.
By contrast, where pupils were individually nominated by teachers. they were
normally expected to answer in full English sentences. and feedback on their
answers was often bedevilled by a dual focus on content on the one hand and
form on the other. Pupils at times seemed confused over which of the dual
agendas of communication and language learning is being pursued at a given
moment. In Transcript 5, from an English grammar lesson on tags, Teacher A is
finally explicit about her requirements, reinforcing her Dm‘t mww tkr r4rrcs-
riorr in line 14 with a tag-switch into Setswana.

Transcript 5

7 Good girl. The wedding will be held in Gantsi, won’t it? The wedding will be
held in Gantsi, won’t it’? People didn’t read, huh’? (Pupil’s name)
PI Yes it won’t
T Do WC say -‘Yes. it won’t”‘? The wedding is not yet held. It is still going to bc.
5 So. we say “Yes. it “‘! We arc still waiting for the wedding to come so how
do we say it? “Yes, it “? (Pupil‘s name)
P2 Ych. it is do.
[PUPILS GASP]
1 Which word words do we use to show the future? The two words that WC WC ux
to express the future?
I(! P3 Yes. it won’t
i Listen. Give me those two words that we use when WC want to express the
future tcnsc

Pi Yes, it wils
‘1. Don’t answer the question. Ke a utlwana? Give me the two words that WC use
1.~it utiil~wtoorl?
1s to cxprcss the future. that we use when WC taik about things still to happen. We
USC the two words which are ?
 Code Switching and Collusion 27

In Transcript 6, from another English lesson, Teacher B similarly attempts to

clarify her focus by code switching into Setswana: she gives a literal Setswana
translation of the English sentence offered earlier by a pupil, thus signalling that
she has accepted the content but now requires correction of the grammatical
form.

Transcript 6

T When do you think this happened? Is it still happening’? Has it happened already
or in the past‘? When do you think this happened’?. ( ) somebody try, the
lizards and the insects met to choose a king. When do you think this hap-
pened?
5 (Pupil’s name)
PI It already happened
T It has already happened. When do you think it has happened‘? Let us just guess.
When do you think it has happened’? Yes (Pupil’s name)
P2 it has happened on the past
IO T Yes, in the past. In the.. this is a story that happened some years back in the
past. It can be that year. it can be some years back but it is in the past. So it is
correct to say they choose chameleon they choose chameleon‘? Is it correct to
say that?
What’s wrong with this sentence? What is it supposed to be? They choose the
15 chameleon. Yes. The the the insects and the lizards met to choose a king.
Ba ile ba tlhope chameleon but I want the correct sentence. (Pupil’s name)
They chose the chameleon
P (chose) They chose a chameleon.
T Good. It should be they chose a chameleon. They chose a chameleon.

Grammatically correct English is clearly the only legitimate language of on-

stage pupil performance in these classrooms.

Backstage Language Use

Conversations between pupils and teachers outside the classroom, in any other
part of the school compound, took place in Setswana, or, depending on the
participants’ repertoires and preferences, in Ikalanga. A child arriving at a class-
room door while a lesson was under way would invariably state her or his
business in Setswana; the teacher then switched from English, in which she was
conducting the lesson, to attend to the visitor in Setswana.
Juxtaposition of the two codes was also a means of distinguishing between
“doing lessons” and talking about them. On several occasions references to past
or future lessons or learning events involved a switch by the teacher from English
to the “backstage” language, Setswana. For example, in Transcript 7, from an
English lesson with Teacher B, this “stepping out” of the pedagogic frame of the
current lesson is signalled by the code switch from English to Setswana. (The
teacher’s revision lecture then proceeds by means of English grammar rules
stated in Setswana and reiterated in English.)
28 .I. Arthur

Transcript 7

P The scorpion hid under the rock, didn’t it’?

T Good. The scorpion hid under the rock, didn’t it? Now this time if you look at my
sentences, huh? Ke ne ke ntse ke le bolelela gore . . I WBStelling you that
i haie nlcvuxs bren teltirtg ym flrcir
fa re dirisetse ‘arc fa le fa o nna teng. Fa re dirisetse *is’ cvcn in here the ‘is’ is
$ bvr have put ‘ore* here, it goes here too. I/’ I+V hrne put
5 going to appear

Transcript 8 is from a maths lesson on decimals. In line 3 this same teacher

cuts into her English
explanation of tenths and hundredths to cornn~~nt par-
enthetically in Setswana on pupils’ prior learning when she notices how many
pupils are putting their hands up to show eagerness to contribute.

Transcript 8

‘I‘ So it is eight tenths. When you write it I know you will write tight tenths.
[MOVES TO ANOTHER CALCULATION ON THE BOARD] We get onto this
one here. This one is not tenths, it is hundreds. Oh. [LAUGHS] ~okhutshwane
ill .si1ort.
ga ke re le a itse hundreds. How do we write it here’!
xou knint

In line 6 of Transcript 9, from a science lesson, Teacher C switches from

English to Setswana in order to indicate an activity planned for later.

Transcript 9

T Now the roots feed the parts of the plant of the plant ga ke re?
Ps Eemm
T They keep it safe. they keep the plant firm to the ground.
Gakere, o a bona?
YOUser, don’t vou
5 Ps Yes
T We shall go outside kgantelenyana, ga ke re?

PS Eemm
T So that we can pick out the plants and see how the roots are,
ga ke re?
IO Ps Eemm

Code contrast thus allows a distinction between a pedagogic focus on knowl-

edge to be gained and displayed, ac~onlp~ished through English, and occa-
 Code Switching and Collusion 29

sional references in Setswana to the processes by which that knowledge is to

be gained.

A COLLUSIVE INTERPRETATION
OF THE JOINT PERFORMANCE

In teacher-dominated procedures such as those I am describing, the asymmetrical

distribution of talk, in terms of both number and duration of speaker turns, is
obvious. Unequal access to English; that is, a much higher level of competence
on the part of the teacher, constrains pupils into a minor role in the interaction.
However, the performance 1 have alluded to is above all a joint one: Pupils and
teacher play asymmetrical but synchronised roles to the best of their ability.
Recitation routines are reported to be typical of many teacher-centred classrooms
throughout the world but seem to be particularly salient in large classes in poor
countries (Coleman, 1989). Cleghorn et al. (1989) offer an explanation of the
phenomenon in Kenya in terms of “traditionally rooted interaction patterns such
as those that are characterised by a rhythmic questioning and group response”
(p. 37). A similar view emerges from statements by educational researchers in
Botswana such as Prophet and Rowell: “It may be that the dominant teaching
style originates out of the African respect for tradition and authority” (1993,
p. 208).
A study of Zulu-English classrooms in South Africa by Chick (in press)
proposes a less obvious-and less convenient-explanation: Teachers and pupils
are, it is argued, adhering to institutional conventions imposed during colonial
rule rather than wider cultural norms. This view is supported by Ndayipfukamiye
(1993), who argued that the routines he observed in French-Kirundi classrooms
in Burundi were those that had been internalised by teachers when they them-
selves were pupils. Likewise, Ellis (1987) comments on the balance between
interpretation and transmission that characterised informal African education,
whereas the tradition for formal education that has developed in African schools
in this century “has derived from the kind of classroom practices common in pre-
war European schools” (p. 87).
In his South African study Chick focuses on chorusing of responses within
recitation routines in English. He points to the apparently random nature of the
chorus and the low information value of many items chorused as evidence that its
primary function is social rather than academic. Drawing on the collusive ap-
proach to conversation analysis of McDermott and Tylbor (1987) Chick coins the
term “safe-talk” for the interactional style of which chorusing forms part. Safe-
talk allows participation without loss of face on the part of either teacher or
pupils, whether through lack of knowledge or through language errors. By re-
sorting to safe-talk Black teachers and pupils collude with each other to maintain
at least an appearance of getting on with the proper classroom business of
teaching and learning; they are thus able to deny to themselves, to each other,
and to onlookers the realities of lack of appropriate materials and skills that are
30 .I. Arthur

the legacy of institution~tli~ed oppression and segregated schooling under apart-

heid.
Severely undcrrcsourced primary schools in many African countries have
been termed ‘. “facade institutions’ wlrerc little learning takes place” (Foster,
1989). In Botswana. however, textbooks and materials are in reasonahlc supply,
relative to African though not to European or North American norms, and the
vast majority of the teaching force has undergone a two-year training course. The
crucial common constraint on learning that operates in many classrooms through-
out the contil~e~lt. iI~cludin~ those in Botswana 1 observed. is the requir~nlent to
use a foreign language as the medium of instruction. Particularly in rural areas of
Botswana. teachers and pupils have limited XC~SS to English. which is. l’or
them. a foreign language transmitted almost exclusively through the school.
Thus. one way to interpret certain instances in my data of’ feedback in Setswana
from teachers to their classes is as a means of achieving mutual face-saving over
the adequacy of the classroom interaction in which they arc involved and the
degree of pupil understanding that could reasonably bc expected to result.
Transcript 10 comes from the end of a sequence during an English lesson in
which Teacher N has attempted with little ‘ruccess to elicit retelling in English oi
a previously introduced story.

Transcript 10

‘I‘ OK. good. Sit down. good. So it IIIC~~S that some people wcrc really listcnity at
me yesterday when I was telling the story. I know that you could all tell the story
if you hnd chance. ga ke re? Ga ke re rotthe re ne re ka bua, huh?
\vcJWllld tril .s~‘c’rtk./1ui,:
R Yes
5 ‘I‘ Ycc. Rut Ict u\ took at this scntcncc &I\ \cntcncc.
Tse dingwe re tla ma re di bona. They chomc ;i &am&on thq C~OOX
WC .~ilctll ,ul~ltr 0ther.vIrrtrK
7 ;I charnelcon

in ‘Transcript 11. Teacher C is rounding off an English Icsson. Pupils are

putting hands up to indicate how many sentences they wrote correctly. I WHSabk
to observe that many pupils had clearly lbund the exercise dif‘icult and they had
made a lot of’ mistakes.

Transcript 11

?f kJhuh, ‘/‘had who got ten. There are only two mhm nine. ( ) rnhnl eight
Whcrc arc your hands if you have pot eight
tie, ke rile ( ). You write the ;mswcr\ in short.
Yl,.s, I .slriil
‘l‘hq are correct. Ee, tshwara jaana. Correct. (hpilsx name).
YCS, IWN \Of, ~~t~~~~,~,si~~l~~l
 Code Switching and Collusion 31

5 ( ) one two three four. seven. three. mhm. Six. Okay sit down. five. Those
who got five upwards. five six seven eight nine ten Stand up. Okay sit down.
Le lona lo tla tshwara kamoso, ga ke re?
You will also understand tomorrow, won’t you?

In exchanges such as those represented by Transcripts 10 and 11,l would sug-

gest that Setswana functions as the language of complicity. By this I do not mean
that Setswana signals solidarity-the “we-code” in contrast to the English “they-
code”; as Martin-Jones (1995) points out, this kind of opposition is too simplistic
to serve us in understanding the complex relationship between code choice and
speaker identity. Also, code choice of itself tells us little about the teacher-pupil
relationship: In my data, switches by teachers into Setswana to give feedback to
individual pupils were invariably accompanied by other prosodic or nonverbal
contextualisation cues so that their effect ranged from a softening of criticism to
its sharpening by means of sarcasm. Rather, teacher and pupils are mutually
interdependent in that all need to keep up the appearance of effective activity in
the classroom and of fulfilment of their respective roles. Any problems that arise
must, therefore, be glossed over or kept backstage, and that is what is often
accomplished by switching to Setswana.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

In this article I have attempted to demonstrate that variation in the content and
structure of teaching and learning events across the classrooms I observed oc-
curred within a constraining framework of institutionalised and institutionalising
pressures. The familiar ease of routinised interactional patterns is one such
pressure. My experience as a teacher educator in Botswana allows me to confirm
that these patterns characterise much teaching across the curriculum, including
the teaching of Setswana as a subject. However, it is the combination of rou-
tinised teacher-dominated performances of teaching and learning with the inter-
nalised discourse rules of English-medium instruction that most powerfully
inhibits attempts by teachers and pupils to pursue more challenging and cultur-
ally congruent learning: Pupils are, in effect, prevented from meaningful and
critical engagement with the curriculum. Rowe11 and Prophet (1990) observed
similarly limited and limiting patterns of interaction in lessons in junior second-
ary schools in Botswana.

What is missing from most classroom interactions is any recognition of the beliefs
and values which students bring with them or even acknowledgement that students
have constructed cognitive schemes for interpreting the world (p. 24).

Learning of this culturally congruent kind would, I conclude, conflict with the
social values that are embodied and perpetuated through the classroom discourse
1 have investigated.
32 J. Arthur

REFERENCES
 Code Switching and Collusion 33

Rubagumya, C.M. (1993). The lunguage wzluc~sqf Tunxnian secondary .school pupils: A cu.w stud>
in rhe Dar-Es-Sa/aum regim. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Lancaster University. Lan-
caster. U.K.
Zentella, A.C. (1981). Ta bien, you could answer me en cualquier idioma: Puerto Rican code-
switching in bilingual classrooms. In R. Duran (Ed.). L&no Longuuge and Communicarive
Bc~hakmr. Norwood. NJ: Ablcx.

APPENDIX: TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS

Normal sentence punctuation has been used as far as possible in order to make
the transcripts accessible to lay readers.
Plain font: English
Bold: Setswana
Itulics: Translution of Setswam into English
There is no translation of the following:

frequently used Setswana tags: Ga ke re?--Is it? (Are they? Do we’? etc.)
(L)o a bona?-Do you (singular o, plural lo) see?
polite forms of address for females (mma) or for males (rra)
the short responses ee (yes) and nnyaa (no). Eemm is a contracted form of Ee
mma.

( ) indicates unclear speech

[BLOCK CAPITALS] indicates commentary on what is happening in the
classroom
{INDICATES OVERLAPPING SPEECH}