The Use of First and Second Language in Chinese University EFL Classrooms

Yi
Du
The Use of First

and Second
Language in
Chinese University
EFL Classrooms
The Use of First and Second Language in Chinese
University EFL Classrooms
Yi Du
The Use of First and Second

Language in Chinese
University EFL Classrooms
123
Yi Du
English Department
North China Electric Power University
Beijing
China
ISBN 978-981-10-1910-4 ISBN 978-981-10-1911-1 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-1911-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016944919
© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer Science+Business Media Singapore Pte Ltd.
Foreword
The first time I recall having to think about the potential role of the mother tongue
in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching was when I was presented with
‘the shrimp problem’. It was 1971 and I was on an initial training course in
Stockholm, preparing for 2 years teaching EFL in Sweden. During one of the
sessions the lecturer asked us to discuss what we would do if a Swedish learner of
English had shown us the word ‘shrimp’ in a text and had asked what it meant. We
offered various solutions, such as showing the learner a picture of a shrimp, or
drawing a shrimp on the blackboard, or describing what a shrimp looks like.
None of these suggestions satisfied the lecturer. Did we really think we would
happen to have a picture of a shrimp with us? Did we think our skills of drawing or
description were good enough to make clear that what we had drawn or described
was a shrimp (and not a prawn or a crayfish, for example). According to the
lecturer, the most effective, accurate and rapid solution to the shrimp problem was
to translate shrimp into Swedish, ‘räka’. When one of us then asked ‘But what do
we do if we don’t know the Swedish word?’, the lecturer’s response was ‘In that
case, tell them to look it up in a dictionary’. (These days, of course, learners can
find meanings and photographs with a couple of clicks on their smartphone, but that
option was not available in 1971!).
My shrimp example illustrates an issue of central importance to teachers of any
foreign language (L2): when to make appropriate use of the mother tongue (L1) in
class. An overarching principle of L2 instruction—whatever the method or
approach being followed—is that teachers should maximise the learners’ exposure
to the L2, to help them get used to hearing and seeing it in natural use and to
gradually build their comprehension skills. But the key lies in that word ‘max-
imise’—i.e. the aim should be to use the L2 as much as possible, and the L1 as little
as possible; very few would now argue that teachers’ use of the L1 should be
banned altogether, although that was a tenet of some past ‘methods’.
Most teachers and methodologists accept there is a place for the L1 in the L2
classroom. Among the reasons that researchers have most frequently been given,
when they have asked teachers when and why they use the L1 in class are: to save
v
vi Foreword
class time; to highlight differences between L1 and L2 grammar; and to ensure

everyone understands the current teaching point. However, what we think we know
about teachers’ use of the L1 tends to come from research based on questionnaires
which teachers have completed in the abstract, i.e. reflecting on what they believe
their use of the L1 to be, rather than from analysing recordings of actual classroom
interaction between teacher and learners.
So the particular value of Yi Du’s research, which is now being made available
in book form, derives from two distinctive elements of its design. First, it involves
in-depth analysis of classroom recordings and interviews with teachers who had the
opportunity to review (and explore) the motivation for particular instances of their
L1 use in class. Second, it is set in a context of EFL teaching, the Chinese uni-
versity classroom, where the choices that these different teachers made in terms of
L1/L2 use can be set against a shared background of cultural and pedagogic
assumptions—whether these be explicit in official policy documents, or implicit as
professional norms. The picture that Yi Du reveals is realistically complex, not least
on the basics of how much teachers use the L1 in class and why. Working with her
four teacher informants, she unpicks the interwoven influences on their use of
Chinese in university EFL classes and assesses the extent to which her classroom
data match the teachers’ perceptions of their own L1 use.
I helped supervise Yi Du’s original Ph.D. research at the University of
Edinburgh and Professor Vivian Cook, a leading authority on L1/L2 use in the
classroom, acted as her external examiner. I am confident that readers of this book
would find not only echoes of our own classroom practice but also plenty of food
for thought, as Yi Du explores individual teachers’ rationales for using the mother
tongue, in an institutional context which we can compare and contrast with our own
experience in other EFL settings.
April 2016 Prof. Tony Lynch

University of Edinburgh
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank many people whose contribution, support and advice are of
great importance to the completion of this book. First of all, I wish to thank,
sincerely, the four teachers who allowed me to observe their lessons and devoted
generous time to my research. Without their participation, I would not have been
able to carry out this study. I am especially grateful to my Ph.D. supervisors,
Mr. Brian Parkinson and Prof. Tony Lynch, for their insightful guidance and
constant support throughout the process of my study. I also wish to give special
thanks to the anonymous reviewers and the editors for their assistance in the
preparation of this book. Finally, I would like to thank my family, in particular, my
grandparents, Zhengxin Yu and Ling Yu, and my husband, Xuexing Zeng, for their
love and encouragement which enabled me to stay motivated to complete this book.
vii
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .................... . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Issues Relevant to the L1 in L2 Learning and Teaching . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.1 Power and Politics . .................... . . . . . . . 2
1.2.2 Teacher Education. . .................... . . . . . . . 3
1.2.3 Teacher Cognition . . .................... . . . . . . . 5
1.2.4 Culture of Learning . .................... . . . . . . . 7
1.2.5 Teaching Context . . .................... . . . . . . . 8
1.3 The Objectives of the Study .................... . . . . . . . 9
1.4 Overview of the Book . . . . .................... . . . . . . . 10
Part I Background and Design

2 The L1 in L2 Learning and Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 15
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 15
2.2 The Role of the L1 in L2 Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 15
2.2.1 Arguments for the Negative Role of the L1 in L2
Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 15
2.2.2 Arguments for the Positive Role of the L1
in L2 Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3 The L1 in L2 Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.1 An Early Attempt to Conduct L2 Teaching in the L2 . . . . 29
2.3.2 The Grammar-Translation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3.3 The Direct Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.3.4 The Audiolingual Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3.5 Communicative Language Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.3.6 The Natural Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.3.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.3.8 L2 Teaching Methods in China. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
ix
x Contents
2.4 Empirical Studies on Teachers’ L1 and L2 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2.4.1 Quantity of Teachers’ L1 and L2 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4.2 Functions of Teachers’ L1 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.4.3 Factors Influencing Teachers’ Language Choice . . . . . . . . 38
2.4.4 Teachers’ Perceptions of L1 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.4.5 Students’ Perceptions of Their Teachers’ L1 Use . . . . . . . 42
2.4.6 Optimal Use of the L1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3 Code-Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2.1 Code-Switching and Code-Mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.2 Code-Switching and Borrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3 Grammatical Aspects of Code-Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.3.1 Types of Code-Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.3.2 Grammatical Constraints on Code-Switching . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.4 Pragmatic Aspects of Code-Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.4.1 Situational Versus Metaphorical Code-Switching. . . . . . . . 52
3.4.2 Conversational Functions of Code-Switching . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.4.3 The Markedness Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.4.4 A Sequential Analysis of Code-Switching:
The Conversation Analysis Approach . . . . . . . . ....... 55
3.5 Code-Switching in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 56
4 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.2 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.2.1 Background Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.2.2 Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.2.3 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.2.4 Stimulated Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3 Approaches to Lesson Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.3.1 Analytical Approaches to the Pragmatic Aspects
of Code-Switching: The Taxonomic Approach Versus
the Markedness Model and the Conversation Analysis
Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 81
4.3.2 Sequential Analysis of Classroom Discourse:
An Approach Based on the Concept of ‘Frame’ . . . . . ... 82
4.3.3 Criteria for Grammatical Analysis of Code-Switching . ... 84
4.3.4 Units of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 85
Part II Results
5 Classroom Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.2 Analysis of the Teachers’ Code-Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Contents xi
5.2.1 Procedures of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

5.2.2 Taxonomy of Functional Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.2.3 Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.2.4 Further Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.3 Global Analysis [Quantitative] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.3.1 Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.3.2 Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.4 Global Analysis [Qualitative] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.4.1 Framing Classroom Discourse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.4.2 Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.4.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
6 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.2.1 Anne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6.2.2 Betty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
6.2.3 Carl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
6.2.4 David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
6.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
7 Stimulated Recall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
7.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
7.2.1 Anne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
7.2.2 Betty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
7.2.3 Carl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
7.2.4 David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
7.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Part III Conclusions

8 Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
8.2 Overview of the Major Findings of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
8.2.1 The Quantity of L1 and L2 Use by the Teachers. . . . . . . . 219
8.2.2 The Grammatical Patterns of the Teachers’
Language Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
8.2.3 The Circumstances and Functions of Teachers’
L1 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
8.2.4 The Teachers’ Perceptions of and Reasons
for Their Own Language Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
8.2.5 The Observer’s Perceptions of the Teachers’
Language Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
xii Contents
8.2.6 The Teachers’ Language Use Across Different

Frames of Classroom Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
8.2.7 The Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes Towards
Using the L1 in L2 Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
8.2.8 Factors Affecting the Teachers’ Language Choices . . . . . . 225
8.3 Implications for L2 Teaching and Teacher Training . . . . . . . . . . . 230
8.4 Reflection on Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
8.5 Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Appendices (Introductory Note). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Appendix A: Sample Analysis of Code-Switching Instances (Carl). . . . . 235
Appendix B: Sample Pre- and Post-Observation Interview (Anne). . . . . 241
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
The role of the L1 has long been a contentious issue in second language education,
on which both theorists and researchers have expressed widely varying views.
For a long time many of them emphasized the negative influence of the L1 on L2
education and suggested that L1 use should be avoided or at least minimized. For
example, Phillipson (1992: 185) described the five underpinning tenets of ELT
worldwide which were put forward in a conference held at Makerere University in
Uganda in 1961:
• English is best taught monolingually.
• The ideal teacher of English is a native speaker.
• The earlier English is taught, the better the results.
• The more English is taught, the better the results.
• If other languages are used too much, standards of English will drop.
Even today monolingual approaches to L2 teaching seem to be widely accepted

and in many parts of the world it is taken for granted that native speakers make the
best language teachers (Cook 2005: 56), despite the fact that non-native speaking
teachers still constitute a large proportion of second language teachers, and most of
them have the same L1 as their students.
However, as Baron (1990), Crawford (1991) and Daniels (1990) (cited in
Auerbach 1993: 12) have pointed out:
Historical accounts of language education in the U.S. show that monolingual approaches to
the teaching of English have by no means always been the norm…
In recent years, the dominance of monolingual approaches has again been

challenged, and many successful bilingual education programmes and empirical
studies of the relationship between teachers’ language use and students’ learning
achievements have demonstrated the positive role of the L1 in second language
learning and teaching. In contrast, it is now widely felt that the result of using
© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016 1

Y. Du, The Use of First and Second Language in Chinese University
EFL Classrooms, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-1911-1_1
2 1 Introduction
L2-only is often that students feel excluded from the classroom and wounded in
their self-esteem and self-confidence, while teachers express frustration at being
forced to simplify lesson content to childlike language and at being unable to
activate students and to ensure their progress (Klassen 1987 cited in Auerbach
1995: 26). Furthermore, it is claimed that the L1 and L2 are interrelated in L2
learners’ minds, and that teaching should reflect this (Beauvillain and Grainger
1987; Cook 1994; Obler 1982; Locastro 1987). Therefore, the role of the L1 in L2
education has been put back on the table for discussion.
1.2 Issues Relevant to the L1 in L2 Learning and Teaching
In addition to teaching objectives, teachers’ and students’ L2 proficiency and

immediate classroom factors, the L1 and L2 issue relates to wider issues including
power and politics, teacher education, teacher cognition, culture of learning, and
teaching context. In the next five sections I will look at these areas in turn. Within
some sections, I will consider both relevant literature on the wider issues and
specific features of the Chinese context; the balance between these will vary from
section to section.
1.2.1 Power and Politics
The relationship of power and politics to the issue of the medium of instruction can
be best illustrated by Auerbach’s (1993: 10) statement that ‘whether or not we
support the use of learners’ L1 is not just a pedagogical matter: it is a political one,
and the way that we address it in ESL instruction is both a mirror of and a rehearsal
for the relations of power in broader society’.
The influence of sociopolitical forces on language teaching and learning has been
explored extensively by many researchers such as Fairclough (1989), Tollefson
(1995), and Auerbach (1993, 1995). In ESL classrooms in the United States, as
Auerbach (1995: 11) pointed out, English-only instruction has often been supported
since ‘it is the knowledge, life experience, and language and discourses of the
dominant class that are valued in educational institutions, it is their power that is
perpetuated’. Likewise, in EFL countries, using English as the language of
instruction is often taken for granted because of the global spread of English as
lingua franca and the strong international impact of English-speaking countries
during the process of globalization.
Compared to power and social order in broader society, however, the politics of
the classroom and its relation to classroom language use seem more likely to be
ignored. Classroom politics, according to Underhill (1998), concerns the way in
which power relations are distributed in class, and the decisions affecting how
1.2 Issues Relevant to the L1 in L2 Learning and Teaching 3
classroom participants spend their time. Although classroom politics is not yet a
significant part of teacher training or relevant literature (Underhill 1998), it has been
suggested that how power relations are distributed among participants in L2
classrooms is an issue worth investigating in language education, since ‘the foreign
language classroom may be considered a microcosm of the community outside the
classroom in terms of communication’ (Simon 2001: 314).
Thus there are two central questions that need to be considered concerning
classroom language use: Who decides the medium of instruction in class? Do the L1
and L2 serve different functions in terms of power relations inside the classroom?
Because of inequality between the social roles of teachers and students, it seems
very likely that most teachers unilaterally determine the rules for language use
based on pedagogical criteria rather than asking for students’ opinions. Therefore,
‘it is not unusual for L1 use to become a source of classroom tension, with some
students feeling that it is a waste of time and others seeing it as a necessary support’
(Auerbach 1995: 27–28).
Furthermore, teachers’ attitudes towards power relations within the classroom and
their decisions whether to share power and decisions with students may lead to the use
of different languages. Teachers are likely to use the L2 to maintain their authority, but
the L1 to empower students, in accordance with Collingham (1988: 85):
To treat adult learners as if they know nothing of language is to accept the imbalance of power
and so ultimately to collude with institutional racism; to adopt a bilingual approach and to
value the knowledge that learners already have is to begin to challenge that unequal power
relationship and, one hopes, thereby enable learners to acquire the skills and confidence they
need to claim back more power for themselves in the world beyond the classroom.
Although the maintenance of students’ L1 does not guarantee empowerment

(Polio 1994; Auerbach 1994), and empowering students can probably be achieved
in L2-only classrooms, there is no doubt that by using the L1, teachers are more
likely to enable students to feel more equal to them and more free to say whatever
they want to say. Conversely, the L1 may also be used by students when they want
to challenge teacher authority, or when they feel reluctant to become involved in
performing prescribed tasks.
1.2.2 Teacher Education
In the field of language teacher education, the importance of knowledge of applied

linguistics and second language acquisition, including of course the issue of L1 and
L2 use, as an essential component of the knowledge base of second language
teachers seems to be widely acknowledged. For example, Bartels (2005: 405)
claimed that language teachers need to learn about the theories and findings gen-
erated by research in linguistics and applied linguistics. Freeman (1989: 29) also
pointed out that applied linguistics, research in second language acquisition, and
methodology all contribute to the knowledge base of language teaching. Similarly,
4 1 Introduction
according to Tarone and Allwright (2005: 18), second language acquisition is an

important component of the knowledge base of second language teachers, because
most of the findings of second language acquisition research are closely tied to
teachers’ decision-making in classroom processes as well as curriculum planning.
Caution is needed in how such a knowledge base is used and what is expected of
it. Freeman (1989: 29) argued that too much emphasis had been put on the areas
underpinning language teacher education rather than language teaching itself,
which might lead to two major misconceptions:
The first misconception is that language teacher education is generally concerned with the
transmission of knowledge, specially about applied linguistics and language acquisition,
and skills in methodology and related areas. The second misconception, which follows
closely from the first, is that transmission of knowledge will lead to effective practice.
Freeman and Johnson were also against overattention to knowledge of applied

linguistics, second language acquisition and methodology, and claimed that ‘the
core of the new knowledge base must focus on the activity of teaching itself; it
should centre on the teacher who does it, the contexts in which it is done and the
pedagogy by which it is done’ (Freeman and Johnson 1998: 397).
The general usefulness of theoretical knowledge, however, is not in serious
doubt. Bartels (2005: 405) proposed that ‘armed with this knowledge about lan-
guage, teachers will, among other things, be able to understand and diagnose stu-
dent problems better, provide better explanations and representations for aspects of
language, and have a clearer idea of what they are teaching’. Furthermore, by
examining the findings of a number of studies on learning and using knowledge in
the area of applied linguistics, he claimed (2005: 406) that knowledge of applied
linguistics could have positive effects, as follows:
Firstly, courses in applied linguistics do seem to have the potential to be successful in
changing novice teachers’ conceptions about language and language teaching.
Secondly, applied linguistics courses can also change teachers’ intentions of how they will
teach.
Thirdly, not only do teachers feel that applied linguistic courses, even those which are not
always seen as central to learning to teach languages such as sociolinguistics, are an
important part of their professional development, but also that teachers do try to use the
knowledge gained from applied linguistics courses in their teaching.
As far as current practices of training EFL teachers in China are concerned,

however, most in-service teachers graduate from the four-year undergraduate pro-
grammes in English language and literature. The core curriculum of these pro-
grammes is primarily concerned with the acquisition of knowledge of language
systems, such as phonology and grammar, and English literature and culture, rather
than knowledge of second language acquisition, applied linguistics and teaching
methodology. Thus it seems very likely that many Chinese EFL teachers, especially
novice teachers, lack knowledge about how learners learn the target language. This
is also in accordance with Song and Andrews’ (2009) findings that all the L2
teachers investigated in their study seemed to lack a comprehensive and relevant
knowledge base regarding the issue of the medium of instruction.
Furthermore, the way in which Chinese foreign language teachers achieve pro-
fessional development is very different from that used by western teachers. As noted
by Blatchford (1983: 1202), Chinese EFL teachers seldom attended professional
meetings and workshops, and seldom organized group study for the profession of
language teaching, since there was little feeling that what an individual teacher was
doing in his/her own classroom could provide any professional inspiration to other
teachers. So it seems likely that there is very little discussion of the medium of
instruction issue involved in Chinese EFL teachers’ professional development.
1.2.3 Teacher Cognition
Teacher cognition has been defined in various ways. According to Tsui (2011: 25),
while some researchers have used this term to refer only to teacher thinking and
beliefs, as distinct from teacher knowledge, many others have pointed out that
teacher knowledge, thinking and beliefs are interwoven and have tried to use
‘teacher cognition’ or different terms in a broader sense to include these interrelated
mental constructs. In a study of eight ESL teachers’ cognition, for instance, Woods
(1996: 192) reviewed the distinctions that had been made between teachers’
background knowledge and their beliefs by many researchers, such as Shavelson
and Stern (1981), Clark and Peterson (1986) and Clandinin and Connelly (1987).
Woods (1996: 195) discussed the interrelationships among the three terms ‘beliefs’,
‘assumptions’ and ‘knowledge’, and argued that they are not ‘distinct concepts’ but
rather ‘concepts which are situated on a spectrum ranging from knowledge to belief,
and which in their use, may overlap with each other’. Therefore, he proposed
(1996: 184–212) an integrated view of teachers’ beliefs, assumptions and knowl-
edge, which he called ‘BAK’.
Song and Andrews (2009: 3) mentioned that teacher cognition research in
general education involves teachers’ thought processes (Clark and Peterson 1986),
decision-making (Shavelson and Stern 1981), knowledge (Cater 1990), beliefs
(Calderhead 1996), attitudes (Richardson 1996) and theories (Beach 1994).
However, many researchers, such as Clark and Peterson (1986) and Johnson
(1994), have emphasized the central role of teachers’ beliefs in teacher cognition
since ‘they play a crucial role in how teachers interpret information about learning
and teaching and how they translated it into classroom practice’ (Song and Andrews
2009: 3).
Borrowing and adapting labels from the wider educational literature, many
researchers working in the area of language teaching also use different terms to refer
to similar concepts (as discussed by Borg 2003), such as ‘maxims’ (Richards 1996),
pedagogic principles (Breen et al. 2001), ‘theoretical beliefs’ (Johnson 1992b),
‘personal theories’ (Sendan and Roberts 1998) and ‘BAK’ (Woods 1996).
With the development of cognitive psychology, a number of educational studies
have investigated teachers’ cognitive processes, including their thoughts, judgements,
decisions, beliefs, knowledge, and the relationship between teacher cognition and
6 1 Introduction
classroom practices. Halkes and Olsen (1984: 1, cited in Freeman 1996: 95) were
among the first to describe the shift from a behavioural to a cognitive view of teaching
in this area:
Looking from a teacher-thinking perspective at teaching and learning, one is not so much
striving for the disclosure of the effective teacher, but for the explanation and understanding
of teaching processes as they are. After all, it is the teachers’ subjective school-related
knowledge which determines for the most part what happens in the classroom; whether the
teacher can articulate her/his knowledge or not. Instead of reducing the complexities of
teaching-learning situations into a few manageable research variables, one tries to find out
how teachers cope with these complexities.
As Freeman (1996: 95) said, these researchers argued that it is not only what
teachers do, but also what they think about while doing it, that needs to be taken
into account in order to understand ‘how teachers cope with these complexities’.
Furthermore, Shavelson and Stern’s (1981) review article emphasized the need
to examine the link between teachers’ intentions and behaviours, and identified
factors contributing to teachers’ pedagogical decisions, for example, teachers’
beliefs and complicated realities of classroom practice. Deford (1985: 352) argued
that ‘knowledge…forms a system of beliefs and attitudes which direct perceptions
and behaviours’. Clark and Peterson (1986: 255) also suggested that teachers’
thought processes, consisting of three categories: teacher planning, teachers’
interactive thoughts and decisions, and teachers’ theories and beliefs, ‘substantially
influenced and even determined’ their actions.
However, in a review of research on teacher beliefs and practices, Fang (1996:
52) pointed out that while a number of studies in the field of reading, such as
Blanton and Moorman (1987), supported the notion that teachers’ theoretical beliefs
about reading tended to shape their instructional practices, some other studies, such
as Wilson et al. (1991), suggested there was an inconsistent relationship between
teachers’ beliefs and their instructional practices. The inconsistency, according to
Fang (1996: 53), indicated that immediate classroom factors could also have great
influences on classroom practices. In the area of language teaching, Borg (2003: 91)
made a similar argument about the relationship between teacher beliefs and prac-
tices: ‘teachers’ cognitions, though, emerge consistently as a powerful influence on
their practices…these do not ultimately always reflect teachers’ stated beliefs,
personal theories and pedagogical principles’.
Borg (2003: 84–86) summarized the topics explored by previously published
language cognition research, which reflected the diverse nature of the work on
language teacher cognition. According to this summary, most of the research
centred on two curricular areas in language teaching, namely grammar and literacy
instruction. In contrast, little had been done to examine teachers’ beliefs about the
specific issue of the use of the L1 in L2 teaching, and whether their beliefs were
consistent with their L1-related practices.
Four years later, however, Song and Andrews (2009) filled this research gap
with a study focusing specifically on examining language teachers’ beliefs about the
medium of instruction (MOI) issue and the influence of these beliefs on their
practices. They claimed (2009: 206) that ‘teachers’ beliefs about the MOI…are a
complex construct involving various components relating to L2 teaching: teaching

objectives, the relationship between the L1 and the L2, the contexts in which L2
teaching is situated and teaching practices’. They also argued (2009: 208) that
teachers’ language awareness concerning the MOI plays a crucial role when
teachers decide which language to use when providing input to students. ‘Teacher
language awareness’, as Andrews (2007a, b) noted, refers to ‘the interface between
teacher cognitions about language and the specific language they teach and their
pedagogical practice’ (Song and Andrews 2009: 10). A language-aware teacher in
relation to the MOI, according to Song and Andrews (2009: 208), ‘would have a
principled, context-sensitive and student-sensitive understanding of when it might
be appropriate/facilitative to use the L1, how it might be best to use the L1, and how
much it might be appropriate to use the L1’.
1.2.4 Culture of Learning
Culture is also a factor in the use of the L1 in L2 education, since both teachers and
students have certain expectations about the content and the method of L2 learning
and teaching, and these expectations mainly originate from often hidden assump-
tions embedded in their cultural backgrounds, and general orientations towards
learning, resulting from previous educational experiences (Cortazzi 1990: 54).
Since a teaching method has to suit the beliefs of the society, teaching methods
explicitly transferring knowledge from teachers to students are more likely to be
accepted in cultures perceiving knowledge as a commodity transmitted from
teachers to students rather than collaboratively constructed (Cook 2008: 164). In
Chinese culture, for instance, the communicative approach attempting to promote
non-teacher-controlled activities was at first viewed as an insult to the Confucian
classroom ethos which valued the benefits of learning texts by heart (Sampson
1984, cited in Cook 2008: 164).
Furthermore, in a study of Chinese culture of learning, Cortazzi and Jin (1996:
195) claimed that Chinese students need outside help to have the courage to open
their mouths in class because they are more afraid of losing face. They also com-
mented (1996: 199) that the Chinese culture of learning appears to lead to student
passivity and teacher-centeredness. Thus it can be seen that in the Chinese EFL
classrooms it would be difficult to implement communicative approaches.
In addition, as Cortazzi (1990: 59) pointed out, ‘the perceived nature of a lan-
guage and learners’ cultural and educational experience of it may influence their
expectations of second language learning’. Therefore, because learning to read and
write Chinese requires much tracing, overwriting, copying and memorizing char-
acters, Chinese students and teachers would expect other languages to be taught
using a similar carefully controlled, structured, memory-oriented approach
(Cortazzi 1990: 60).
To sum up, in Chinese EFL classrooms, while there is a cultural difficulty in
implementing communicative approaches which adopt the monolingual principle,
8 1 Introduction
methods involving grammar-translation seems to be more suitable to the expecta-

tions of teachers and students, and the beliefs of the society.
1.2.5 Teaching Context
EFL contexts are those in which English is not used as a medium of communi-
cation, but is taught at school or university as a subject (Phillipson 1992: 24). Here I
will discuss the medium of instruction issue in the Chinese EFL context where the
present study takes place.
The use of the L1 in the Chinese EFL classrooms likely has its roots in the
attempt to implement the first national English syllabus issued after the Cultural
Revolution, which according to Ng and Tang (1997), put heavy emphasis on
developing students’ reading and self-learning abilities. However, with the rapid
development of China’s economy, the recently issued English curriculum
requirements are more concerned with fostering students’ communicative compe-
tence, which has led to the attempts to use communicative approaches and therefore
has reduced the L1 use to some extent. For instance, the latest version of the
College English Curriculum Requirements offers a very detailed description of the
basic listening and speaking abilities that Chinese college and university EFL
students are expected to achieve on completion of their studies:
1. Listening: Students should be able to follow classroom instructions, everyday conver-
sations, and lectures on general topics conducted in English. They should be able to
understand English radio and TV programs spoken at a speed of about 130 to 150 words
per minute (wpm), grasping the main ideas and key points. They are expected to be able to
employ basic listening strategies to facilitate comprehension.
2. Speaking: Students should be able to communicate in English in the course of learning,
to conduct discussions on a given theme, and to talk about everyday topics in English. They
should be able to give, after some preparation, short talks on familiar topics with clear
articulation and basically correct pronunciation and intonation. They are expected to be able
to use basic conversational strategies in dialogue.
(Ministry of Education, China 2007)
Although the college English teaching syllabus does not specify a policy on
medium of instruction, the clear implication seems to be that English should be
taught in English in order to achieve the above requirements, since for most
Chinese students the EFL classrooms are the main sources of English input and the
main occasions on which they use English.
Furthermore, to fit the requirements of the syllabus, almost all the recently
published English textbooks are based on communicative approaches and consist of
many listening and speaking tasks in every unit. This may be part of the reason for
reducing the use of the L1 in EFL classrooms, since ‘the textbook may essentially
determine and control the methods, processes and procedures of language teaching
and learning’ (Litz 2005).
Some recent adjustments in the national examination system may be another

important reason for less use of the L1 in the Chinese EFL classrooms. China has a
rigorous examination system for assessing English learners at different levels, for
example, National College Entrance Examination for high school students, CET-4
and CET-6 (College English Test) for non-English major university students,
TEM-4 and TEM-8 (Test for English Majors) for English major university students
and etc. The importance of these English proficiency tests is obvious because
students have to pass them successfully in order to get admission to university or a
Bachelor’s degree. Many university students even cannot find a good job after
graduation without passing CET-4.
Since for a long time these exams focused almost exclusively on testing stu-
dents’ vocabulary, grammar, reading comprehension and writing rather than their
listening and speaking abilities, the L1 tended to be used extensively in class to
prepare them for these tests.
In recent years, however, the Ministry of Education of China has started to
reconsider the compulsory use of these tests on English learners and has taken a
significant step towards examination reform. For example, the National College
Entrance Examination has started to include a listening test as a necessary element
since 2000; CET has increased the proportion of its listening comprehension part
since 2006, and has developed an oral test since 1999; CET has no set pass mark
since 2005, and passing CET-4 is no longer a must for a Bachelor’s degree. These
changes to some extent might encourage the use of more English rather than
Chinese, to enhance learners’ communicative abilities.
In addition, with the establishment of the social market economy in China,
non-English major university students’ motivation to learn English appears to have
shifted from being a successful examinee to being a good English speaker. Cortazzi
and Jin (1996: 179) claimed that students’ motivations to learn English are strongly
influenced by the societal recognition that China needs a great number of educated
people speaking English, and a general awareness of good job opportunities more
readily available to those who are capable of speaking English. Moreover, various
oral English contests held annually among tertiary institutions, such as the National
English Speaking Competition and the National English Debating Competition,
seem to strengthen the importance of speaking English and stimulate students’
motivations to speak English. In this circumstance, English is probably considered a
preferable language for classroom communication.
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
While, as shown in the previous section, the use of the L1 in L2 education is

considered a controversial issue in the relevant theoretical and empirical literature,
individual teachers’ perceptions of this issue may vary and their use of language
may also vary due to various factors. In a survey of English teaching for
non-English major university students in China (Zheng et al. 1997), for example, in
10 1 Introduction
response to the question ‘with which language do you teach’, only 2.6 % of
teachers claimed that they used English-only in their teaching practices, whilst
90 % of teachers said that a mixture of Chinese and English was the medium of
instruction in their teaching practices, though the ratio of the two languages varied.
So rather than trying to provide a universal yardstick for the use of the L1 in L2
classrooms, the present study focuses on the cases of four Chinese university EFL
teachers and aims to examine to what extent, in what circumstances and for what
functions these teachers use the L1 and L2 in their classrooms as well as the
grammatical patterns of their language use, in the hope of contributing to the debate
on this issue, and our understanding of teachers’ L1-related practices.
Although the issue of the medium of instruction is intimately linked with all the
factors mentioned above, this study mainly focuses on one of them—teacher
cognition, and investigates the four teachers’ beliefs and attitudes regarding the use
of the L1 in L2 education as well as their perceptions of and reasons for their
language use in their classrooms. It also explores the extent to which their peda-
gogical practices are in accordance with the relevant university policy and identifies
the factors that in their opinion seem to influence their behaviours.
In addition, in order to better understand and interpret the complex picture of
classroom discourse, this study examines the teachers’ language use within different
frames of a lesson, and explores the differences in their language use across these
frames.
The research questions addressed in the present study are as follows:
1. How much L1 do the teachers use in the observed Chinese university EFL classrooms
at four levels: beginners, high beginners, intermediate and advanced?
2. What grammatical patterns exist in these teachers’ use of the two languages in their
classrooms?
3. In what circumstances and for what particular functions do these teachers resort to the
use of the L1?
4. As regards their language use, what are these teachers’ perceptions of and reasons for
what they did in a specific lesson? What are their perceptions of and reasons for what
they normally do?
5. What are the observer’s perceptions of what these teachers do regarding their language
use? What differences are there between the observer’s perceptions and these teachers’
own perceptions?
6. What differences exist in teachers’ language use across different frames of classroom
discourse?
7. What are these teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards using the L1 in L2 teaching and
learning?
8. To what extent are the teachers’ language choices in accordance with the current
university policy? If not, what else seems to influence them?
1.4 Overview of the Book
This book consists of eight chapters. The first chapter has given a brief introduction
to the competing views existing in the theoretical and empirical literature on the
controversial issue of the L1 in L2 teaching and learning. It has then examined
1.4 Overview of the Book 11
several factors relevant to this issue, including power and politics, teacher educa-
tion, teacher cognition, culture of learning and teaching context, and has described
the objectives of this study as well as the research questions.
Chapters 2 and 3 respectively explore the relevant literature on the two major
topics of the book—the use of the L1 in L2 education and code-switching in the
classroom, which are respectively derived from the work of applied linguists and
sociolinguists.
Chapter 4 focuses on the design of the data collection of this study and matches
the research questions with the methods most likely to address it. It also describes
the background of this study and provides a short literature review relating to the
methods used, including classroom observation, interview and stimulated recall.
Moreover, it gives details of the data collection process. Another focus of the
chapter is to discuss the approaches used for data analysis.
Chapters 5–7 present the results generated by the three different data collection
methods respectively and make comparisons across the observed teachers. Chapter 5
gives an in-depth analysis of the classroom data in three sections. The first section
investigates both pragmatic and grammatical aspects of the four teachers’
code-switching and identifies functional and syntactic categories by analyzing half an
hour of data per teacher selected from their reading-and-writing course. The second
section quantifies each teacher’s L1 and L2 use across the observed lessons, in order to
provide an overview of how the L1 and L2 are distributed in their two types of courses:
the reading-and-writing course and the listening-and-speaking course. In order to
complement the other data, the final section of this chapter provides a sequential
account of each of the teachers’ language use across different lesson frames by ana-
lyzing a few typical episodes selected from their reading-and-writing lessons.
Chapter 6 presents the findings of the interviews. It examines not only the
teachers’ general knowledge about their current teaching and their students but also
their perceptions of the issue of the medium of instruction and their own L1 and L2
use.
Based on the stimulated recall, Chap. 7 describes the teachers’ own perceptions
of and reasons for their language use in both the reading-and-writing course and the
listening-and-speaking course and discusses the factors that, in their opinion,
influence their use of the L1.
Chapter 8 discusses the overall findings of this study and explores possible
implications both for future research in this area and for L2 teaching and L2 teacher
education.
Part I
Background and Design
Chapters 2 and 3 examine relevant parts of the literature on the two major topics of
the book, teachers’ L1 and L2 use and code-switching. Further short literature
review sections on the data collection methods used, including classroom obser-
vation, interview and stimulated recall, are included in the research design chapter
(Chap. 4).
Chapter 2
The L1 in L2 Learning and Teaching
2.1 Introduction
The previous chapter has looked at several issues relevant to the L1 in L2 learning
and teaching. The current chapter mainly aims to examine the arguments about the
role of the L1 in the two major areas of L2 learning and L2 teaching, and to provide
a review of relevant empirical studies. This chapter also critically reviews empirical
studies specifically on teachers’ use of the L1 and L2 in L2 classrooms.
2.2 The Role of the L1 in L2 Learning
The role of the L1 in L2 learning has been discussed extensively in the literature.
According to Ellis (1994: 300), learners’ prior linguistic knowledge is an important
factor in L2 acquisition, and theories of L2 acquisition ignoring learners’ L1 cannot be
considered complete. Since the recent history of research and theories in L2 acqui-
sition reveals that the L1 has a two-sided role in L2 learning, this section focuses on
reviewing influential theories suggesting either a negative or a positive role of the L1
in L2 acquisition. It also presents relevant findings of empirical studies.
2.2.1 Arguments for the Negative Role of the L1 in L2

Learning
In examining the role of the L1 in L2 learning, there is a need to mention one of the
early theories in second language acquisition, namely behaviourist learning theory,
which was a theory of general learning and then became a dominant school in
psychology. According to behaviourism, language learning, like any other kind of
learning behaviour, can be seen as the formation of habits, that is, the process of
16 2 The L1 in L2 Learning and Teaching
creating stimulus-response associations through imitation or reinforcement

(Mitchell and Myles 2004: 30).
Although in the behaviourist view both L1 and L2 learning are considered as
forming a set of language habits, the process of L2 learning is very different from
that of L1 learning. As Mitchell and Myles (2004: 31) put it:
When learning a first language, the process is relatively simple: all we have to do is learn a
set of new habits as we learn to respond to stimuli in our environment. When learning a
second language, however, we run into problems: we already have a set of well-established
responses in our mother tongue. The SLL process therefore involves replacing those habits
by a set of new ones.
In the foreword to Lado (1957), Fries also wrote:

Learning a second language…constitutes a very different task from learning the first language.
The basic problems arise not out of any essential difficulty in the features of the new language
themselves but primarily out of the special “set” created by the first language habits.
Behaviourist learning theory believes that the old habits of the L1 inevitably
interfere with the process of learning the new habits of the L2, and predicts that the
similarities between the L1 and L2 facilitate L2 learning while the differences
between the two languages lead to negative transfer and errors (Ellis 1985: 22).
Although the behaviourist account of L2 learning seems to indicate that the L1 plays
both a negative and a positive role in L2 learning, it puts more emphasis on the
negative influence of the L1. For example, Ellis (1994: 299) pointed out that ‘ac-
cording to behaviourist theories, the main impediment to learning was interference
from prior knowledge’. Corder (1981: 1) also mentioned that this theory predicted
errors to be ‘the results of the persistence of existing mother tongue habits in the new
language’ and that ‘consequently a major part of applied linguistic research was
devoted to comparing the mother tongue and the target language in order to predict
or explain the errors made by learners of any particular language background’.
On the basis of the behaviourist view, Lado was among the first to compare two
languages, with a view to fighting off L1 interference and improving the efficiency
of L2 teaching. Lado’s Contrastive Analysis (CA) was based on a fundamental
assumption that ‘in the comparison between native and foreign language lies the
key to ease or difficulty in foreign language learning’ (Lado 1957: 1). To be
specific, it is assumed that ‘the student who comes in contact with a foreign lan-
guage will find some features of it quite easy and others extremely difficult. Those
elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him, and those
elements that are different will be difficult’ (Lado 1957: 2). Therefore, in order to
overcome the negative influence of the L1 on L2 education, L2 teachers need to
identify the differences between students’ L1 and L2, and to direct students’
attention to potential errors and the areas of difficulty. As Lado (1957: 2) noted, ‘the
teacher who has made a comparison of the foreign language with the native lan-
guage of the students will know better what the real learning problems are and can
better provide for teaching them’.
The behaviourist view of language learning was later challenged by Chomsky’s
mentalist view which emphasized what he referred to as learners’ language
2.2 The Role of the L1 in L2 Learning 17
acquisition device rather than linguistic environment (Ellis 1985: 12). In his critical
review of Skinner’s ‘Verbal Behaviour’, Chomsky (1959: 30–31) pointed out that
Skinner used experimental results of studies of animal behaviour as the evidence for
the nature of language behaviour, and that the notions of ‘stimulus’ and ‘response’
seem to be empty in terms of language behaviour. The importance of ‘reinforce-
ment’ was also doubted since ‘it is simply not true that children can learn language
only through “meticulous care” on the part of adults who shape their verbal
repertoire through careful differential reinforcement’ (Chomsky 1959: 42). In
addition, he argued (1959: 57) that behaviourist learning theory seems unable to
explain how a child acquires its first language at very early age. In doing so,
…the young child has succeeded in carrying out what from the formal point of view, at
least, seems to be a remarkable type of theory construction. Furthermore, this task is
accomplished in an astonishingly short time, to a large extent independently of intelligence,
and in a comparable way by all children.
The criticism of Contrastive Analysis was based on empirical, theoretical, and

practical considerations (Ellis 1985: 27). In a review of several empirical studies
systematically investigating L2 learners’ errors, Ellis (1985: 28–29) reported that the
percentage of interference errors reported by these studies varied from 3 % (Dulay
and Burt 1973) to 51 % (Tran-Chi-Chau 1975), and that many errors predicted by
CA did not occur and many errors which were not predicted by it did occur. These
studies provided empirical evidence for the insufficiencies of CA, in terms of pre-
dicting potential errors and difficulties as well as accounting for most of them. Ellis
attributed the problem of CA to its failure to recognize sources of difficulty other
than the influence of the L1, and identified many possible explanations for the
difficulty of a given structure, for example, ‘its saliency, its communicative value to
the learner, the extent to which it is marked or unmarked, or the ease with which it
can be processed in production or comprehension’ (Ellis 1994: 308).
As a result of the attack on behaviourism and CA, some researchers (see, for
example, Newmark and Reibel 1968; Dulay and Burt 1972) have argued that the
influence of the L1 is of little importance in L2 learning. Ellis (1994: 315) believed
that this ‘minimalist position’, as he called it, was an overreaction caused by
overestimating the closeness of the relationship between interference and beha-
viourism. Newmark and Reibel (1968: 159), for example, considered L1 interfer-
ence only as a manifestation of ignorance:
…a person knows how to speak one language, say his native one; but in the early stages of
learning his new one, there are many things that he has not yet learned to do…What can he
do other than use what he already knows to make up for what he does not know? To an
observer who knows the target language, the learner will be seen to be stubbornly substi-
tuting the native habits for target habits. But from the learners’ point of view, all he is doing
is the best he can: to fill in his gaps of training he refers for help to what he already knows.
Dulay and Burt (1972, cited in Ellis 1994: 314) used a new concept, ‘general
processing strategies’, rather than ‘interference’ to explain different types of errors
of L2 learners. Moreover, in contrast to theorists and proponents of behaviourism,
the researchers holding the minimalist position claimed that L2 acquisition was
essentially similar to L1 acquisition (Ellis 1994: 314; Odlin 1989: 22). Odlin (1989:
22) argued that although they recognized that differences existed in the success
achieved in L2 acquisition in comparison with L1 acquisition, they saw such dif-
ferences as the result of factors such as motivation, anxiety about making errors,
and the learner’s environment. The minimalist view seemed to imply that the way
children acquired their L1 was the best method of learning a language, and that L2
learners should acquire the L2 the same way as children acquired their L1, rather
than relying on their L1. Therefore, it seemed that both maximizing L2 input and
avoiding the use of the L1 were necessary in L2 classrooms. This view was indeed
common around the 1970s.
Like the researchers mentioned above, Krashen adopted a minimalist position on
the role of the L1. His Monitor Model theory consists of five hypotheses about
second language acquisition (Krashen 1982; Krashen and Terrell 1983):
1. The acquisition-learning hypothesis
2. The natural order hypothesis
3. The monitor hypothesis
4. The input hypothesis
5. The affective filter hypothesis
The acquisition-learning distinction states that adults can develop competence in
a second language in two distinct and independent ways: acquisition and learning.
While acquisition is a subconscious process in which learners acquire a language
‘naturally’ through real communication, learning is conscious, and refers to
developing ‘formal knowledge’ of a language. According to Krashen, like children,
adults still have the ability to acquire a second language. The natural order
hypothesis claims that ‘grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order’
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 28). The monitor hypothesis explicitly states that L2
learners depend only on the acquired system to generate utterances, and that the
conscious learning can only be used as a monitor to make changes to the utterances
generated by the acquired system, either before or after they are actually produced.
Furthermore, monitor use is said to be very limited, since three requirements have
to be met in order to use the monitor: (1) the learner has enough time; (2) the learner
is thinking about correctness; (3) the learner knows the rule. While the monitor
hypothesis indicates a central role for acquisition in the development of second
language competence, the input hypothesis answers how acquisition takes place. It
states that acquisition takes place when acquirers understand input which is a little
beyond their current level of competence, that is, they can move from stage i to the
next stage i + 1 by understanding input containing i + 1 (i represents their current
competence). The affective filter hypothesis says that attitudinal factors, such as
motivation, relate to subconscious language acquisition, and that learners with
optimal attitudes will obtain more input and acquire more.
While Krashen and Terrell (1983: 42) recognized that the L1 could be used as a
short-term solution to meet the immediate needs of learners in L2 communication
before they acquire sufficient L2 competence, they acknowledged falling back on
the L1 could have a negative influence on L2 learning, for example, errors emerging
as a result of the inconsistency between the L1 and L2 rules. Furthermore, unlike

behaviourists who claimed that interference was caused by negative transfer of
learners’ knowledge of their L1, Krashen and Terrell (1983: 41–42) adopted
Newmark’s ideas and interpreted interference as the result of a strategy for com-
munication, which learners used when they did not have sufficient knowledge of the
L2. They also believed that the disadvantages of falling back on the L1 outweighed
the advantages in the long run.
Moreover, unlike CA encouraging teachers to make changes in pedagogy to help
fight off L1 interference, the cure proposed by Krashen and Terrell (1983: 41) for
interference is acquisition coming only from comprehensible input. This seems to
indicate that the main responsibility for L2 teachers in their teaching is simply to
provide sufficient comprehensible L2 input. They further explained that L1 inter-
ference took place because ‘the second language performers have to talk “too
early”, before they have had the time and input to build enough competence to use
acquired competence’ (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 42). Therefore, in order to
overcome L1 interference, they suggested that learners should wait for sufficient
competence to build up through input before communicating in the L2 rather than
using the L1 as a temporary substitute, that is, the L2 should be acquired separately
from learners’ L1 to avoid negative influence of the L1.
Krashen’s view that input at the appropriate level of difficulty is sufficient for L2
acquisition to take place has been regarded as inadequate in more recent theories
(Mitchell and Myles 2004: 20). Although the importance of comprehensible input
had been widely recognized, Swain (cited in Wong-Fillmore 1985: 33) claimed that
comprehensible input alone is by no means a sufficient condition leading to suc-
cessful language learning, and that, in addition to comprehensible input, compre-
hensible output is a key factor in second language development, since it reflects
learners’ attempts to understand the structure of the L2 by putting their own
communicative intentions into practice. Regarding the contribution of language
output to L2 learning, Mitchell and Myles (2004: 21) also stated that ‘when we try
to say something in our chosen second language, we are forced to make gram-
matical choices and hypotheses in order to put our utterances together’.
Furthermore, second language interaction is valued because it offers the
opportunities to L2 learners to adapt the input to their needs and it is believed that
the utterances produced in second language interaction will be at the appropriate
level of difficulty to provide true ‘comprehensible input’ (Mitchell and Myles 2004:
22). Similarly, Long (1996, cited in Turnbull and Arnett 2002: 205) argued that
learners internalize the L2 input, once given the opportunity to interact with and
negotiate the meaning of the input. In this sense, it seems more suitable to use the
L2 rather than the L1 as the language of instruction, especially for classroom
interaction. Conversely, as Cook (2001: 409) said, using the L1 for classroom
interaction was considered to be ‘depriving the students of the only true experience
of the L2 that they may ever encounter’. Littlewood (1991: 45) also claimed that
‘many learners are likely to remain unconvinced by our attempts to make them
accept the foreign language as an effective means of satisfying their communicative
needs if we abandon it ourselves as soon as such needs arise in the immediate

classroom situation’.
2.2.2 Arguments for the Positive Role of the L1 in L2

Learning
As mentioned earlier, traditional CA was criticized largely for ‘its predictive and
explanatory claims and its behaviouristic-structuralistic rationale’ (Kupferberg
1999: 212). It viewed L1 interference as the main or even the only impediment to
L2 learning and played down the benefits of positive transfer of the L1. However,
CA was not abandoned immediately. Rather, it was developed to explain what took
place ‘when two languages come into contact in the bilingual brain’ (James 1996:
143), since learners were found to be often curious about the relationships between
the L2 and their L1 (Seliger 1983: 181).
As Kellerman (1995, cited in James 1996: 145) pointed out, both the theory and
practice of CA have changed since it was incorporated into a cognitive framework,
‘where the learner is more in charge of his own learning destiny, and whose explicit
goals now include even cultural understanding as well as accuracy’. CA is now
often done by learners in classrooms rather than by applied linguists. Poldauf
(1995: 6) suggested that the implementation of CA should proceed from the sim-
ilarities to the differences between the L1 and L2 language systems. Although it
used to be thought that this probably gave learners a false impression of ‘a per-
vasive sameness’, research on learners’ ‘psychotypological’ selectivity in language
transfer has suggested that this is not a problem (James 1996: 145).
Later studies on CA (see, for example, James 1996; Kupferberg and Olshtain
1996, Kupferberg 1999; Doughty 1991) have been primarily concerned with
engaging learners’ attention in the differences between the L1 and L2, and raising
their cross-linguistic awareness by using cross-lingual teaching strategies, in order
to facilitate L2 learning.
James (1996: 146–147) discussed effective ways to raise learners’ cross-
linguistic awareness in L2 teaching: firstly, establishing a link between an L2 form
and its corresponding L1 form can make learners conscious of the target form, and
assist them in memorizing it, since the relationship between the L1 and L2 is often
asymmetrical; secondly, translation can be particularly effective, since two mani-
festations of the L1 and L2 are juxtaposed in the act of translation and language
juxtaposition is the essence of CA.
Kupferberg and Olshtain (1996) and Kupferberg (1999) examined the effect of
contrastive metalinguistic input (CMI) on learners’ grammar acquisition. CMI,
according to them, was defined as ‘teacher-induced salience which foregrounds
differences between the learners’ L1 and L2 which have been established as areas of
difficulty in studies independent of the CA’ (Kupferberg 1999: 212). These studies
both showed that CMI focusing attention on explicit differences between the
languages facilitated the acquisition of difficult L2 structures. Moreover, they

supported the theoretical claim that L2 learners often made a cognitive comparison
between the L2 input they noticed and their L1 (Kupferberg 1999: 212), as well as
the view that assisting learners in making an L1-L2 comparison could be beneficial
to L2 learning and teaching.
The term ‘interlanguage’, coined by Selinker in 1972, is an important concept in
discussing L2 learners’ cognitive processes. According to Ellis (1985: 47), some
other early researchers used different terms for this phenomenon, for example,
Nemser (1971) used ‘approximative systems’ and Corder (1971) used ‘idiosyncratic
dialects’ and ‘transitional competence’. Interlanguage theory, as Ellis (1994: 350)
pointed out, ‘was the first major attempt to provide an explanation of L2 acquisition’.
In the article introducing the concept ‘interlanguage’, Selinker (1972: 214)
argued that ‘in the making of the constructs relevant to a theory of second-language
learning, one would be completely justified in hypothesizing, perhaps even com-
pelled to hypothesize, the existence of a separate linguistic system (interlanguage)
based on the observable output which results from a learner’s attempted production
of a TL norm’, because it could be observed that ‘this set of utterances (the L2
utterances produced by learners) for most learners of a second language is not
identical to the hypothesized corresponding set of utterances which would have
been produced by a native speaker of the TL had he attempted to express the same
meaning as the learner’.
Although interlanguage studies began with study of the problems resulting from
the comparison of the L2 with the L1 (Selinker 1992: 23), they ‘moved one step
beyond error analysis, by focusing on the learner system as a whole, rather than
only on its non-target-like features’ (Mitchell and Myles 2004: 9).
In order to explain L2 acquisition, Selinker (1972: 215) identified five cognitive
processes involved in interlanguage construction:
1. language transfer
2. transfer-of-training
3. strategies of second-language learning
4. strategies of second-language communication
5. overgeneralization of TL linguistic material
Here, ‘language transfer’ refers specifically to the influence of the L1. It seems
clear that within this framework Selinker viewed the L1 as a major determinant
contributing to interlanguage development.
Moreover, there is controversy regarding the starting point of the interlanguage
continuum, which is a dynamic system evolving over time. The question is,
‘whether the starting point is some remembered early version of the L1, which is
complexified through the general process of hypothesis-testing, or whether it is the
innate knowledge of language which all children bring to the task of learning their
L1, as proposed by Chomsky (1965)’ (Ellis 1994: 353). Nevertheless, Ellis (1994:
353) argued that in some aspects of language, such as phonology, the starting point
of L2 acquisition might be the L1.
In an attempt to understand language transfer as a cognitive process, Ellis (1994:

338) considered how learners’ L1 influenced L2 learning, and proposed the fol-
lowing framework:
While in interlanguage theory Selinker categorized language transfer separately
from L2 learning and communication strategies, Ellis (1994: 337–338) proposed
that the L1 is utilized in both L2 communication and learning, that is, the L1 system
is used not only by language comprehension and production mechanisms, but also
in the hypothesis construction responsible for interlanguage development (see
Fig. 2.1). He also claimed (1994: 339) that the L1 system can help to make L2 input
and output comprehensible. Thus it seems that the cognitive turn of L2 learning
theories has led to a reinterpretation of the role of the L1 in L2 learning. As Ellis
(1994: 343) said:
…whereas in behaviourist accounts it (the influence of the L1) was seen as an impediment
(a cause of errors), in cognitive accounts it is viewed as a resource which the learner
actively draws in interlanguage development.
Although behaviourist learning theory seemed to overemphasize the errors

resulting from negative transfer, it is now acknowledged that L1 transfer can also
have very positive effects on L2 learning. For instance, Odlin (1989) investigated
L1 transfer in different aspects of L2 learning such as semantics, phonology, writing
systems and syntax and claimed that ‘much of the influence of the native language
can be very helpful, especially when the differences between two languages are
Fig. 2.1 The role of the L1 in L2 communication and learning (Ellis 1994: 338)
relatively few’ (Odlin 1989: 26). Ellis (1994: 303) also argued that facilitation is
obvious not only in a reduced number of errors but also in the rate of learning.
A number of empirical studies (see, for example, Gass 1979; Hyltenstam 1984)
have observed positive transfer by examining L2 learners with different L1s. Jiang
(2002, 2004) carried out two studies of semantic transfer from the L1 to the L2 in
the area of vocabulary, by comparing the reaction of native and non-native English
speakers to the two types of related word pairs: same-translation pairs and
different-translation pairs. For example, ‘problem’ and ‘question’ share the same
Chinese translation ‘问题’, whereas ‘painter’ and ‘artist’, which are also related in
meaning, have different translations in Chinese. The non-native speaker participants
in these two studies were graduate students from China and Korea studying in the
United Sates of America. All of the participants were presented with both related
and unrelated English word pairs and then were asked to determine whether two
English words were related in meaning. These studies showed that although the
native speakers’ performance was not influenced by whether or not an L2 word pair
shared the same L1 translation, the non-native speakers responded to the
same-translation pairs much faster than to the different-translation pairs.
Accordingly, Jiang (2002: 617) claimed that ‘L2 lexical forms are often mapped to
the existing semantic content of their first language translations rather than to new
semantic specifications of their own’. Based on the evidence for a positive effect of
semantic transfer on non-native speakers’ L2 lexical processing, Jiang (2004: 425)
also suggested that the L1 can be used positively in L2 vocabulary teaching ‘as a
means of semantization and ways to help learners overcome semantic fossilization’.
The relationship between the word forms of the L1 and L2 and concepts in L2
learners’ minds has been examined by a number of researchers (see, for example,
Cook 2002b; De Groot 2002; Kroll 1993) using the basic hierarchical
three-component model below (Fig. 2.2).
Several models have been proposed to illustrate how the three components
connect to each other across the two levels.
As seen in Fig. 2.3, in the word-association model, the L2 word form is directly
related to the corresponding L1 word form and only the L1 word form connects
with a concept. In the conception-mediation model (see Fig. 2.4), the word forms of
the L1 and L2 are not related to each other, but both of them are related to a
concept. These models propose two possible ways for assigning meaning to the L2
Fig. 2.2 The

three-components two-levels
overall model of L2
lexical representation
(Cook 2002b: 30)
Fig. 2.3 The word-

association model (potter
et al. 1984, cited
in De Groot 2002: 37)
Fig. 2.4 The

concept-mediation model
(potter et al. 1984, cited in De
Groot 2002: 37)
word form, that is, through the connection between the L1 and L2, or the con-
nection between the L2 and conceptual meaning, which is in accordance with
Ellis’s statement that ‘the acquisition of L2 words usually involves a mapping of the
new word form onto pre-existing conceptual meanings or onto L1 translation
equivalents as approximations’ (Ellis 1997: 133).
Kroll (1993) proposed another version of the three-component model (see
Fig. 2.5), which is more than a combination of the word-association and
concept-mediation models (De Groot 2002: 39). This model uses solid lines and
broken lines to represent strong connections and weak connections respectively. As
shown in Fig. 2.5, the connection between the concept and the L1 word form is
stronger than that between the concept and the L2 word form. Moreover, this model
assumes two connections between the word forms in the L1 and L2: a strong link
from the L2 to L1 and a weak link from the L1 to L2. The link from the L2 to L1,
which is stronger than the link between the L2 and the concept, indicates that in the
first instance L2 learners are more likely to acquire L2 words through L1 transla-
tions (Kroll and Stewart 1994: 158).
Fig. 2.5 The asymmetrical

model (Kroll 1993: 69)
Fig. 2.6 Distributed model (De Groot 2002: 49)
The distributed model was designed by De Groot (2002) to explain the fact that
‘the two words in translation pairs very often (maybe even most often) do not share
meaning completely’ (De Groot 2002: 49). As shown in Fig. 2.6, conceptual
meaning consists of elements which belong specifically to the L1 and L2.
Although these models have suggested different relationships that may exist
among the L1, the L2 and conceptual meaning in L2 learners’ minds, all of them
seem to indicate that the L1 is a natural part of L2 learners’ thinking, and that it
plays a significant role in L2 learning, especially in L2 vocabulary acquisition. As
Cook (2001: 407) noted, ‘the L2 meanings do not exist separately from the L1
meanings in the learners’ mind, regardless of whether they are part of the same
vocabulary store or parts of different stores mediated by a single conceptual sys-
tem’. Similarly, Kern (1994: 442) said that L1 use in the form of mental translation
is probably inevitable, especially for L2 learners at early stage. Stern (1992: 282)
also claimed that ‘the L1-L2 connection is an indisputable fact of life’.
Cook (1991, 1992, 1999, 2001, 2002a, 2005) has investigated some distinctive
characteristics of L2 users as well as the relationship between the L1 and L2 in their
minds. He proposed the term ‘multicompetence’ to refer to the compound state of a
mind with a knowledge of more than one language. In view of the evidence that L2
users differ from monolinguals in many respects including L1 knowledge, L2
knowledge, metalinguistic awareness and cognitive processes, Cook (1992: 557)
argued that people with multicompetence have ‘a distinct state of mind’ which is
not simply equivalent to two monolinguals but a unique combination. From the
multicompetence perspective, L2 acquisition should be examined based on the
whole mind of L2 learners rather than simply their L1 or L2.
To illustrate how the L1 and L2 coexist in L2 learners’ minds, Cook (2002a: 11)
presented an integration continuum which could be applied across different areas of
language, such as phonology and grammar, shown in Fig. 2.7.
As seen in Fig. 2.7, three possible relationships exist between the two language
systems in multicompetence: total separation, interconnection, and total integration.
In most cases, the two languages are more or less interconnected. Total separation
and total integration at the two ends of the integration continuum are the two
extreme possibilities that rarely take place.
Fig. 2.7 The integration continuum of possible relationships in multicompetence (Cook 2002a: 11)
It seems clear that multicompetence theory provides a rationale for some (though
perhaps limited) use of the L1 positively in L2 learning. As Cook (2001: 408) put it:
Keeping the languages visibly separate in language teaching is contradicted by the invisible
processes in students’ minds. Language teaching that works with this fact of life is more
likely to be successful than teaching that works against it.
Socio-cultural theory, which has been applied only recently to the area of L2
learning, is also of great importance in the discussion of the role of the L1 in L2
learning. This theory was developed by the Soviet psychologist Vygotsky between
1925 and 1934. Within a socio-cultural perspective, all learning is viewed as
first social and inter-mental, then individual and intra-mental (Mitchell and Myles
2004: 221).
Lantolf is probably the most influential figure advocating applying Vygotsky’s
socio-cultural theory to L2 learning (Mitchell and Myles 2004: 193). Among
several socio-cultural concepts related to learning processes, such as mediation, the
zone of proximal development (ZPD), scaffolding, and private speech, Lantolf
(2000b: 1) argued that the most basic and central element of this theory is that ‘the
human mind is mediated’. He explained that this view was derived from the ideas of
Vygotsky:
Vygotsky (1987) argued that just as humans do not act directly on the physical world but
rely, instead, on tools and labour activity, we also use symbolic tools, or signs, to mediate
and regulate out relationships with others and with ourselves. Physical and symbolic tools
are artefacts created by human culture(s) over time and are made available to succeeding
generations, which often modify these artefacts before passing them on to future genera-
tions. Included among symbolic tools are numbers and arithmetic systems, music, art, and
above all language. As with physical tools, humans use symbolic artefacts to establish an
indirect, or mediated, relationship between ourselves and the world. The task for psy-
chology, in Vygotsky’s view, is to understand how human social and mental activity is
organised through culturally constructed artefacts and social relationships.
(Lantolf 2000a: 80)
Now, it is clear that from the perspective of socio-cultural theory, language

functions as a tool for mediation, and language learning viewed as a social and
inter-mental activity is a mediated process. Furthermore, the development of
learning resulting from useful mediation occurs within the ZPD, in which ‘the
learner is not yet capable of independent functioning, but can achieve the desired
outcome given relevant scaffolded help’ (Mitchell and Myles 2004: 196).
According to Lantolf (2000b: 17), this concept is ‘a metaphor for observing and
understanding how mediational means are appropriated and internalized’.
According to socio-cultural theory, collaborative interaction is essential to
learning. As Swain and Lapkin (1998: 321) pointed out, ‘what occurs in collabo-
rative dialogues is learning’. So the studies of L2 learning as a mediated process
have focused on looking at how L2 learning is mediated by language use in col-
laborative interactions between students and between teacher and students, and a
number of them (see, for example, Anton and DiCamilla 1999; Brooks and Donato
1994; Brooks et al. 1997; Villamil and De Guerrero 1996; De Guerrero and
Villamil 2000; Swain and Lapkin 1999; Donato and Lantolf 1990) have discussed
the role of the L1, and the functions it serves in collaborative interaction in the L2
classroom.
Anton and DiCamilla (1999) examined the role of the L1 in the collaborative
interactions of five dyads of learners of Spanish completing a writing task, and
found that ‘use of L1 is beneficial for language learning, since it acts as a critical
psychological tool that enables learners to construct effective collaborative dialogue
in the completion of meaning-based language tasks by performing three important
functions: construction of scaffolded help, establishment of intersubjectivity, and
use of private speech’ (Anton and DiCamilla 1999: 245). Similarly, Villamil and De
Guerrero (1996: 60) claimed that for most of their Spanish students learning to
write in English, ‘the L1 was an essential tool for making meaning of text,
retrieving language from memory, exploring and expanding content, guiding their
action through the task, and maintaining dialogue’. In a review article published in
2000, Lantolf summarized the current state of understanding on mediation through
the L1 and suggested that ‘it does make sense to recognise that the L1 plays a key
role in helping learners to mediate each other, and … themselves, in the appro-
priation of another language’ (Lantolf 2000a: 87). More importantly, he pointed out
(2000a: 87) that learners’ L2 proficiency is not the only determinant of the use of
the L1 for mediation since language is strongly implicated in their identity as
thinking beings.
The relationship between L1 and L2 acquisition is important, because it affects
L2 learning and teaching. If L2 acquisition is no different from L1 acquisition, it is
felt that L2 learning and teaching should be based on the features of child first
language acquisition. Concerning this issue, while some researchers, such as Dulay,
Burt, and Krashen, have emphasized the similarities largely based on the evidence
for developmental sequences (Odlin 1989: 21), others have pointed out that L1 and
L2 acquisition may differ in many aspects. For instance, Dodson (1972: 59) pro-
vided a comprehensive description of the differences between L1 and L2 learners:
First-language learner Second-language learner

1. He has no command of another language 1. He has command of another language
before learning the target language before learning the target language
2. He is neurologically immature, thus his 2. He is neurologically mature, thus his
mother tongue is not fixed mother tongue is fixed
3. He learns to recognize and cope with 3. He learns to recognize and cope with
reality through the target language reality through the mother tongue, not the
target language
4. He requires a high contact-frequency 4. He already knows that all things have
with the target language to learn that all names
things have names
5. He requires a high contact-frequency 5. He has already experienced the process,
with the target language to recognize the involving high contact-frequency and
meaning of sounds representing the names maturation, of recognizing the meaning of
of things, because he is neurologically sounds representing the names of things in his
immature, because his range of experience mother tongue. As he is now neurologically
with the outside world is limited and as he mature, he need not be subjected a second
has no knowledge of the equivalent meaning time to the same process in the new target
of sounds from another language for the same language merely to recognize the equivalent
things meaning of target-language sounds for the
same things. (Recognition of the sound
representing the thing should not be confused
with the integration of the sound with the
thing, see 6)
6. He requires a high contact-frequency to 6. He has already established integration of
establish integration of mother-tongue sounds mother-tongue sounds with things, but
with things requires high contact-frequency to establish
new integration of target-language sounds
with the same things
7. He cannot read before learning the target 7. He can read before learning the target
language language
8. He cannot write before learning the target 8. He can write before learning the target
language language
(Dodson 1972: 59)
More researchers have made similar arguments later on when comparing L1 and
L2 acquisition. For example, Macaro (2000: 173) said that the L1 is another
resource available to L2 learners. Cook (2001: 406) argued that ‘the L1 monolin-
gual child does not have another language; it is the one element that teaching could
never duplicate’. Singleton (1989) claimed that ‘L2 learners have more mature
minds, greater social development and a larger short-term memory capacity’ (Cook
2001: 406).
There has been considerable discussion of issues relating to the learner’s age.
According to Felix (1987, cited in Davies 2003: 35), L1 and L2 acquisition differ in the
crucial respect that for adult L2 learners, two different cognitive systems, the
language-specific system and the problem-solving system which compete against
each other in the processing of language data, are both available from the onset of
puberty, whereas for children learning their L1, only the language-specific system is
available. Moreover, although there is a theoretical argument that both L1 and L2
learners are innately equipped with a ‘Language Acquisition Device’ (Chomsky
1965) or ‘Universal Grammar’ (Chomsky 1980), Lenneberg’s (1967) critical period
hypothesis holds that the access to this device is only available during a biologically
determined period and that language acquisition becomes much more difficult after
this period. Similarly, Macaro (2000: 173) claimed that for L2 learners at a certain age,
the language acquisition device is superseded by ‘high level cognitive skills which
have been developed through the L1’. In addition, Selinker (1972) proposed the term
‘fossilization’ to refer to ‘the process by which non-target forms become fixed in
interlanguage’ (Ellis 1994: 353). Selinker and Lamendella (1978, cited in Ellis 1994:
354) identified several possible causes of fossilization and among these, age was
considered a major internal factor, that is, certain linguistic features could not be
mastered because learners’ brains lost plasticity when they reached a critical age.
To sum up, it seems evident that learners’ prior linguistic knowledge and their
age are two major unalterable internal factors resulting in the differences between
L1 and L2 acquisition, although some researchers (see, for example, Dulay, Burt
and Krashen) have attributed the differential success achieved by L1 and L2
learners to external environmental factors and individual learner factors (see
Sect. 2.2.1). The aforementioned essential differences between L1 and L2 acqui-
sition seem to indicate the impracticality of learning the L2 in a way which exactly
mimics child first language acquisition.
2.3 The L1 in L2 Teaching
This section chronologically reviews some major methodologies which have

greatly impacted L2 teaching in various periods, and discusses the role of the L1 in
each of them.
A close look at the history of language teaching reveals that the role of the L1 in
L2 classrooms has been the focus of controversy and that both theorists’ and
empiricists’ attitudes towards it have changed periodically.
2.3.1 An Early Attempt to Conduct L2 Teaching in the L2
According to Kelly (1969: 287), an early attempt to conduct L2 classes in the L2

dates back to the system of encouraging spoken Latin in school in the Middle Ages
and the early Renaissance, when teachers commonly held the belief that fluency and
readiness in Latin could only be achieved through regular practice in oral pro-
duction, and that speaking Latin in class could provide plenty of such practice.
However, this system had been criticized for various reasons since the fifteenth
century. For example, it would probably ‘weaken stylistic sense’ (Kelly 1968: 288).
The argument over whether to run Latin classes in Latin continued until the
development of ‘logical and rule-governed approaches’ (Kelly 1969: 288), which
focused more on teaching Latin grammar.
2.3.2 The Grammar-Translation Method
The Grammar-Translation Method had its roots in the teaching of Latin in school
during the period from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. It had become the
widely accepted way of teaching foreign languages in schools by the nineteenth
century, and dominated L2 teaching from the 1840s to the 1940s (Richards and
Rodgers 2001: 4–6). Despite its name, the original motivation for this method was
not to teach languages by grammar and translation, but to reform the traditional
scholastic approach which was usually employed by highly educated individual
adults to ‘acquire a reading knowledge of foreign languages by studying a grammar
and applying this knowledge to the interpretation of texts with the use of a dic-
tionary’, and adapt it to the requirements of younger school learners and
group-teaching in classrooms (Howatt 1984: 131).
The basic goal of the Grammar-Translation Method is to enable learners to read
literature in the L2 (Larsen-Freeman 2000; Richards and Rodgers 2001). Thus the
teachers who use this method put primary focus on grammar rules, vocabulary,
reading and writing. In the teaching process, grammar rules, vocabulary and
examples of the L2 are often taught through L1 translation or equivalents, and then
students are required to memorize them and to practise what they have learned
through translation exercises.
The role of the L1 in the Grammar-Translation Method is particularly important,
since the L1 is used extensively to explain the meaning of the L2 and translation is
used as a major technique of practice. As Stern (1983: 455) mentioned, the L1 is the
reference system in L2 learning. In contrast, the L2 plays little role in this method
and students are not encouraged to speak the L2 in class.
The Grammar-Translation Method came under attack in the mid-nineteenth
century for various reasons. As Richards and Rodgers (2001: 8) pointed out:
Educators recognized the need for speaking proficiency rather than reading comprehension,
grammar, or literacy appreciation as the goal for foreign language programs; there was an
interest in how children learn languages, which prompted attempts to develop teaching
principles from observation of (or, more typically, reflections about) child language learning.
Moreover, it often creates frustration for students, because for them this method
means ‘a tedious experience of memorizing unusable endless lists of grammar rules
and vocabulary and attempting to produce perfect translations of stilted or literary
prose’ (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 6).
More importantly, it is a method with no explicit underlying theory, and no
literature offers a theoretical rationale or justification for it (Richards and Rodgers
2.3 The L1 in L2 Teaching 31
2001: 7). For this and other reasons, this approach went out of favour, although ‘in
modified form it continues to be widely used in some parts of the world today’,
especially in the circumstances where the purpose of L2 learning was to understand
literary texts rather than to speak the language (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 6–7).
2.3.3 The Direct Method
In the late nineteenth century, the failure of L2 teaching was often attributed to the
prevailing Grammar-Translation Methodology. So the reform movement began: the
reformers, including both language education specialists and linguists, such as
Macel, Gouin, Sweet, and Passy, attempted to make changes to the teaching
methodology for the purpose of improving the efficiency of L2 teaching. According
to Howatt (1984: 173), one of the principles of the reform movement was the
priority of oral methods in the classroom, that is, teachers were expected to use the
L2 as the medium of instruction in class and to keep the L1 only for explaining new
grammar points and vocabulary. It seems clear that the reform movement did not
completely exclude the use of the L1 from L2 classrooms, although it basically
followed the monolingual principle.
A number of new methods in L2 teaching were developed during this period,
such as ‘the Natural Method’, ‘the Psychological Method’ and ‘the Phonetic
Method’, and later these methods were commonly referred to as the ‘Direct
Method’. The Direct Method originated from the attempt to promote a methodology
based on the observed features of child language learning. It aims to enable students
to communicate in the L2 for everyday purposes, and follows a basic natural
language learning principle that the L2 should be taught without using students’ L1
or translation. Thus teachers using the Direct Method are normally expected to
encourage students to build a direct link between meaning and the L2. Although
they are not allowed to convey meaning through translation, they can use other
methods such as demonstration, action, realia and pictures.
Although the Direct Method was often characterized by the rejection of the use
of the L1 and translation, not all Direct Methodists denied the value of the L1
entirely. For example, as Passy (cited in Kelly 1969: 25) noted,
As any hint of exaggeration must be avoided, I must add that it would not be good to reject,
absolutely and systematically, all recourse to the mother tongue. In exceptional circum-
stances it could happen that one might be in too much of a hurry to use gestures and
explanations in the foreign language.
In response to Franke, who provided a theoretical rationale for a monolingual

approach by investigating the psychological principles of direct connection between
L2 forms and concept (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 11), Hagboldt (cited in Kelly
1969: 26) argued that the avoidance of some recall of L1 words is almost impos-
sible when connecting a familiar concept with the L2. According to Kelly (1969:
26), the extremism of the later Direct Methodists who rejected every part of the old
approach was a reaction to the scorn of traditional teachers.
Although the Direct Method attracted much attention, it was felt to have several
drawbacks, which were summarized by Richards and Rodgers (2001: 12–13):
1. It overemphasized and distorted the similarities between naturalistic first language

learning and classroom foreign language learning and failed to consider the practical
realities of the classroom.
2. …it lacked a rigorous basis in applied linguistic theory.
3. It required teachers who were native speakers or who had nativelike fluency in the
foreign language
4. …strict adherence to Direct Method principles was often counterproductive, since
teachers were required to go to great lengths to avoid using the native language, when
sometimes a simple, brief explanation in the students’ native language would have been
a more efficient route to comprehension.
2.3.4 The Audiolingual Method
The Audiolingual Method originated from the ‘army method’ which was used in
the United States of America in World War II to train people to use the L2 quickly
for special military purposes. Although, like the Direct Method, the Audiolingual
Method aims to prepare students to use the L2 to communicate, it has many unique
features. Firstly, it has a theoretical basis in structural linguistics, which assumes
that ‘the phonological and grammatical systems of the language constitute the
organization of language and by implication the units of production and compre-
hension’ (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 55). Therefore, while students taught with
the Direct Method are expected to take in grammatical patterns gradually through
exposure to the L2, the Audiolingual Method perceives grammatical structures and
sentence patterns as the starting point of L2 learning and holds that the L2 should be
taught ‘by systematic attention to pronunciation and by intensive oral drilling of its
basic sentence patterns’ (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 52). Another learning prin-
ciple underlying Audiolingualism is that listening and speaking skills have priority
over reading and writing skills in language teaching. As Rivers points out, ‘lan-
guage skills are learned more effectively if the items to be learned in the target
language are presented in spoken form before they are seen in written form’ (Rivers
1964: 20), which is based on an important idea emanating from structural lin-
guistics, that is, ‘the primary medium of language is oral’ (Richards and Rodgers
2001: 55). Secondly, the Audiolingual Method draws on the theory of behaviourist
learning (see also Sect. 2.2.1). According to this theory, human learning, including
language learning, is in essence a process of habit formation which depends on
three major elements: stimulus, response and reinforcement. In order to form strong
new habits in the L2, students are expected to overlearn the L2 so that they can use
it without stopping to think (Larsen-Freeman 2000: 43). Furthermore, since it is
believed that students need to replace the old habits in the L1 with the new habits in
the L2 in the process of their L2 learning, the L1 is viewed as the major interference
in their L2 learning. Thus, as with the Direct Method, it is assumed that the L2
rather than the L1 should be used as the medium of instruction in L2 classrooms.
However, L1 use is not as severely restricted in the Audiolingual Method as it was
in the Direct Method (Stern 1983: 464). In order to predict potential difficulties
students may encounter, teachers can use Contrastive Analysis to identify the dif-
ferences between the L1 and L2. This method was finally rejected because of the
strong attack on its theoretical groundings in behaviourist theory of learning and
structural linguistics.
2.3.5 Communicative Language Teaching
Since its first introduction in the 1970s, Communicative Language Teaching has
quickly become an influential approach, attracting attention from language teachers
all over the world. Unlike the preceding methods with their emphasis on gram-
matical competence, the goal of this approach is to develop learners’ ‘commu-
nicative competence’, which was proposed by Hymes (1972) in order to contrast it
with what Chomsky referred to as ‘linguistic competence’ (Richards and Rodgers
2001: 159). Both concepts are useful, but communicative competence is arguably
more important as a goal for teachers, since ‘one can master the rules of sentence
formation in a language and still not be very successful at being able to use the
language for meaningful communication’ (Richards 2006: 3). Therefore, as Spada
(2007: 273) pointed out, ‘Hymes’ theory of communicative competence and the
notion that knowing a language includes more than a knowledge of the rules of
grammar (i.e. linguistic competence) but also a knowledge of the rules of language
use (i.e. communicative competence) had a significant impact on CLT’. Various
researchers have suggested that communicative competence should be divided into
components. For example, Canale and Swain (1980) argued that it consists of three
elements: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic
competence. Canale (1983) added another element—discourse competence.
Communicative Language Teaching has been interpreted and implemented in
various ways by language practitioners. As Richards and Rodgers (2001: 155)
pointed out, ‘there is no single text or authority on it, nor any single model that is
universally accepted as authoritative’. Howatt (1984) made a distinction between
the ‘strong’ version and the ‘weak’ version of communicative language teaching.
While the weak version emphasizes ‘the importance of providing learners with
opportunities to use their English for communicative purposes’, the strong version
holds that ‘language is acquired through communication’ (Howatt 1984: 279).
Thus, the former is described as ‘learning to use English’, whereas the latter is
regarded as ‘using English to learn it’ (Howatt 1984: 279).
According to Howatt (1988: 25), although Communicative Language Teaching

has made many changes to L2 classrooms, such as involving communicative
activities, emphasizing the value of authentic texts and valuing the needs and
interests of learners, it has some characteristics of the Direct Method, including the
monolingual principle:
CLT has adopted all the major principles of 19th century reform: the primacy of the spoken
language, for instance, the inductive teaching of grammar, the belief in connected texts and,
most significant of all, the monolingual (direct method) principle that languages should be
taught in the target language, not in the pupils’ mother tongue.
It seems clear that L1 use should be minimized in the communicative classroom.

The L2 should be used not only during communicative activities, but also for
explaining activities or assigning homework to students (Larsen-Freeman 2000:
135). When using students’ L1 for classroom management, teachers are ‘sacrificing
valuable opportunities for well-motivated foreign language use’ (Littlewood 1991:
45). In this case, students are expected to ‘learn from these classroom management
exchanges, and realize that the target language is a vehicle for communication, not
just an object to be studied’ (Larsen-Freeman 2000: 135).
2.3.6 The Natural Approach
The Natural Approach was not as popular as the methods discussed above. It was
proposed by Krashen and Terrell in 1983, on the basis of Krashen’s Monitor Model
(see Sect. 2.2.1). Krashen and Terrell (1983: 57) grouped the Natural Approach
with ‘traditional’ approaches, which were ‘based on the use of language in com-
municative situations without recourse to the native language’ (Krashen and Terrell
1983: 9), such as the Direct Method. They also pointed out that this approach ‘is
similar to other communicative approaches being developed today’ (Krashen and
Terrell 1983: 17) since it aimed to develop learners’ ability to communicate with
native speakers of the L2.
Unlike the methods attaching great importance to grammar, such as the
Audiolingual Method, Krashen and Terrell believed that grammar played a very
limited role in L2 teaching although it could be taught for monitor use. One of the
key principles of the Natural Approach is that ‘comprehension precedes production’
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 20). Thus, listening and reading are given priority over
speaking and writing. In addition, since this approach places an emphasis on
comprehension and input, teachers are expected to speak the L2 all the time to
provide comprehensible input for acquisition and to help students understand.
Therefore, the L1 seems to have a minimal role in the natural approach.
2.3.7 Summary
In this section I have reviewed several influential methodologies in language teaching.

While the Grammar-Translation Method involves L1 use, others such as the Direct
Method and the Audiolingual Method, minimize or completely reject the L1.
The Grammar-Translation Method was the most widely practised method
deliberately involving the use of the L1. After its decline in the late nineteenth
century, some more recent methods sharing features with it also suggest the positive
role of the L1 in L2 teaching.
For example, the Cognitive-code Method, developed under the influence of
cognitive psychology and transformational grammar as a response to the criticisms
against Audiolingualism, was ‘a return to grammar explanation’ (Krashen and
Terrell 1983: 16). According to Richards and Rodgers (2001: 66), there was a
considerable interest in applying the cognitive-code theory to language teaching in
the 1970s, however, ‘no clear-cut methodological guidelines emerged, nor did any
particular method incorporating this view of learning’.
Cook (2001) examined four methods that actively use the L1 in L2 classrooms,
including alternating language approaches, the New Concurrent Method,
Community Language Learning and Dodson’s Bilingual Method, and concluded
that ‘none of them have probably been practised on a larger scale, nor do any
represent a complete approach that can apply to a variety of situations’.
Larsen-Freeman (2000) also explained how Suggestopedia (Lozanov 1978)
allowed teachers to use the L1 when necessary, especially to explain meaning.
However, this method has similarly not received extensive academic attention.
Thus it seems that the use of the L1 has been gradually viewed less favourably
by L2 teaching theorists after the Grammar-Translation Method lost its prominent
role. One reason may be that L2 teaching shifted its focus away from ‘the acqui-
sition of the language system’ to ‘communicative skills’ (Corder 1992: 18).
2.3.8 L2 Teaching Methods in China
If we turn to the recent history of language teaching in China, the context of the
present study, certain theories mentioned above can be seen to be especially
relevant.
The following table shows Adamson’s summary of two other writers.
As seen in Table 2.1, although the Grammar-Translation Method and
Audiolingualism have lost favour in language teaching theory, they have been
persistently used in the Chinese EFL classrooms. Such a mismatch between theory
and practice is common in many human activities and may reflect other factors
affecting social behaviour. For instance, Chinese students’ experience of learning to
read and write their first language may influence their expectations of English
learning (see the discussion in Sect. 1.2.4).
Table 2.1 Teaching methods in the history of English teaching in China (Adamson 1998: 18)
Tang lixing Penner
1958–66: 1950–60:
Grammar-Translation; classroom-centred, Intensive reading; Five steps (review old
teacher-centred, textbook-centred materials, orient new materials, explain new
materials, consolidate newly-learned
materials, give assignments)
1961–66:
Audiolingualism; Five steps
1966–76: 1966–76:
Grammar-Translation Grammar-Translation; recitation; Five steps;
some Audiolingualism
1977–80: 1977–80:
Audiolingualism and Grammar-Translation; Grammar-Translation and Audiolingualism;
pattern drills plus memorization and intensive reading; Five steps
references to mother tongue
1980 1980
Grammar-Translation, Audiolingualism and Grammar-Translation, Audiolingualism and
eclectic communicative approaches eclectic communicative approaches
2.4 Empirical Studies on Teachers’ L1 and L2 Use
Studies of teachers’ language use have primarily focused on investigating how

much, in what situations and for what functions teachers use the L1 and L2 in L2
classrooms. Some of these studies have also made attempts to explore factors
probably influencing teachers’ language choice, teachers’ perceptions of L1 use,
and students’ perceptions of their teachers’ language use.
2.4.1 Quantity of Teachers’ L1 and L2 Use
Most studies examining the quantity of L1 and L2 use by teachers have shown
substantial variation across teachers even in the same teaching context. For
example, Kim and Elder (2005) observed seven native speaker teachers of four
foreign languages at secondary schools in New Zealand and found that their use of
students’ L1 varied from 10 to 66 %. Liu et al. (2004) investigated thirteen Korean
high school English teachers and showed that the amount of Korean used by these
teachers ranged from 10 to 90 %. Duff and Polio (1990) looked at thirteen foreign
language courses offered at the University of California and found that the amount
of L1 use among these teachers varied from 0 to 90 %. Guthrie (1987) observed
that L2 use in university-level French classes ranged from 59 to 98 %.
Some other studies have shown a relatively small percentage of L1 use. For
instance, Macaro (2001) found from 0 to 15.2 % L1 use in French classes of six
2.4 Empirical Studies on Teachers’ L1 and L2 Use 37
English student teachers in secondary schools, with a median of 4.8 %.

Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) also reported an average of 8.8 % L1 use by the
four teachers in their study. Song and Andrews (2009) reported that the proportion
of L1 use by the four Chinese English teachers ranged from 10.5 to 32.2 %.
Mitchell and Johnstone (cited in Chaudron 1988: 124) indicated that L2 use by the
secondary school French teachers they observed was about 70 %.
As we shall see, these studies have examined the percentages of L1 and L2 use
by L2 teachers who taught students at different levels in a wide range of contexts.
Despite the varying levels of L1 use, very few teachers in these studies completely
abandoned using the L1 in their teaching, which seemed to be in accordance with
Mitchell’s (1988) findings that only a small number of teachers interviewed
believed L2 exclusivity was appropriate, and most of them approved of mixed
language use of the L1 and L2.
2.4.2 Functions of Teachers’ L1 Use
Since it seems inadequate to take the proportion of L2 use as the main benchmark
for assessing the quality of classroom instruction, many recent studies have used
qualitative methods to explore teachers’ language use in L2 classrooms and most of
them have focused on examining various functions of teachers’ L1 use.
For example, Polio and Duff (1994) identified eight categories of functions for
which the observed teachers used the students’ L1, including classroom adminis-
trative vocabulary, grammar instruction, classroom management, solidarity, prac-
ticing English, unknown vocabulary, lack of comprehension and interactive effect
involving students’ use of English. Kim and Elder (2005) developed a complex
category system to describe the pedagogical functions of teaching acts, such as
directive, cue, prompt, evaluate, check, discipline, nominate, display question,
accept, and metastatement, and reported that the most frequent functions that L1 use
served in their study included accept, starter, marker, discipline, nominate and
check. Liu et al. (2004) identified several linguistic functions of L1 use by 13 high
school Korean teachers of English, such as explaining difficult vocabulary and
grammar, giving background information, overcoming communicative difficulties,
saving time, highlighting important information and managing student behaviour.
Researchers’ views about the appropriateness of the types of L1 use have varied
widely. For example, Cook (2001) proposed two broad areas in which the L1 could
be used positively by teachers in L2 teaching: (1) to convey meaning, including
conveying and checking meaning of words or sentences and explaining grammar;
(2) to organize classes, for example, organizing tasks, maintaining discipline,
contacting individual students, and testing. He believed (2001: 418) that the L1
should be used when ‘the cost of the TL is too great’, that is, whenever it was too
difficult or time-consuming for students to comprehend the L2. Atkinson (1987)
also suggested that L1 use could serve a wide variety of purposes in L2 classrooms,
such as eliciting language, checking comprehension, giving instructions, supporting

co-operation among learners, discussing classroom methodology, providing rein-
forcement of language, and testing. In contrast, many others suggested the L1
should be used in more limited areas. For instance, Castellotiti (1997, cited in
Turnbull and Arnett 2002: 209) argued that the L1 was beneficial when used as a
way of enhancing the input to help students understand, for example, checking
comprehension, highlighting important points or salient vocabulary and drawing
students’ attention to what they already know or have studied. Harbord (1992)
divided a variety of L1 strategies into three categories: facilitating teacher-student
communication, facilitating teacher-student relationships, and facilitating L2
learning. In his opinion, however, the L1 should be used only to support students’
L2 learning. Turnbull (2001b, cited in Turnbull and Arnett 2002: 207) claimed that
teachers should use the L1 for the sole purpose of ensuring students’ understanding
of a grammatical concept or vocabulary item.
Although many of these researchers have suggested some similar areas in which
the L1 can be used positively, individual teachers’ L1 use may still vary widely due
to a variety of factors.
2.4.3 Factors Influencing Teachers’ Language Choice
A small number of studies have explored the factors that may influence teachers’
language choice. Duff and Polio (1990: 161) proposed several classroom-external
and classroom-internal variables that might affect teachers’ language use, such as
students’ L2 proficiency, teachers’ perception of L1 and L2 distance, teachers’
experience, departmental policy concerning the language of instruction, the func-
tion and difficulty of the utterances, and the language used by students in the
previous utterance.
Franklin (1990: 21) identified several factors that the teachers in her study
considered important in terms of the possible influence on their language use, for
example, their confidence in speaking the L2, the size of the class, the reaction of
the students when they spoke the L2, the presence of many low-level students in the
class, the behaviour of the students and how tired they were on a given day.
Similarly, Song and Andrews (2009) identified major factors influencing four
Chinese EFL teachers’ beliefs about the issue of the medium of instruction and their
behaviour, which included students’ abilities, teachers’ abilities, observation by
‘experts’ and time pressure.
Johnson (1983) and Pennington (1995) found a systematic relationship between
language choice and particular functions. According to Johnson (1983, cited in
Song and Andrews 2009: 58), teachers normally used the L2 to present content of
the textbook and to give related instruction, whereas they used the L1 mainly for
personal interaction and explanation. Based on her studies of classroom language
Table 2.2 Strategic motives For the second language:

of language use in bilingual • to be formal
classrooms (Pennington 1995: • to present content, i.e., to instruct
101) • to control classroom communication
• to perform a one-way communication
• to emphasize the teacher’s authority
• to stress social distance between teacher and students
• to establish discipline in a routine and perfunctory manner
• to raise the level of challenge
• to gain students’ immediate attention and response
For the mother tongue:
• to be informal
• to negotiate content, i.e., to explain or discuss
• to allow students to control classroom communication
• to interact
• to de-emphasize the teacher’s authority
• to de-stress the social distance between teacher and students
• to establish discipline in a way which stresses the students’
responsibility or in serious cases
• to lower the level of challenge
• to gain students’ long term attention and response
use, Pennington (1995) also listed possible motives for teachers’ use of the L1 and
L2, as shown in Table 2.2.
2.4.4 Teachers’ Perceptions of L1 Use
A number of studies on teachers’ perceptions of their own L1 use have focused on

examining for what purposes they think they resort to the L1. Most of these studies
have been summarized by Macaro (2000), as shown in Table 2.3.
It can be observed from Table 2.3 that the teachers investigated in these studies
across different learning contexts used the L1 in their teaching, and that they
believed the L1 could be used positively for various purposes. Their perceptions of
the purposes of their own L1 use have many categories in common. For example,
many of them reported that they used the L1 for the purpose of grammar expla-
nation, discipline and complex procedural instructions.
In addition to investigating teachers’ purposes of using the L1, some studies
have also explored their beliefs about L1 use in L2 classrooms, as well as their
reasons for using the L1.
For example, in his TARCLINDY project, Macaro (1997, cited in Macaro 2009:
35–36) investigated teacher beliefs and attitudes regarding L1 use, and suggested
that teachers had three different theoretical positions: some holding the ‘virtual
position’ believed that the L2 could only be learnt through itself, and that L2-only
Table 2.3 Studies of teachers’ use of target language (Macaro 2000: 178)
Study author(s) L2 teaching Data collection Purposes of L1 use by teachers
and date context instruments
Wragg 1970 England; Classroom Criticism of learners; lexical
Secondary observation contrasting
Wing 1980 US; Secondary Teacher self report Discipline; explanations of grammar
sheets
Prabhu 1987 India; Secondary Case study Glossing of lexical items; complex
procedural instructions
Mitchell 1988 Scotland; Interviews and Explanations of grammar; discipline
Secondary observations activity instructions teaching
background
Kharma and Arabic L1, Questionnaires; Explanations of complex lexical
Hajjaj 1989 country not classroom items; speeding up the
specified, observation; teaching/learning process
secondary interviews
Hopkins 1989 England ESL Questionnaire Instructions and explanations
secondary and comparison of cultural differences
further education
Franklin 1990 Scotland Questionnaire Discipline; explanations of
secondary grammar; discussing language
objectives; teaching background
Duff and Polio US; university Observations; Explanations of grammar; speeding
1990 questionnaires; up the teaching/learning process
interviews
Macaro 1995 Italy secondary Questionnaire; Complex procedural instructions;
interview building up relationships with
learners
Dickson 1996 England Questionnaire Discipline; setting homework;
secondary explaining meanings; teaching
grammar
Macaro 1997 England Questionnaire; Complex procedural instructions;
secondary interviews; classroom discipline; building personal
observation relationships
Neil 1997 Northern Ireland Teacher interviews; Examination techniques; instructions
secondary self reports; for tests; explaining grammar;
classroom
observation
Macaro 1998 England Classroom Discipline; complex procedural
secondary observation; instructions; glossing of lexical
interviews items
classrooms could create a ‘virtual reality’ which mirrored the environment of the
target language country; some holding the ‘maximal position’ believed that learning
the L2 through L2-only was an ideal but unattainable learning condition in L2
classrooms, and therefore they thought that L2 use should be maximized; some
holding the ‘optimal position’ believed that L1 use had some recognizable value,
and that in some cases using the L1 might be more effective in enhancing learning.
Scheers (1999) conducted a study with 19 teachers and their students on the use
of Spanish in EFL classes at the University of Puerto Rico. All the teachers in his
study agreed that Spanish should be used in the classroom and reported using
Spanish to some extent. 22 % of them thought it was appropriate to use Spanish to
explain difficult concepts, 15 % of them thought using Spanish to joke with stu-
dents was appropriate, 12.6 % of them thought using Spanish was appropriate when
defining new vocabulary items.
Tang (2002) reported that 72 % of the Chinese EFL teachers he observed
thought Chinese should be used in the classroom. For them, Chinese was most
necessary when practising the use of some phrases and expressions and when
explaining difficult concepts and ideas. They believed that using Chinese was
necessary because it facilitated comprehension and it was more effective and less
time-consuming.
Macaro (2001) explored two student teachers’ beliefs about their own
code-switching processes in L2 lessons. According to him, the student teacher
believing that the L2 lesson should ideally be conducted through L2-only experi-
enced ‘conflict’ in using the L1 for procedural instructions when teaching the lowly
motivated students. However, the other student teacher, who believed in the value
of the L1 in enhancing the understanding of semantic and syntactic L2 equivalents,
and preferred to use the L1 for the purposes of keeping the L2 interaction moving
forward, giving procedural instructions and controlling classroom behaviour,
experienced no ‘conflict’ regarding L1 use.
The 13 Korean EFL teachers investigated by Liu et al. (2004) indicated that
while English was important for the purpose of greeting, giving directions, asking
questions, teaching listening and speaking and reviewing lessons, they preferred to
use the L1 for teaching grammar, explaining difficult content issues, teaching
reading and facilitating students’ comprehension. They also listed several reasons
for their L1 use, for example, it helped low-level students to understand better, it
was less time-consuming, and it helped when they had difficulty to speak or to
explain in English.
In a self-report, Edstrom (2006) also identified three main situations in which she
might use the L1. Firstly, she preferred to use the L1 to express her concern about
students’ feelings and to build rapport with them. Secondly, she used the L1 to help
students to understand target cultures and the relationship between language and the
realities it described. Thirdly, the L1 might be used when she felt tired and found it
difficult to ‘discipline’ herself.
Song and Andrews (2009) explored four Chinese EFL teachers’ beliefs about the
L1 in L2 learning. Two of the teachers in their study were against using the L1,
whereas the other two advocated L1 use. The teachers opposing L1 use believed
that the L1 played a negative role in thinking in the L2, and that high-level students
could keep the L2 separate from the L1. However, the teachers supporting L1 use
believed that the L1 played a positive role in connecting the L2 with concept
meaning, and that the L1 was an indispensable part of L2 learners’ thinking.
2.4.5 Students’ Perceptions of Their Teachers’ L1 Use
Many studies have explored students’ perceptions of their teachers’ L1 use. Duff and
Polio (1990) conducted a student survey to examine how much L1 the students would
like to have their teachers use in class, relative to the current L1 usage by their teachers.
The students were given three options: more English than now, the same amount as
now, and less English than now. The results revealed that in every class more than
71 % of the students were satisfied with the current amount of the L1 their teachers
used, no matter what amount of the L1 their teachers actually used. Moreover, in
response to the question of whether they could understand their teachers’ L2 use, over
70 % of the students said that they could understand most of it.
Scheers (1999) used questionnaires to examine Spanish students’ attitudes
toward using their L1 in the EFL classrooms. About 88.7 % of the students in his
study thought that Spanish should be used in their English lessons. More than 50 %
of the students thought that Spanish should be used between 10 and 39 % of the
time. 86 % of the students felt that it was appropriate to use Spanish to explain
difficult concepts in their classes. Most of them preferred using their L1 because it
was helpful when they felt lost. About 87 % of the students believed that using their
L1 in EFL classes could help them to learn English to varying degrees.
Tang (2002) conducted a similar survey of 100 Chinese EFL students. 70 % of
the students thought that Chinese should be used in English classrooms, but none of
them thought Chinese should be used more than 30 % of class time. 97 % of them
liked their teachers to use Chinese. According to them, Chinese was especially
necessary when explaining complicated grammar points and introducing new
vocabulary items. Regarding why they thought using Chinese was necessary, 69 %
of the students reported that it enhanced their comprehension of the difficult con-
cepts, and 42 % of them indicated that it helped them to understand new vocabulary
items. Very few of them said that it made them feel less stressed or less lost.
Liu et al. (2004) reported that, in their study, the numbers of the students
choosing the L1 and L2 as the medium of instruction were almost equal. The
students selected the L1 because it was easier for them to understand than the L2.
Ahmad (2009) investigated 257 low-proficiency English students’ perceptions of
their teachers’ code-switching in classroom instructions in Malaysia. The students
confirmed that their teachers code-switched for a variety of functions, such as
checking for understanding, explaining difficult concepts, explaining the meaning
of new words, making the learners feel relaxed, elaborating on matters concerning
classroom management, and explaining differences between L1 and L2 grammar.
More than 68 % of the students indicated that their teachers’ code-switching had a
positive influence on their affective state, for instance, making them enjoy their
lesson, feel satisfied with their learning and comfortable to learn. More than 67 %
of the students also reported a positive relationship between the teachers’
code-switching and their learning success. For example, they mentioned that the
teachers’ use of code-switching could help them to carry out tasks successfully and
to understand new words, difficult concepts and English grammar.
In her self-evaluation study, Edstrom (2006) also used questionnaires to inves-

tigate her students’ perceptions of her own L1 use. The majority of her students
realized that she used some L1 and that the quantity of her L1 use remained the
same over the course of the semester. Moreover, they realized that she used the L1
to clarify questions, difficult points and grammar, to give or explain directions and
to compensate for lack of comprehension.
Moreover, some studies have examined the relationship between students’
attitudes to L1 use and their L2 proficiency levels. Prodromou (2002) investigated
the attitudes of 300 Greek students with three different proficiency levels. He found
that while low level students tended to respond positively to the use of the L1,
students at advanced levels had a negative attitude toward the use of the L1. Nazary
(2008) conducted a study in the Iranian context to gather tertiary students’ per-
ceptions of the use of the L1. His findings showed that the majority of the
Iranian EFL students at different proficiency levels all had a negative attitude
toward L1 use in their English lessons, largely due to their hope for more exposure
to the L2.
2.4.6 Optimal Use of the L1
According to Macaro (2009: 38), ‘optimal use is where code-switching in broadly

communicative classrooms can enhance second language acquisition and/or profi-
ciency better than second language exclusivity’. However, he pointed out (2009:
39) that few studies have investigated whether ‘switching to the first language as
opposed to maintaining second-language discourse, in specific circumstances,
actually leads to better learning whether in the short term or the long term’.
Therefore, he examined this issue in two studies within the area of L2 vocabulary
acquisition. In the first study, the teacher taught new vocabulary items to three
groups of Chinese students of English in different ways: providing L1 equivalents,
L2 definitions or both L1 equivalents and L2 definitions. The results of the study
showed that there were no significant differences in learning under these conditions.
In Macaro’s (2009: 43) opinion, this demonstrated that using the L1 at least did no
harm to vocabulary acquisition. In the second study, Macaro (2009: 47) explored
students’ ‘strategic reactions’ to teachers’ switches to the L1 and reported that
teacher code-switching ‘triggers a number of strategic reactions which appear to
confirm students’ hypothesis generation, lead to contextualization and provide
information used in additional processing’.
Although the existing studies on teachers’ language use have investigated the
above-mentioned aspects across different contexts, few of them have compared the
L1-related behaviours and perceptions of teachers who teach students at different
proficiency levels. Furthermore, the studies conducted in Chinese university EFL
classrooms have been mainly concerned with teachers’ language use in the tradi-
tional reading-and-writing course, and few of them have examined teachers’ lan-
guage use in the recently developed listening-and-speaking course. This study will
attempt to fill these gaps by exploring the actual language use and perceptions of
four Chinese EFL teachers, teaching students at four different proficiency levels in
the two types of courses. In addition, it will aim to understand their beliefs about the
issue of L1 and L2 use and the possible factors influencing their language choices.
Chapter 3
Code-Switching
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a literature review on code-switching. It first looks at defi-

nitions of code-switching and distinctions between code-switching and code-
mixing and between code-switching and borrowing. It then reviews relevant the-
ories and empirical studies on code-switching from both a grammatical and a
pragmatic perspective. While the former focuses particularly on the syntactic
constraints governing code-switching, the latter reviews major theories and studies
relevant to the functions of code-switching. Finally, this chapter provides a review
of studies on classroom code-switching.
3.2 Definitions
The sociolinguistic term ‘code-switching’ has been variously defined by many

researchers and, as Gluth (2002) pointed out, the definitions had different focuses,
ranging from purely linguistic aspects to social aspects of this linguistic phenomenon.
Poplack (1980: 583), for example, offered a linguistically-based definition: she
defined code-switching as ‘the alternation of two languages within a single discourse,
sentence or constituent’, which in balanced bilinguals is governed not only by
extra-linguistic but also linguistic factors. In contrast, many others proposed defini-
tions based more on the social aspects of code-switching. For instance, Gumperz
(1982: 59) defined it as ‘the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of pas-
sages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems’.
Milroy and Muysken (1995: 7) referred to code-switching as ‘the alternative use by
bilinguals of two or more languages in the same conversation’. Heller (1988: 1) used
code-switching to refer to ‘the use of more than one language in the course of a single
communication episode’. Myers-Scotton (1993a: vii) defined it as ‘the use of two or
more languages in the same conversation, usually within the same conversational turn,

46 3 Code-Switching
or even the same sentence of that turn’. Likewise, Hoffmann (1991: 110) thought that
code-switching is ‘the alternate use of two languages or linguistic varieties within the
same utterance or during the same conversation’. Although these definitions are
slightly different, it seems to be agreed that code-switching refers to the use of two or
more languages within or beyond an utterance.
3.2.1 Code-Switching and Code-Mixing
While the above-mentioned researchers used code-switching as an inclusive con-

cept covering both intersentential and intrasentential switching, some others (see,
for example, Bokamba 1989, Kamwangamalu 1992, Kamwangamalu and Lee
1991, Hamers and Blanc 2000) used the term ‘code-switching’ only for intersen-
tential switches, and another term, ‘code mixing’, for intrasentential switches.
Bokamba (1989) made a clear distinction between the two terms: code-switching
and code-mixing. In his view, code-switching refers to ‘the mixing of words, phrases
and sentences from two distinct grammatical (sub-) systems across sentence
boundaries within the same speech event’, while code-mixing is ‘the embedding of
various linguistic units such as affixes (bound morphemes), words (unbound mor-
phemes), phrases and clauses from two distinct grammatical (sub-) systems within
the same sentence and speech event’ (Bokamba 1989: 278). That is, code-switching
is intersentential switching, whereas code-mixing is intrasentential switching. The
concept ‘language alternation’ has been used as an umbrella term to refer to ‘any
occurrence of two (or more) languages in the same conversation’ (Torras and
Gafaranga 2002: 546).
However, this distinction is not as clear as it looks. For instance, according to
McCormick (1995: 194), code-mixing often involves single words, whereas
code-switching involves longer elements. Gluth (2002) stated that ‘the notion of
“code-switching” is used for clean grammatical switching, which does not violate
the rule of either languages, whereas the notion “code-mixing” is used for
sequences which violate the grammar rules of one or both languages’. Other
researchers (see, for example, Muysken 2000) have even claimed that the terms
code-mixing and code-switching are interchangeable.
This seems to leave a rather confused picture as to what these key concepts
exactly mean. As Milroy and Muysken (1995: 12) put it:
The field of code-switching research is replete with a confusing range of terms descriptive of
various aspects of the phenomenon. Sometimes the referential scope of a set of these terms
overlaps and sometimes particular terms are used in different ways by different writers.
Although, as Milroy and Muysken (1995: 12) said, standardizing the terms in the
field of code-switching research has been an impossible task, it is important to locate
my own position and define clearly the terms used in the present study. Following
researchers such as Gumperz (1982), in this study I have used code-switching to
include switches occurring at both intersentential and intrasentential levels.
3.2 Definitions 47
3.2.2 Code-Switching and Borrowing
Many researchers (see, for example, Field 2002, Gluth 2002, Pahta 2004, McClure
2001, Myers-Scotton 1993a, Poplack 1980, Crespo and Moskowich 2006) have
attempted to distinguish code-switching from borrowing and proposed several
criteria derived from different perspectives.
Firstly, distinctions have been made from the perspective of grammar. Poplack
(1980) proposed that the status of a single lexical item in a bilingual utterance
should be determined by identifying ‘levels of integration into base language’. In
her opinion, a lexical item, which was integrated phonologically, morphologically
and syntactically into base language, constituted borrowing. In other cases, it was
regarded as code-switching. However, the phonological criterion was later rejected,
since, as Myers-Scotton (1993a: 21) pointed out, in some cases borrowing was not
phonologically integrated. Poplack et al. (1988: 93) made another useful distinc-
tion: while in code-switching, the speaker alternated between two grammars, in
borrowing only one grammar was in operation.
Secondly, some distinctions have rested on the speaker’s language competence.
According to Gluth (2002), code-switching could only occur in the speech of those
with some degree of competence in two languages, whereas borrowing could take
place in the speech of monolinguals.
Thirdly, distinguishing between borrowing and code-switching might be based on
frequency of occurrence. According to Myers-Scotton (1993a, cited in McClure 2001:
162), ‘codeswitched forms include only those which occur infrequently and do not
stand for an object or concept new to the culture’. However, this resolution might be
problematic because of ‘the difficulty of establishing relative frequency for lexemes
standing for much less commonly expressed concepts or objects and the arbitrariness
of deciding how much relative frequency is enough’ (McClure 2001: 162).
Fourthly, McClure (2001: 161) suggested that native speakers’ perceptions could
be used to ascertain the status of a word as a borrowing or a code-switch. However,
she recognized the problematic nature of this criterion, due to ‘the response
depending on the linguistic sophistication and attitude of the informant’ (McClure
2001: 161).
Although the above researchers seemed to regard code-switching and borrowing as
two different language contact phenomena, distinction between them was not always
clear cut. Some researchers (see, for example, Clyne 2003; Pahta 2004; Hamalri 1997;
Myers-Scotton 1992; Treffers-Daller 1991) believed that code-switching and bor-
rowing formed a continuum, and accepted that code-switching could probably
become borrowing. As Gardner-Chloros (1987: 102) put it:
…it would appear that the distinction between code-switching and loans is of a ‘more or
less’ and not an absolute nature… If it is an innovation on the speaker’s part, it is
code-switching. If it is frequently used in that community—whether or not in free variation
with a native element—then it is at least on its way to becoming a loan. In short, a loan is a
code-switch with a full-time job.
48 3 Code-Switching
Like Ge (2007), I believe that the criteria discussed above have been taken into
account by lexicographers, and therefore, in this study, I used the Contemporary
Chinese Dictionary (2002) to determine whether a lexical item should be treated as
a borrowing or not.
3.3 Grammatical Aspects of Code-Switching
A number of researchers, such as Gumperz (1970, 1982), Poplack (1980, 1981),

Myers-Scotton (1993a) and Muysken (2000), have explored code-switching from a
grammatical perspective, and have suggested that it is constrained by certain lin-
guistic factors. In this section, I will look at the types of code-switching and discuss
the syntactic constraints established in the current literature.
3.3.1 Types of Code-Switching
It is widely accepted that code-switching patterns include three main types:

intrasentential switching, intersentential switching and tag-switching. While inter-
sentential switching occurs at sentence or clause boundaries, intrasentential switching
occurs within a sentence or clause. In tag-switching, a tag phrase or interjection in one
language is inserted into an utterance in another language. Other terms have also been
used for tag-switching, for example, Poplack (1980) called it extra-sentential
switching or emblematic switching, since ‘the tags etc. serve as an emblem of the
bilingual character of an otherwise monolingual sentence’ (Gluth 2002).
From a grammatical perspective, Muysken (1995: 180) proposed another
important typology of code-switching: insertional and alternational code-switching.
According to him, while a single borrowed element is a typical case of insertion,
alternation is clearly intersentential code-switching. He also identified the following
criteria for distinguishing insertion from alternation in other cases:
(i) When several constituents in a row are switched, which together do not form a con-
stituent, alternation is more likely—otherwise we would have to assume multiple
contiguous insertions; conversely, when the switched elements are all single,
well-defined constituents, e.g. noun phrases or propositional phrases, insertion is a
plausible option.
(ii) When the switched element is at the periphery of an utterance, alternation is a clear
possibility; conversely, when the switched string is preceded and followed by material
from the other language, insertion may be more plausible, particularly if the sur-
rounding material is grammatically linked in some kind of structure.
(iii) Longer stretches of other-language material are more likely to be alternations.
(Muysken 1995: 180)

3.3 Grammatical Aspects of Code-Switching 49
3.3.2 Grammatical Constraints on Code-Switching
Research on grammatical aspects of code-switching has reflected different views

regarding whether code-switching is a random or rule-governed phenomenon. In the
earlier literature, for example, Labov (1971: 457) claimed that ‘no one has been able
to show that such rapid alternation is governed by any systematic rules or constraints
and we must therefore describe it as the irregular mixture of two distinct systems’.
However, most researchers now seem to accept that code-switching is rule-governed
by not only functional factors but also linguistic factors, ‘despite the fact that there is
little agreement on the precise nature of the rules involved’ (Poplack 1980: 585).
In order to predict the points at which code-switching is likely to occur, researchers
(see, for example, Timm 1975; Gumperz 1970, 1982; Poplack 1980, 1981) have
established various syntactic constraints, including both language-specific constraints
and universal constraints. In terms of language-specific constraints, for example,
Gumperz (1970: 158) pointed out that switching could not occur between pronominal
subjects or objects and verbs. He also suggested (1982: 88) that in code switched
conjoined sentences, the conjunction must be consistent with the code of the second
switched phrase or sentence. Timm (1975: 478) argued that switching was constrained
between verbs and other relevant elements, including auxiliaries, their infinite com-
plements, and their pronominal subjects or objects. Wentz (1977: 142) claimed that
determiners alone could not be switched. Joshi (1985: 194) said that closed class
items, such as determiners, quantifiers and auxiliaries, could not be switched. Many of
these syntactic constraints were often found to be insufficient to explain new
code-switching performance data, especially those from different language pairs.
Counterexamples to these constraints were also found and discussed on the basis of
the investigation of code-switching in different bilingual communities (see Pfaff 1975,
1976; Poplack 1981).
In contrast, some other proposed constraint models in the literature aim to offer
universal explanations for almost all instances of code-switching. These include
Poplack’s ‘equivalence constraint’ and ‘free morpheme constraint’, Di Sciullo,
Muysken and Singh’s ‘government constraint’, and Myers-Scotton’s ‘Matrix
Language Frame model’, which will be discussed one by one in the following sections.
3.3.2.1 The Free Morpheme and Equivalence Constraint
Poplack (1980, 1981) proposed the equivalence and free morpheme constraint on the
basis of Spanish-English code-switching data. The free morpheme constraint states
that ‘codes may be switched after any constituent in discourse provided that con-
stituent is not a bound morpheme’ (Poplack 1980: 585). Her equivalence constraint
holds that code-switches will be likely to occur at points in discourse where a syntactic
rule of either language is not violated by juxtaposition of the two languages, that is,
where the structures of the two languages overlap (Poplack 1980: 586).
The equivalence constraint is ‘the first general principle formulated to constrain
code-switching’ (Di Sciullo et al. 1986: 3). It is also one of the most influential
50 3 Code-Switching
constraints. However, there are many theoretical arguments against it. Di Sciullo
et al. (1986: 3) pointed out that it was formulated on the basis of linear order rather
than structural relations, but ‘most principles of grammar are formulated in terms of
hierarchical relations’. They also argued that this constraint could be only used to
explain code-switching between language pairs which had equivalent structures (Di
Sciullo et al. 1986: 3).
Moreover, the proposal of the free morpheme and equivalence constraint seemed
to imply that there were grammatical rules specific to code-switched sentences (Van
Dulm 2007: 18). As MacSwan (2000: 38) suggested, the grammatical interaction
between the two codes was governed by a ‘third grammar’. However, the idea of
formulating a third grammar was rejected by many researchers (see, for example,
Pfaff 1979: 314) for the sake of maintaining simplicity (Van Dulm 2007: 19).
Additionally, as Van Dulm (2007: 19–20) noted, it was found that the two
constraints proposed by Poplack could not account for some code-switching patterns
when applied to empirical data from various language pairs and that switches were
possible between stems and bound morphemes (see also Bokamba 1989; Nortier
1990; Kamwangamalu 1994; Halmari 1997; MacSwan 1999; Van Dulm 2002).
3.3.2.2 The Syntactic Government Constraint
Based on data from French-Italian and Hindi-English code-switching, DiSciullo,

Muysken and Singh (1986) argued that code-switching was universally constrained
by government relations. Their government constraint states that code-switching
can only occur between elements that are not in a government relation to each other
(Halmari 1997: 104). That is, a governed element must be in the same language as
the governor. According to Muysken (1995: 185), the idea behind this perspective
was that in many cases a lexical item required other elements in its syntactic
environment. He also claimed (1995: 185) that the features of such requirement
might be language-specific. Moreover, Nortier (1990, cited in Hamers and Blanc
2000: 264) argued that this constraint might be ‘too strong’. In his study of
Moroccan Arabic-Dutch code-switching, he found many counter-examples, for
instance, switching occurred between verbal and prepositional object noun phrases
and their governing verb or preposition; indirect and direct object were in different
languages (Hamers and Blanc 2000: 264).
3.3.2.3 The Matrix Language Frame Model
On the basis of Swahili-English data, Myers-Scotton (1993a) proposed the Matrix

Language Frame model (MLF), an innovative model of syntactic constraints on
intrasentential code-switching. She also proposed (2000: 30) a distinction between
the matrix language (ML) and the embedded language (EL) to explain the differ-
ential roles of the participating languages in code-switching.
3.3 Grammatical Aspects of Code-Switching 51
Unlike in Poplack’s model, the bases of analysis in this model are not the linear
order but ‘the hierarchical relation of the matrix language and the embedded lan-
guage as well as the contrast between system and content morphemes’ (Jacobson
1998: 60). Myers-Scotton (1992: 22) explained the two hierarchies as follows:
(1) The ML is more activated than the Embedded Language (EL).

(2) There is differential accessing of content vs. system morphemes. Content morphemes
are similar to ‘open-class items’ and system morphemes are similar to ‘closed-class
items’; noun and verb stems are prototypical content morphemes, and inflections and
articles are prototypical system morphemes.
The MLF model consists of four hypotheses: the ML Hypothesis, the Blocking
Hypothesis, the EL Trigger Hypothesis and the EL Hierarchy Hypothesis. The fol-
lowing is a summary of the MLF model provided by the Myers-Scotton (1993a: 7):
A. The Matrix Language Hypothesis:
The Matrix Language sets the morphosyntactic frame for Matrix Language
(ML) + Embedded Language (EL) constituents.
– Morpheme Order Principle:
Morpheme order must not violate ML morpheme order.
– System Morpheme Principle:
All syntactically relevant system morphemes must come from the ML.
B. The Blocking Hypothesis:
The ML blocks the appearance of any EL content morphemes which do not
meet certain congruency conditions with ML counterparts. [Cf. Equivalence
Constraint and Woolford 1983; Muysken 1995: 192–195]
C. The Embedded Language Island Trigger Hypothesis:
Whenever an EL morpheme appears which is not permitted under either the
ML Hypothesis or the Blocking Hypothesis, the constituent containing it must
be completed as an obligatory EL island.
D. The EL Implicational Hierarchy Hypothesis:
Optional EL islands occur; generally they are only those constituents which are
either formulaic or idiomatic or peripheral to the main grammatical arguments
of the sentence.
On the basis of many empirical studies (see, for example, Backus 1996; Li 1999;
Jake and Myers-Scotton 1997; Myers-Scotton and Jake 1998b; Bolonyai 1998),
Myers-Scotton and Jake (2000: 1) claimed that this model could explain the bilingual
constituents from various language pairs such as Turkish/Dutch, Chinese/English,
Hungarian/English, Arabic/English, Spanish/English and Italian/Swiss German.
Although the model claims to provide universal constraint to account for all
code-switching utterances, it seems limited to account for code-switching data pro-
duced by proficient bilingual speakers, since as Myers-Scotton (2000: 31) and
Myers-Scotton and Jake (2000: 1) mentioned, it was largely based on so-called
52 3 Code-Switching
‘classic code-switching’, that is, ‘the alternation between two varieties in the same
constituent by speakers who have sufficient proficiency in the two varieties to produce
monolingual well-formed utterances in either variety’ (Myers-Scotton 2000: 23).
Thus, Myers-Scotton and Jake (1999, cited in Myers-Scotton 2000: 23) proposed an
extension of the MLF model—the 4-M model—in order to explain many other types
of language contact phenomena for which the bilingual speakers do not have ade-
quate access to the abstract grammars of the two language varieties. The 4-M model
further classifies system morphemes into three categories: early system morphemes,
late bridge system morphemes and late outsider system morphemes, and states that
only late outsider system morphemes which ‘depend on grammatical information
outside of their own maximal projection’ should come from the ML (Myers-Scotton
2000: 42–44).
To sum up, it seems that there are always some counter-examples to the con-
straints proposed in the literature (Schendl 2000: 70). Thus, as Muysken (1995:
184) pointed out, it might be better to take a probabilistic perspective to establish
more frequent switches, rather than make absolute claims.
3.4 Pragmatic Aspects of Code-Switching
Based on the idea that code-switching is not a random phenomenon but a discourse
strategy, many researchers, such as Gumperz (1982), Auer (1984), and Myers-Scotton
(1993b), have examined code-switching from a pragmatic perspective (Gafaranga
2007: 279). This section discusses the major theories in terms of the motivations or
functions of code-switching, such as Blom and Gumperz’s (1972) situational versus
metaphorical switching distinction, and Myers-Scotton’s (1993b) Markedness model.
3.4.1 Situational Versus Metaphorical Code-Switching
Blom and Gumperz (1972) were among the first to investigate the social factors that
motivate code-switching. On the basis of their study of code-switching between two
dialects, Bokmål and Ranamål, in Hemnesberget, Norway, Blom and Gumperz
(1972: 409) suggested that code-switches were ‘patterned and predictable on the
basis of certain features of the local social system’. They further proposed two types
of code-switching: situational and metaphorical. While the former is a reaction to
‘clear changes in the participants’ definition of each other’s rights and obligations’,
the latter is intentional and occurs with particular kinds of topics (Blom and
Gumperz 1972: 424).
In his further discussion of the distinction between situational and metaphorical
code-switching, Gumperz (1982: 60) compared situational switching to diglossia, in
which ‘distinct varieties are employed in certain settings that are associated with
separate, bounded kinds of activities or spoken with different categories of speakers’.
3.4 Pragmatic Aspects of Code-Switching 53
In metaphorical switching, however, Gumperz (1982: 61) argued that ‘rather than
claiming that speakers use language in response to a fixed, predetermined set of
prescriptions, it seems more reasonable to assume that they build on their own and
their audience’s abstract understanding of situational norms, to communicate
metaphoric information about how they intend their words to be understood’.
Although many sociolinguists (see, for example, Myers-Scotton 1993b) gave a
lot of credit to Blom and Gumperz’s theoretical contributions to the field of
code-switching, this distinction has been subject to heavy criticism. As Auer (1984:
91) put it:
The distinction between situational and metaphorical code-switching must be criticized
from both ends: at the ‘situational code-switching’ end, the relationship between language
choice and situational features is less rigid, more open to re-negotiation, than a one-to-one
relationship, at the ‘metaphorical code-switching’ end, things are less individualistic, less
independent of the situation. The distinction collapses and should be replaced by a
continuum.
Myers-Scotton (1993b) found similar problems with this distinction. She argued
(1993b: 55) that there are ‘important similarities’ between the two types of
code-switching. In particular, she claimed (1993b: 55) that the metaphorical
meaning of codes originates from their situationally-based meaning.
3.4.2 Conversational Functions of Code-Switching
According to Myers-Scotton (2000: 149), Blom and Gumperz (1972) relied mainly
on the concepts of setting, social situation and social event to explain
code-switching. In his subsequent work, however, Gumperz (1982: 59) proposed
the term ‘conversational code switching’, and based its definition largely on
metaphorical rather than situational, switching.
Gumperz (1982) stated that speakers used code-switching as ‘contextualization
cues’. He wrote (1982: 98) that ‘code-switching signals contextual information
equivalent to what in monolingual settings is conveyed through prosody or other
syntactic or lexical processes. It generates the presuppositions in terms of which the
content of what is said is decoded’. According to him (1982: 131), contextualiza-
tion cues are ‘…surface features of message form …by which speakers signal and
listeners interpret what the activity is, how semantic content is to be understood and
how each sentence relates to what precedes or follows’.
Based on his analysis of code-switching in three language situations, Gumperz
(1982: 75–80) proposed a list of conversational functions of code-switching:
A. Quotations: …code switched passages are clearly identifiable either as direct quota-
tions or as reported speech.
B. Addressee specification: …the switch serves to direct the message to one of several
possible addressees.
C. Interjections: …the code switch serves to mark an interjection or sentence filler.
54 3 Code-Switching
D. Reiteration: Frequently a message in one code is repeated in the other code, either
literally or in somewhat modified form. In some cases such repetitions may serve to
clarify what is said, but often they simply amplify or emphasize a message.
E. Message qualification: …switches consist of qualifying constructions such as sentence
and verb complements or predicates following a copula.
F. Personalization versus objectivization: …the distinction between talk about action and
talk as action, the degree of speaker involvement in, or distance from, a message,
whether it refers to specific instances or has the authority of generally known fact.
Many of Gumperz’s followers (see, for example, Grosjean 1982; Appel and
Muysken 1987; McClure and McClure 1988; Romaine 1989; Gardener-Chloros
1991; Nishimura 1997; Zentella 1997) also used the taxonomic approach to
code-switching and suggested their own lists of functions.
3.4.3 The Markedness Model
In terms of the analysis of the pragmatic aspects of code-switching,

Myers-Scotton’s Markedness model is one of the most influential theories, devel-
oped mainly for the purpose of explaining speakers’ socio-psychological motiva-
tions for code-switching.
In Myers-Scotton’s (1993b: 84) opinion, code choices are tied to particular
rights-and-obligations (RO) sets. She explained (1993b: 85) that ‘the use of each
variety in a community’s repertoire points to a somewhat different RO set within the
interaction, and therefore to a different persona for the speaker and a different
relationship with the addressee’.
She adopted the idea of ‘markedness’ to explain language choice. That is, in the
available languages, there is an unmarked choice which is consistent with the set of
rights and obligations, and a marked choice which is inconsistent with the set of
rights and obligations. Moreover, this model assumes that all speakers have innate
knowledge of the markedness derived from community norms so that they can
identify the markedness of available linguistic codes and the results of making
marked or unmarked code choices.
The Markedness model consists of three maxims and a principle. Central to this
model is the negotiation principle, formulated on the template of Grice’s (1975)
co-operation principle:
Choose the form of your conversational contribution such that it indexes the set of rights
and obligations which you wish to be in force between the speaker and addressee for the
current exchange.
(Myers-Scotton 1993b: 113)
The three maxims describe three types of circumstances in which code-switching

may occur. The unmarked choice maxim states that speakers make an unmarked
code choice in talk exchanges when wishing to establish or affirm that RO set
(Myers-Scotton 1993b: 114). The marked choice maxim states that speakers choose
a marked code when wishing to establish a new RO set as unmarked for the current
3.4 Pragmatic Aspects of Code-Switching 55
communicative exchange (Myers-Scotton 1993b: 131). The exploratory choice

maxim says that code-switching may be used as exploratory choices when speakers
are not sure which code is unmarked, and wish to use the code in accordance with
an RO set that they favour (Myers-Scotton 1993b: 142).
Like most other theories, this one has received many criticisms. Firstly, some
sociolinguists argued against Myers-Scotton’s claim (1993b: 110) that the social
meaning of code choices is not constructed in the interaction itself but rather largely
based on the social value of the codes provided by community norms. For example, Li
(1998: 161) claimed that speakers switched ‘not because of some external value
attached to those particular languages but because the alternation itself signals to their
co-participants how they wish their utterances to be interpreted on that particular
occasion’. Secondly, this model has been criticized for explaining code-switching
based on the analysts’ perceptions of the speakers’ judgement about rights and
obligations rather than its effects on ongoing conversation (Nilep 2006: 12).
3.4.4 A Sequential Analysis of Code-Switching:

The Conversation Analysis Approach
Conversation Analysis (CA) originates in the discipline of sociology and aims to

investigate and describe ‘the order/organization/orderliness of social action, par-
ticularly those social actions that are located in everyday interaction, in discursive
practices, in the sayings/tellings/doings of members of society’ (Psathas 1995: 2).
Using Gumperz’s notion of ‘contextualization cue’, many researchers (see, for
example, Auer 1984, 1988, 1995; Li 2002; Alfonzetti 1998) have adopted this
approach to provide a sequential account of code-switching.
Auer (1995: 116) stated explicitly the necessity of using such a sequential
approach:
…any theory of conversational code-alternation is bound to fail if it does not take into
account that the meaning of code-alternation depends in essential ways on its ‘sequential
environment’. This is given, in the first place by the conversational turn immediately
preceding it, to which code-alternation may respond in various ways.
He claimed (1984: 93) that the meaning of code-switching is ‘embedded in the

sequential development of conversation’ rather than derived mainly from the
‘meanings’ of the languages. He also claimed that this approach has two advan-
tages: firstly, ‘it gives priority to the sequential implicativeness of language choice
in conversation, i.e. the fact that whatever language a participant chooses for the
organization of his or her turn, or for an utterance which is part of the turn, the
choice exerts an influence on subsequent language choices by the same or other
speakers’ (Auer 1984: 5); secondly, it ‘limits the external analyst’s interpretational
leeway because it relates his or her interpretations back to the members’ mutual
understanding of their utterances as manifest in their behaviour’ (Auer 1984: 6),
which accords with Gafaranga’s (2009: 117) view that CA seems to interpret
conversation from the participants’ own perspective.
56 3 Code-Switching
However, the CA approach has been criticized for ignoring the significance of
the macro social context. For example, Stroud (1998: 322) argued that ‘conversa-
tional code-switching is so heavily implicated in social life that it cannot really be
understood apart from an understanding of social phenomena’. Myers-Scotton and
Bolonyai (2001: 4) had a similar view:
…we heartily agree that structural features of any conversation, especially the nature of
certain adjacency pairs, can be considered devices that constrain speakers to view certain
potential choices as preferred and others as not. However, the structural features studied by
CA offer an exceedingly ‘flat’ explanation of choices.
In addition, the CA approach has been felt to ignore speakers’ previous expe-
riences of dealing with similar cases. According to Li (1998: 159), the CA approach
rejects the idea that the participants compare the current interaction with similar
precedent cases and apply their previous experiences to the ‘new’ situation. Instead,
it assumes that they pay attention mainly to ‘the “new case” itself and each and
every new move by their co-interactants’ (Li 1998: 159).
Nevertheless, Conversation Analysts have provided valuable insight into the
functions of code-switching. For example, Auer (1984, cited in Gafaranga 2007: 299)
found that speakers preferred to keep using the language of the prior turn, which
implied that code-switching was a dispreferred occurrence or a divergence from the
preference. Li (1998: 169) argued that ‘code-switching contextualises turn-taking,
pre-and embedded sequences and preference organisation’. Thus he said (1998: 169)
that code-switching could help speakers to restart a conversation or to ‘keep track of
the main “drift” of the interaction by mapping out complex nested structural patterns
in the conversation’. Milroy and Wei (1995) and Shin and Milroy (2000) also reported
that code-switching might serve the functions, such as preference marking, repair and
presequences (Gafaranga 2007: 300). In addition, several studies (see, for example,
Heller 1982; Auer 1995) suggested that speakers might use code-switching to
negotiate the language they would use for the conversation (Gafaranga 2007: 301).
3.5 Code-Switching in the Classroom
Martin-Jones (1995, 2000) provided a comprehensive review of research on

code-switching conducted in bilingual classrooms since the 1970s.
According to her (1995: 90), studies of classroom code-switching have under-
gone a process of change and development. The early studies, influenced by edu-
cational research on classroom interaction and teacher talk, can be traced back to the
1970s and early 1980s, and many of them were conducted in the United States with
linguistic minority students in bilingual education programmes (Martin-Jones 1995:
90). These studies (see, for example, Wong-Fillmore 1980) focused on examining
the quantities of L1 and L2 use, in order to contribute to the debate about language
education policy.
3.5 Code-Switching in the Classroom 57
However, some researchers felt that purely quantitative studies on code-switching

generated very limited evidence. For example, Milk (1981, cited in Martin-Jones
1995: 92) claimed that the analysis of classroom discourse functions would provide a
more accurate account of the status of the languages in bilingual classrooms.
Therefore, some subsequent studies (see, for example, Legarreta 1977; Milk 1981;
Guthrie 1984) have made attempts to examine the communicative functions of
code-switching, usually by using coding systems devised for research on classroom
behaviour, such as the Flanders (1970) system and Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975)
classroom discourse model (Martin-Jones 1995: 92). In a study of a twelfth grade
civics bilingual class, for instance, Milk (1981) coded the classroom utterances
according to the eight acts proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) and found that
the teachers used English predominantly in all acts except elicitation. In a study of
teachers’ language use in a Chinese-English bilingual classroom, Guthrie (1984,
cited in Lin 2008: 275) found that L1 use by the bilingual teacher served several
functions, including building solidarity, clarifying, checking for understanding,
contrasting variable meanings in the L1 and L2, and anticipating sources of
confusion.
Although the early studies of communicative functions of code-switching
marked an important step forward, Martin-Jones (1995: 94, 2000: 1) pointed out
that they were restricted by the approach adopted to discourse analysis. She further
claimed (1995: 94) that the analytic approach adopted by these studies relying on
coding schemes was ‘static, taxonomic and quantitative’ in nature, so that their
focus was on ‘individual acts’ rather than ‘sequential flow of classroom discourse’.
Further significant developments have been inspired by research approaches
developed in the new fields of social science, such as ethnography of communication
(e.g. Goffman 1967, 1981), ethnomethodology (Garfinkel 1972), conversational
analysis (Sacks et al. 1974), interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz 1982) and
microethnography (Erickson and Shultz 1981; Martin-Jones 2000: 2). Therefore,
since the 1980s, more studies have focused on the sequential flow of classroom
discourse rather than on individual utterances (Martin-Jones 2000: 2). Zentella
(1981) was among the first to adopt an ethnographic approach to analyze patterns of
code-switching across the ritualized structures of teacher-student interactions, for
example, Initiation-Response-Evaluation sequences. In doing so, she took ‘both the
linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the participants’ into consideration (Simon
2001: 313). Lin (1990) examined code-switching patterns in English lessons in
Anglo-Chinese secondary schools in Hong Kong by using the Conversation
Analysis approach. She found (1990: 115–116) that the teachers alternated between
Cantonese and English ‘in highly ordered patterns’, for example, using an L2-L1-L2
sequence. Üstünel (2009) employed Conversation Analysis to examine teachers’
code-switching in a Turkish university EFL setting, and found that the teachers in
her study switched for twelve pedagogical functions, for example, dealing with
procedural trouble, dealing with classroom discipline, dealing with a lack of
response in English and providing meta-language information. Simon (2001) used
the approaches of interactional sociolinguistics and ethnography of communication
to investigate code-switching in French classes in Thailand, and reported that the
58 3 Code-Switching
teachers switched for many purposes, such as negotiating and shifting between
different roles (formal institutional role vs. social interpersonal role) and frames
(formal, institutional learning frame vs. social frame). Martin-Jones (2000: 2)
summarized findings of classroom-based research which adopted the interactional
sociolinguistic approach and investigated ‘the use of code-switching as a contex-
tualisation cue’:
…to signal the transition between preparing for a lesson and the start of the lesson; to
specify a particular addressee; to distinguish ‘doing a lesson’ from talk about it; to change
footing or make an aside; to distinguish quotations from a written text from talk about them;
to bring out the voices of different characters in a narrative; to distinguish classroom
management utterances from talk related to the lesson content.
Additionally, Lin (2008: 281–284) suggested that it was necessary to draw on

research methods of genre analysis of different subject-specific academic discourses
and to address the question of how teacher could provide students with access to
academic discourses through students’ familiar everyday discourses, and pointed
out that ‘this might provide a potentially useful direction for achieving a break-
through of our current state of affairs in researching classroom code-switching’.
As we can see, like pedagogic research on L1 and L2 use, research on classroom
code-switching has undergone a series of changes, and it has now mainly focused
on examining the functions of teachers’ language use. Although there is much
overlap between these two strands of research, only a small number of studies using
the concept ‘code-switching’ to examine teachers’ L1 and L2 use have investigated
the grammatical features of teachers’ code-switching. For example, Gearon (1997)
classified six secondary French teachers’ code-switching into two categories:
intersentential and intrasentential switching. He found (cited in Turnbull and Arnett
2002: 209) that most of their code-switching took place within sentence boundaries
and that the students’ L1 was used as the dominant language in the code-switched
sentences by four of the teachers. Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002, cited in
Turnbull and Arnett 2002: 208) investigated four university French teachers’ lan-
guage use and found that they switched most frequently for intrasentential trans-
lation and language contrast.
The present study will examine both the grammatical and pragmatic aspects of
the four Chinese EFL teachers’ code-switching. It will use Myers-Scotton’s Matrix
Language Frame model to describe the grammatical features of the code-switching
identified in these teachers’ discourse, and thus will use the concepts such as matrix
language, embedded language and insertional code-switching (see Sects. 4.3.3 and
5.2). This study will also use the terms such as intrasentential switching and
intersentential switching to categorize the teachers’ code-switching occurring at
different syntactic levels, and will focus on investigating the syntactic patterns of
their intrasentential code-switching. Moreover, although the Markedness theory and
the conversational analysis approach will not be used to examine the functions of
the teachers’ code-switching, they will be discussed in Sect. 4.3.1, together with the
taxonomic approach to show why the latter is more suitable for the present study.
Chapter 4
Research Design
4.1 Introduction
This chapter contains two sections. The first section gives information about my
data collection. It begins by looking at the methods chosen to address the research
questions and providing an overview of the data collection design. It then describes
the background of this study, and explains in detail the application of each method.
The second section explains and justifies, with some further literature review, the
major features of the approaches used for the analysis of lesson data. It not only
discusses the approaches to the pragmatic aspects of code-switching and to the
sequential analysis of classroom language use, but also looks at the criteria for the
grammatical analysis of code-switching and the unit of analysis used in the present
study. I have not said anything in this chapter about the analysis of the other two
kinds of data; this was mainly a matter of selection and organization, and these
matters are explained in the relevant results Chaps. (6 and 7).
4.2 Data Collection
What is important for researchers is not the choice of a priori paradigms, or methodologies,
but rather to be clear about what the purpose of the study is and to match that purpose with
the attributes most likely to accomplish it. Put another way, the methodological design
should be determined by the research question.
(Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991: 14)
In this section, I will start by discussing the data collection methods used in this
study and explaining why these methods were considered appropriate for collecting
data to address the research questions.

60 4 Research Design
1. How much L1 do the teachers use in the observed Chinese university EFL
classrooms at four levels: beginners, high beginners, intermediate and
advanced?
Given the quantitative focus of this question, classroom observation alone would
have been inadequate, since it could only offer a general impression of the teachers’
language use. For more accurate and detailed analysis, recording was required
because it would allow me to measure the teachers’ language use when necessary.
2. What grammatical patterns exist in these teachers’ use of the two lan-
guages in their classrooms?
In order to investigate the grammatical patterns of the teachers’ language use,

observation were used as the main data collection method, and recording and partial
transcription were used to yield a more detailed account.
3. In what circumstances and for what particular functions do these teachers

resort to the use of the L1?
This research question, like question 2, also required observing and recording
the classroom processes.
4. As regards their language use, what are these teachers’ perceptions of and
reasons for what they did in a specific lesson? What are their perceptions
of and reasons for what they normally do?
Question 4 required using stimulated recall to access the teachers’ own per-
ceptions of and reasons for their language use. This included selecting suitable
audio episodes, replaying these to the teacher and discussing issue arising.
Recording was also used to preserve the stimulated recall data.
5. What are the observer’s perceptions of what these teachers do regarding

their language use? What differences are there between the observer’s
perceptions and these teachers’ own perceptions?
4.2 Data Collection 61
This question focused on the differences between the teachers’ own perceptions
of their language use and the observer’s perceptions. Thus, it required stimulated
recall and classroom observation.
6. What differences exist in teachers’ language use across different frames of

classroom discourse?
In order to analyze the teachers’ language use within different frames of class-
room discourse, this question required observing and recording the classroom
processes.
7. What are these teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards using the L1 in L2
teaching and learning?
This question aimed to examine the teachers’ beliefs on L1 and L2 use, which
according to Pajares (1992: 314), ‘cannot be directly observed or measured but
must be inferred from what people say, intend, and do’. Thus, it required interviews
with these teachers.
8. To what extent are the teachers’ language choices in accordance with the
current university policy? If not, what else seems to influence them?
The final question was concerned with the university policy and other factors
that might influence the teachers’ language choices. Since the university policy
regarding L1 and L2 use is not well documented, this question required interviews
to access the teachers’ understanding and interpretation of it. This question also
required using interviews and stimulated recall to access the teachers’ own views on
other possible factors influencing their language choices.
In accordance with the above discussion, a variety of methods were used to
triangulate classroom data, such as classroom observation, teacher interview and
stimulated recall. Triangulation, as Cohen et al. (2007: 141) pointed out, is an
‘attempt to map out, or explain more fully, the richness and complexity of human
behavior by studying it from more than one standpoint’. Altrichter et al. (2008: 147)
also claimed that the use of triangulation ‘gives a more detailed and balanced
picture of the situation’. Furthermore, Seliger and Shohamy (1989: 123) argued that
triangulation increases the reliability and validity of the findings.
In this study, while the interview and stimulated recall data could enable me to
find out what the teachers said they believed or did, the classroom observation tool
was used to gain insight into how they actually used the L1 and L2 in their
Table 4.1 The design of the data collection

Method Purpose
Observation, field notes To give an account of the situations in which the teachers or the
and recording students used the L1 and L2, and to make comments on the
patterns and functions of their language use from an observer’s
point of view. Field notes and recording were used to provide a
more detailed picture of classroom processes
Interviews To learn about the teachers’ teaching and learning backgrounds;
to understand their perceptions and beliefs on the issue of using
the L1 in Chinese EFL classrooms and their relevant experiences
Stimulated recall In order to access the teachers’ own perceptions of and reasons
for their language use, selected episodes from the observed
lessons were played back to each teacher during the stimulated
recall. The teachers were then required to give comments on their
language use in these episodes
everyday classroom practice, and to provide information about the situations in

which they used the L1. Moreover, the use of classroom observation might help me
discover interesting features of the teachers’ language use that were worthy of
further exploration in the subsequent interviews and stimulated recall. In this sense,
supplementing the observation data with the interview and stimulated recall data
could be more productive.
The overall data collection plan of the present study consisted of three main
sections: observation, field notes and recording, interviews, and stimulated recall, as
shown in Table 4.1.
4.2.1 Background Description
This section introduces the specific context of the present study, the English cur-
riculum implemented in this context and the participants.
4.2.1.1 The Research Context
This study took place in the School of Foreign Language Studies of Nanchang
University, which is one of the main state-run comprehensive universities in the
Jiangxi province of China. The School of Foreign Language Studies has more than
200 full-time teachers and many advanced facilities, including more than 50
language labs and multimedia classrooms. It consists of three departments: English
Language and Literature, Asian and European Language and Literature, and
University English Teaching. This study was conducted within the University
English Teaching department, which was mainly responsible for offering English
courses to the non-English majors in the first two years of their university education.
I chose Nanchang University as the location of the study because its English
courses appeared to be fairly typical of current English language teaching in China.
Moreover, since teaching English to non-English majors occupied a significant
proportion of current English teaching in Chinese universities, I specifically focused
on teachers teaching non-English majors.
4.2.1.2 The English Curriculum
The English courses offered to non-English majors at Nanchang University were of

two types: the reading-and-writing course and the listening-and-speaking course.
They were primarily designed to help non-major students improve the four basic
language skills—reading, writing, listening and speaking.
The reading-and-writing course occupied a core position in the English cur-
riculum at tertiary level. Despite its name, this course did not particularly aim to
improve students’ writing skills. Rather, it put emphasis on improving their reading
comprehension through explaining grammar points and vocabulary. In fact, it was
previously entitled ‘the intensive reading course’.
The reading-and-writing course at Nanchang University usually took place in
multimedia classrooms, in which teachers could use the computer, projector,
whiteboard, and traditional blackboard to facilitate their teaching. The class size of
this type of course was normally from 75 to 110. This large number seems to
suggest that in this course, not much time could be spent on teacher-student
interaction and communicative activities, such as class discussion, presentation, and
role-playing. Furthermore, the textbooks used as the basis for this course were
prescribed by the university authorities, and according to the departmental regu-
lation, teachers were required to finish the textbook within a certain period of time
and were not allowed to make any unauthorized change.
Since the recently issued College English Curriculum Requirements were more
concerned with fostering students’ communicative competence, the
listening-and-speaking course was also an important part of English teaching in
China. In Nanchang University, this course normally took place in language labs.
Compared to the reading-and-writing course, the class size of the
listening-and-speaking course was much smaller, usually from 30 to 40. Moreover,
unlike the reading-and-writing course, teachers had more freedom to tailor this
course to the specific needs of their students, although it was also based on the
textbook prescribed by the university authorities. For example, they could choose a
topic for discussion according to the students’ interest, and they could also show
real English news, famous English speeches and popular TV programmes in
English.
Both types of courses for non-English majors in Nanchang University were
taught at four different proficiency levels: beginners, high beginners, intermediate
and advanced. New university students were normally placed at one of these four
different levels according to their English scores in the National College Entrance
Examination, but at the end of each semester students could be reallocated
according to their scores in the final exams. The classes at beginners level only
consisted of students majoring in art, since they usually had much lower scores in
the entrance exam. Students in the classes at high beginners level, intermediate level
and advanced level were non-English majors excluding art students.
It is also worth noting that the second year reading-and-writing course and
listening-and-speaking course were largely examination-oriented. Because these
students were required to pass College English Test 4 (CET-4) in their second year
of study, their English courses were virtually CET-4 preparation courses. The
textbooks were no longer the basis for English teaching. Rather, numerous exer-
cises and practice tests were used as the main teaching materials. Given that
teachers’ language use might vary widely when dealing with different types of
material, and that observing the second-year English courses could only enable me
to find out their language use when dealing with exercises, I chose to investigate the
first-year English courses for non-English majors.
4.2.1.3 The Participants
Since this study aimed to explore the use of the L1 and L2 in classes at different
levels, four teachers teaching English to the students at four different proficiency
levels were selected. Moreover, these teachers had to be giving lessons at different
times during a week, so that I could arrange observation hours with each of them.
The four Chinese EFL teachers participating in this study were Anne, Betty, Carl
and David (pseudonyms). They were aged from 25 to 35. They had all completed
their undergraduate education in the English department of Nanchang University.
Table 4.2 gives some general facts about them when the data collection started.
Anne had around ten years’ teaching experience since her graduation from
university. Two years before this study, she obtained her master’s degree in English
language teaching in the United Kingdom. During her years at Nanchang
University, she had been teaching the non-English majors. The students she was
teaching during the period of my data collection were the art students at beginners
level.
When Betty enrolled as a full-time master’s student at Nanchang University,
studying linguistics after obtaining her bachelor’s degree, she began to teach
English to non-English majors. She finished this master’s degree two years before
Table 4.2 The participants’ profiles

Participants Students’ proficiency level Age Teaching experience (years)
Anne Beginners 31 10
Betty Advanced 28 6
Carl Intermediate 35 14
David High beginners 25 4
the present study, and at the time of my data collection she was teaching the
students at advanced level.
Carl was a senior English teacher with more than ten years’ experience of
teaching English to non-English majors, and he was also in charge of running daily
teaching affairs for the first-year non-English majors at Nanchang University. Two
years before the study, he had completed a master’s degree in English language
teaching in the United Kingdom. The students he was teaching at the time of the
data collection were at intermediate level.
David was the youngest of the four. He had been teaching non-English majors at
Nanchang University, since graduating from university. After working there for two
years, David decided to work towards his master’s degree in English and American
literature at the same institution. At the time of my data collection, he was still
taking his master’s courses, and the students he was teaching were at high beginners
level.
4.2.1.4 Initial Contacts and Relations with the Participants
Although all four participants in the study are my former colleagues, we did not
work in the same teaching group. Of the four, I knew David best since he had also
been my university classmate. As for the other three participants, I had few
opportunities to talk with them, although we worked in the same department.
Since the head of department would not normally prevent observers from sitting
in on classes if the teachers had agreed, I decided not to contact the head of
department for fear that the teachers might think I would reveal sensitive infor-
mation to her, and therefore feel under pressure. Rather, I asked the teachers’
permissions privately to collect data.
When I initially approached them over the phone, I started with some simple
greetings. Since they all showed interest in my study, and life in the United
Kingdom, I had a short chat with each of them about this. Of course I did not forget
to tell them that I hoped to have the chance to learn from them and observe their
classes for the sake of my PhD research. When they asked about my research area, I
did not tell them the specific topic of my study, but said it was about general teacher
and student interaction, and for the purpose of minimizing the interference in
subsequent classroom observation processes, I did not reveal the objectives of the
study to the teachers until the beginning of the post-observation interviews. After
obtaining their permission, I explained that I would like to observe the natural
process of their teaching, and I assured them that the collected data would only be
used in my study, and only shown to people relevant to it.
4.2.2 Classroom Observation
Observation, as defined by Mason (1996: 60), means ‘methods of generating data

which involve the researcher immersing [him or herself] in a research setting, and
systematically observing dimensions of that setting, interactions, relationships,
actions, events, and so on, within it’. Since its first use as a research tool for
comparing teaching methodologies in language teaching research, observation has
long been considered an important and direct way of gaining insight into classroom
process. I also used this tool as the main source of data in the present study since it
would allow me to ‘gather “live” data from “live” situations’ (Cohen et al. 2000:
305).
My classroom observation was conducted once every two weeks in order to
allow the participants to have more time to get used to the presence of an unfamiliar
observer, and to allow me to detect possible changes in the teachers’ language use
in response to their students’ progress. Thus, although the whole process of
classroom observation lasted five weeks, for each teacher only three weeks of the
reading-and-writing course and the listening-and-speaking course were observed,
that is, six lessons in each course, and each lesson lasted approximately 50 min.
Next I will discuss some important issues regarding the design and implemen-
tation of the classroom observation in the present study, including observer role and
coding instruments.
4.2.2.1 The Role of the Observer
A common but significant issue that has to be mentioned concerning the obser-
vation technique is the role of the observer. One of the well-known classifications
of observer roles is Gold’s (1958) taxonomy: complete participant,
participant-as-observer, observer-as-participant and complete observer. Observation
can also be more roughly categorized into two main types: participant and
non-participant.
Because accepting an active participatory role seems to enable them to find more
in-depth and useful information which is difficult to gain in other ways, many
ethnographers choose to integrate themselves into the group under study for a
relatively long period of time. However, in the context of this study, I was unable to
take on a group member role, since all the observed teachers perceived me as an
EFL teacher. Taking a participatory role in the observed classrooms would have
meant taking the risk of being perceived as a second expert, which might sub-
stantially change the classroom power relations. Moreover, the intrusive influence
of a participant observer could have changed the teachers’ language use, for
instance, the teachers would have used more English than usual if I had behaved
like an active participant in low English proficiency groups.
Therefore, it seemed more appropriate for me to adopt a non-participant role for
the purpose of reducing the influence of the observer to a minimum, although
Hannan (2006) claimed that ‘the presence of any observer is part of the scene and
inevitably influences behavior (which is even true of impersonal recording devi-
ces)’. Bailey’s (1978, cited in Cohen and Manion 2000: 187) argument below
seems also to provide a good basis for adopting a non-participant role:
Since there is no natural setting, in a sense none of the persons being studied are really
participants of long standing, and thus may accept a non-participant observer more read-
ily…Laboratory settings also enable a non-participant observer to use sophisticated
equipment such as videotape and tape recordings…
To sum up, my non-participant status in this study was mainly reflected by my

keeping to the following ‘rules’:
• always sit in the back corner of the classroom
• avoid having conversation with the teachers and their students
• avoid reacting to the teachers and their students
• avoid eye contact with the teachers and their students
• avoid expressing personal emotions
• avoid posing any questions
• try to respond briefly or with non-verbal behaviours if I was spoken to.
4.2.2.2 Coding Instruments
There are numerous coding instruments developed for describing and analyzing
classroom processes. Chaudron (1988), Allwright (1988), Malamah-Thomas (1987)
and Mackey and Gass (2005) have offered detailed discussion of existing coding
systems used extensively in language classrooms, and the differences in their
intended purpose, focus, assumption, complexity, the degree of inference and
implementing method.
Coding systems may be devised for different purposes. According to Chaudron
(1988: 17), at the ‘macro’ level, they stem from the two different needs of research
and teacher training. Allwright and Bailey (1991: 11–12) further argued that ‘ex-
isting instruments, particularly those developed for teacher training purposes, are
not necessarily appropriate tools for some types of classroom research’, since
teacher training can do well with relatively crude and simple instruments whereas
research needs more fine-grained analytic systems. Furthermore, at the more ‘mi-
cro’ level, Chaudron (1988: 17) noted that different purposes of interpretation may
result in various types of analytical categories, for example, some categories may
interpret the social functions of classroom behaviours, whereas others may interpret
their pedagogical functions. Thus the most important issue concerning how to
choose an appropriate coding instrument is to determine whether the purpose of the
instrument matches the research goals (Mackey and Gass 2005: 199; Nunan 1992:
96).
Furthermore, as Malamah-Thomas (1987) pointed out, existing coding instru-
ments have different foci for description, including classroom language, classroom
methodology, classroom affect and classroom learning events, and some very
fine-grained coding systems, such as the Communicative Orientation of Language
Teaching (COLT) scheme (Allen et al. 1984), the Target Language Observation
Scheme (Ullmann and Geva 1983), and the Mitchell and Parkinson system
(Mitchell et al. 1981), mainly concentrated on capturing various aspects of class-
room methodology.
Various instruments may also be based on different assumptions about the
observed language classrooms. For example, Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975)
categories arise from data collected in teacher-dominated classrooms (Malamah-
Thomas 1987: 56); the COLT scheme seems to be designed for the classrooms in
which the students play an active role in classroom interaction, as it includes a chart
for analyzing both student-teacher and student-student interaction; Moskowitz’s
(1971) Flint system seems to assume that the observed teachers should be more
relaxed and friendly since it involves the categories such as teacher smiles, laughter
and jokes to characterize emotional factors in a classroom.
Coding systems also vary significantly in their organization and complexity,
from simple one-dimensional taxonomies to comprehensive multi-dimensional
systems, such as the Mitchell and Parkinson system and the COLT scheme
(Mackey and Gass 2005: 190; Nunan 1992: 97).
Moreover, categories may differ in the degree of inference, which to a large
extent determines the degree of objectivity and reliability of coding. As Chaudron
(1988: 19–20) said, low-inference categories ‘are clearly enough stated in terms of
behavioural characteristics…that observers in a real-time coding situation would
reach high levels of agreement or reliability’, whereas high-inference categories
require the observer to judge the meaning or function of particular behaviours.
In addition, existing coding systems can be divided into two types, according to
recording technique: category systems and sign systems. While in a category sys-
tem the observer codes behaviour each time it occurs, in a sign system observations
are made at fixed time intervals (Mackey and Gass 2005: 200; Chaudron 1988: 18).
Although using category systems can capture more accurate information on fre-
quencies, continuously coding a large number of behaviours or behaviour occurring
relatively frequently can be very difficult in practice (Blatchford 2003: 578).
4.2.2.3 The Reasons for not Coding in the Data Collection Phase
Although it is generally believed that using observation instruments can bring

advantages, such as providing a focus for data collection (Mackey and Gass 2005:
198, Nunan 1992: 98), many arguments have been advanced against them. For
instance, one of the main counterarguments is that pre-designed categories may
restrict the observer’s view on the relevant aspects of classroom processes and that
those behaviours not coinciding with the categories are very likely to be neglected
(Nunan 1992: 98; Mackey and Gass 2005: 200; Spada 1994: 687). Like Nunan, I
also believe that ‘what we see will be determined, at least in part, by what we expect
to see’ (Nunan 1992: 98). Thus in order to minimize the influence of pre-designed
categories on my perceptions of the classroom processes and the eventual findings

of this study, I chose not to code during the process of data collection.
Furthermore, since I intended to provide a comprehensive description of the
situations in which the teachers used the L1 and L2, and these situations were in
essence dynamic, I felt it was more appropriate to provide qualitative accounts of
the relevant aspects of the classroom processes, including the chronological and
spatial context of their language use, rather than adopting static coding categories.
Less-structured observations could offer me more freedom to describe what
actually happened in the observed classrooms and potentially important information
which seemed hard to assign to pre-designed categories, such as classroom atmo-
sphere, teacher’s facial expression and handwriting on the blackboard, what hap-
pened during silences, and the mutual influence of teacher and student behaviour in
an interaction.
However, although I decided not to apply coding instruments at the time of the
data collection, I did not abandon using coding to generate a description of the
typical functions and patterns of the teachers’ code-switching. Since, as Parkinson
et al. (1998: 89) said, ‘those who attempt purely qualitative classroom observation,
at least within foreign-language teaching, often encounter problems’, I adopted a
‘compromise’ design which combined continuous prose with coding-based
accounts. To be specific, in the data analysis phase I assigned the functions of
the teachers’ code-switching to a taxonomy of data-driven categories. In doing so, I
was able not only to interpret the functions of the teachers’ actual acts of
code-switching, but also to obtain quantitative data on the frequency of their
code-switching for each function.
4.2.2.4 Existing Coding Systems Versus Data-Driven Categories
In order to explore the time the teachers spent on the L1 and L2, the categories of
Duff and Polio’s coding system (1990) were modified to code the teachers’ utter-
ances. As shown in Table 4.3, the seven categories seem to include all the possible
types of language generated in the observed classrooms.
Table 4.3 Coding system to describe classroom language use (adapted from Duff and Polio 1990:
156)
L1: The utterance is completely in Chinese
L1c: The utterance is in Chinese with one word or phrase in English
‘Mixed’: The utterance contains a substantial amount (more than a single word or phrase) of both
languages
L2: The utterance is completely in English
L2c: The utterance is in English with one word or phrase in Chinese
Pause: No speech
?: The utterance was not clear enough to be coded
It should be mentioned that Duff and Polio and many others who adopted this
coding system, such as Song and Andrews (2009), all chose to code the language of
the utterances every fifteen seconds. I felt, however, that this would be insufficiently
informative for my purposes, and therefore chose a different form of analysis—a
‘category system’, in which the discourse was divided into linguistically mean-
ingful units, rather than a ‘sign system’ based on fixed time intervals.
Moreover, I decided not to use or tailor existing coding instruments to investi-
gate the functions of code-switching. One reason was that, as Mackey and Gass
(2005: 201) pointed out, there was not enough evidence to support which
pre-designed categories were valid for predicting classroom processes and out-
comes; in order to address this issue, they suggested allowing ‘custom-made’
categories to emerge from recorded classroom data rather than using pre-determined
instruments. Another reason was that the pre-existing instruments specifically
focusing on the analysis of classroom language, such as Bower’s (1980) Categories
of Verbal Behaviour in the Language classroom, Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975)
taxonomy of ‘acts’ and Brown’s (1975) Interaction Analysis System, appeared to
be mainly focused on describing classroom interaction, especially teacher-student
dialogues, and therefore seemed inadequate to capture the features of teachers’
monologues or to identify the functions of the teachers’ code-switching.
The data-driven categories that emerged in the process of analysis were iden-
tified by making constant comparisons. According to Strauss and Corbin (1998:
73–79), the comparative method is essential for identifying and developing cate-
gories, and comparing incident to classify data can allow data to talk for them-
selves. Although no other raters attempted a similar categorization of the data, I
compared each instance of code-switching to others for similarities and differences
before placing it into a category, grouped the instances sharing similar character-
istics into the same category, and separated those disimilar to different categories.
Like Strauss and Corbin (1998: 68), I believe that in this way false assumptions
about the data cannot stand up.
4.2.2.5 Field Notes
As mentioned above, less structured observations were used to allow what was
taking place in the observed classrooms to speak for itself and thus the notes were
taken in a free style in the observation process.
My notes included both qualitative and quantitative accounts of the observed
classrooms. Firstly, the notes focused on describing the situations, functions and
patterns of the teachers’ and students’ language use, especially their L1 use in the
continuous classroom events, and generating comments on them. Secondly, since
the idea of using free note-taking was to supplement the recordings to provide a
more comprehensive picture of the classroom processes, my notes also included
additional information which could not be captured or fully captured by recordings,
for example, lesson number, date of the observation, and the dynamic changes in
classroom processes including classroom climate, the participants’ movement and

facial expressions.
4.2.2.6 Observation Sheet
In order to describe the relatively static characteristics of the observed classrooms

and participants, an observation sheet was designed for the first observation. It
included the following information:
(a) The physical organization of the classroom
• Size of class: the number of students on roll
• Teaching facilities, e.g., board(s), computer, microphone, headphones,
projector
• Organization of the students’ seats
• Position of the teacher’s desk
(b) The characteristics of the participants
• Teacher’s name, age, and gender
• Students’ major
• Proficiency level of the class
The equipment in the classrooms, including the students’ seats and the teacher’s
desk, were all fixed and could not be moved during the lesson processes. Therefore,
this sheet was actually a record of static elements in the observed classrooms.
4.2.2.7 Recordings
Recording is widely considered an objective method for preserving classroom data.

Day (1990: 46) argued that recordings ‘are the most neutral techniques for obser-
vation…along with their complete objectivity, audio and video recordings have the
potential of capturing the essence of the classroom, and can be listened to or viewed
over and over, allowing the participants to agree on an interpretation of an event or
behaviour’.
Obviously, video recordings can provide a more comprehensive record of
ongoing classroom processes than audio recordings, since they capture more
details, such as non-verbal classroom behaviours and atmosphere. On the other
hand, video recording equipment is more intrusive than audio recorders, and is
more likely to make the participants feel ill at ease, especially if used in the very
first observation.
Nevertheless, I decided to employ video recording to preserve more details of
the observed lessons, but only in the fifth week of my observation, when the
participants had become accustomed to my presence in their classrooms. As a less
intrusive data collection method, audio recording was used throughout the
classroom observation process, to provide a clear record of verbal classroom

behaviours. In other words, whereas all the observed lessons were audio recorded
for each of the four teachers, only two reading-and-writing lessons and two
listening-and-speaking lessons were video recorded.
In order to lessen the influence of the recording equipment, an audio recording
pen was used in this study rather than a traditional tape recorder. The pen is very
small and light, which makes it less conspicuous. Also, a relatively small camera
was used for video recording. In order to overcome its intrusive influence, the
camera was always set up in a back corner of the classrooms, and it was usually set
up before the participants arrived.
Since the number of students in these lessons was relatively large, it was very
hard to video record a complete picture of the observed classrooms. In most cases,
therefore, the camera was focused on the teachers, since I was more concerned with
their behaviour and in this way more useful data could be obtained.
4.2.3 Interviews
The interview technique has an obvious value since ‘it is only when the researcher
and the respondent have the possibility of communicating directly with each other
that the subtleties of the mutual understanding between the two parties can be
harnessed’ (Brenner et al. 1985: 3).
In recent language education research, Block (2000: 757) also pointed out the
increased tendency for language education researchers to use interviews as a sig-
nificant part of triangulated data collection, along with other methods such as
observation, diaries, letters, and questionnaires. However, he drew attention to a
problem with analyzing and discussing the interview data: researchers usually
focused on the content of the words alone, without questioning the data themselves
or the respective roles of interviewers and interviewees. As he pointed out, in the
social sciences, interviews have long been considered as ‘conversations and
co-constructed discourse events’, rather than ‘direct window on the minds of
interviewees’ (Block 2000: 758). Thus it seems important to see how the inter-
viewee and the interviewer construct their relationship and respective roles during a
conversation.
Kvale (1996) has defined and contrasted ‘veridical’ and ‘symptomatic’ readings
of interview data. While the ‘veridical’ is assumed as reliable data, the ‘symp-
tomatic’ is regarded as an account related to the interviewees’ relationship to the
topic and the interview as a special context. Following Kvale, for example, in this
study I found that one of the teachers claimed that she never allowed the students to
speak Chinese in the EFL lessons, which did not coincide with the actual beha-
viours I observed in the classrooms. However, as Kvale (1996, cited in Block 2000:
758) pointed out, such inconsistencies do not mean the data is invalid and useless,
but enable the researchers to see the participants’ feelings about some specific
issues.
The design of this study generally followed an ethnographic approach, which

usually required interviewers to position their participants as teachers and them-
selves as learners. Spradley (1979) provided a detailed guide of how to conduct
full-scale ethnographic interviews, and pointed out that the ethnographic interview
is one strategy for learning from the informants and getting them to talk about what
they knew, and then interviewers can use what the informants said as a basis for
understanding their way of life from their point of view. It was because the
approach of treating the informants as teachers would probably allow me to obtain
more reliable data, and make inferences as close as possible to what the informants
said, that an ethnographic approach was adopted in this study from the design of the
interviews to the data collection.
The ethnographic approach used in this study can be characterized as follows:
1. I told the participants that I had no experience of teaching English to first-year
university students and hoped to learn from them.
2. As will be seen from the list of topics at the end of Sect. 4.2.3, my main focus
was not on the teachers’ own use of L1 and L2; I was much more interested in
eliciting their response on the issue of using Chinese in the EFL classes in
general.
3. In order to put the participants at ease and help them feel free to speak their
minds, all the interviews were conducted in Chinese.
4. The participants were encouraged to say what they wanted to say and had the
right to suggest new questions and topics.
It should be recalled, however, that the four participants in this study were my
former colleagues. Considering my familiarity with them, I realized that although I
emphasized that I knew little about teaching the first-year university students and
wanted to learn from them, the informants were very likely to treat me as an
experienced English teacher, just like themselves, and I could not stop them from
doing that. Parkinson (1993) explained the difficulties he and another researcher
encountered in a study when trying to present themselves as complete ‘outsiders’,
and questioned whether applied linguists could do ethnographic interviews in the
areas close to their own specialization. He argued that it was almost impossible for
them to achieve ‘outsider’ roles like traditional ethnographers. In spite of this, after
analyzing some data, he found one of the interviews working most successfully and
concluded the reason was that the interviewer acknowledged not only the inter-
viewee’s expertise, but also his own, to make the real communication happen. In
accordance with Parkinson’s arguments, pretending to be completely ignorant
would not have been a good enough way to win the trust of the informants in my
study. On the contrary, it might give the informants an impression of dishonesty.
Thus, in order to induce these informants to ‘teach’ me and obtain insight into their
world, I recognized that I had to accept the role of ‘expert’, at least to some extent,
and admit the common experience we shared as professional EFL teachers.
I conducted two rounds of interviews with each teacher—the pre-observation
interview and the post-observation interview. In order to allow me to check when
necessary and better understand and interpret these teachers’ views, all the inter-
views were audio-recorded.
The pre-observation interviews were held in the fourth week of the first aca-
demic semester, when the observed teachers had spent four weeks with their new
students. These interviews had several foci. They firstly aimed to capture general
information on the classes which I was going to observe, including the students’
proficiency level, needs and problems. Meanwhile, in the hope of getting more
insight into the real world of their teaching, the interviews also aimed to collect
information on the teachers’ perceptions of their students and their own teaching,
such as teaching objectives and current feelings about teaching. Moreover, although
I had already collected some information on these teachers’ professional back-
grounds, mainly through casual conversations with them, I still asked questions
such as ‘How many years have you been teaching English?’ in the pre-observation
interviews in the hope of obtaining supplementary information.
While the first stage of the interview process was an attempt to get into the
teachers’ real world of teaching by asking about it generally, the post-observation
interviews allowed me to gather direct information on the teachers’ perceptions of
the issue of using Chinese in EFL classes, and their own language use, and to find
out the factors possibly influencing their language use. Moreover, so as not to
interfere with the observation process, these interviews were conducted afterwards.
Both rounds of interviews involved three main types of ethnographic questions
identified and explained by Spradley (1979: 60), as follows:
Descriptive questions. This type enables a person to collect an ongoing sample of an
informant’s language. Descriptive questions are the easiest to ask and they are used in all
interviews. Here’s an example: “Could you describe the conference you attended?”
Structural questions. These questions enable the ethnographer to discover information
about domains, the basic units in an informant’s cultural knowledge. They allow us to find
out how informants have organized their knowledge. Example of structural questions are:
“What are all the different kinds of fish you caught on vacation?” and “What are all the
stages in getting transferred in your company?” Structural questions are often repeated, so
that if an informant identified six types of activities, the ethnographer might ask, “Can you
think of any other kind of activities you would do as a beautician?”
Contrast questions. The ethnographer wants to find out what an informant means by the
various terms used in his native language. Later I will discuss how meaning emerges from
the contrasts implicit in any language. Contrast questions enable the ethnographer to dis-
cover the dimensions of meaning which informants employ to distinguish the objects and
events in their world. A typical contrast question would be, “What’s the difference between
a bass and a northern pike?”
In the pre-observation interviews, I mainly used descriptive questions to collect

the teachers’ general knowledge about their teaching and their students, for
example, ‘Can you tell me some general information about your students?’, ‘What
do you think about these students?’, and ‘How do you feel about teaching these two
kinds of classes?’. Several structural questions were used complementarily to elicit
the teachers’ personal point of view about more specific issues in their teaching, for
instance, ‘What are these students’ needs and problems right now?’, ‘What kinds of
improvements will you expect from them?’, and ‘Are there any constraints in your
teaching? What are they?’. Furthermore, contrast questions were also used during
this interview to compare teaching the listening-and-speaking course and the
reading-and-writing course, such as ‘How do you feel about teaching these two
kinds of classes? Do you feel more comfortable or confident in teaching one kind of
class than the other?’.
Like the pre-observation interviews, the post-observation interviews contained
these three types of questions, but as mentioned above, the difference was that the
questions in these interviews were more concerned with the central topic of this
study—the use of the L1 and L2 in EFL classes—rather than general background
information. For example, I asked the informants: ‘Have you ever taught students at
other proficiency levels? (descriptive question) If yes, is there any difference in the
amount of your Chinese language use when teaching English to different profi-
ciency groups? (contrast question)’, ‘Have you ever observed other teachers’
classes? If yes, do they use Chinese to a different extent? (descriptive question)’,
and ‘What advantages do you think the use of Chinese can bring to your English
teaching? (structural question)’.
Moreover, some explanations and examples were provided together with the
questions to allow the interviewees to fully understand the questions and to give
more accurate answers, especially when they were struggling to respond. For
instance, Betty had some difficulty with the question about the objectives of her
English courses.
In addition, semi-structured interviews, derived from research in the social sci-
ences (Mason 2004: 1020), were developed in this study in order to make the
purposeful conversations more flexible and comfortable, and produce reliable data.
Therefore, instead of simply asking a fixed list of questions, I prepared some topics
in advance, which were as follows:
(a) Their students’ background.
(b) Their views on and expectations of the students.
(c) Their current language teaching in general, such as teaching objectives and
teaching materials.
(d) Their education background and teaching experience.
(e) Their idea of what other teachers (their colleagues) thought and did in their
classrooms regarding the use of Chinese in the EFL classes.
(f) The university requirements about the instructional language of EFL classes in
the local context.
(g) Their ideas about how English should be taught, and their perceptions of the
issue of using Chinese as a tool in the EFL classes as well as some relevant
theoretical issues.
(h) Their requirements about students’ language use and students’ feelings
towards their language use.
(i) Their perceptions of their roles in the two types of courses.
I also prepared a set of questions on these topics in advance of both the
pre-observation interviews and the post-observation interviews.
1. The pre-observation interviews

At the beginning, the aim of the pre-observation interviews was introduced:
‘Today I would like to ask you about the class I am going to observe and your
current teaching in general’. Then I mainly asked the following questions about the
established topics.
(a) The students’ background
• Can you tell me some general information about your students?
• What proficiency level do you teach?
• What subject are they studying?
• How did the university determine which proficiency level the students
would be placed in?
• What score did they have when taking the college entrance exam?
(b) Their views on and expectations of the students
• What do you think about these students? Are they hardworking, disciplined
or cooperative?
• In your opinion, what are these students’ needs and problems right now?
• This semester, what kinds of improvements will you expect from them?
(c) Their current language teaching in general
• What materials do you use in the class?
• In your opinion, what is/are your objective(s) of teaching these two kinds
of English classes? Where do they come from? Are you following a
syllabus?
• How do you feel about teaching these two kinds of classes? Do you feel
more comfortable or confident teaching one kind of class over the other?
Why?
• Are there any constraints in your teaching? What are they?
(d) Their teaching experience in general
• Could you please tell me how many years you have been teaching English?
2. The post-observation interviews

I started these interviews by showing my interest in their language use, for
example, I might say ‘I found you used Chinese to teach English to this group of
students, which interested me a lot. Now I would like to ask you a few questions
about this’. The following are the main topics and approximate questions prepared
in advance.
(a) Their education and teaching experience regarding L1 and L2 use
• How much, if at all, did your teachers use Chinese in English lessons? For
example, did some use a lot, some a little and some never use it? Please tell
me some information about the range of your English teachers’ Chinese

use.
• Have you ever taught other proficiency level students? If so, is there any
difference in the quantity of your use of Chinese when teaching English to
different proficiency groups?
(b) Their ideas about what other teachers (their colleagues) thought and did in
their classrooms regarding the use of Chinese in the EFL classes.
• Have you ever observed other teachers’ classes? If yes, do they use
Chinese to a different extent?
• Have you ever exchanged ideas with other English teachers about using
Chinese in English teaching? If yes, can you tell me more about this? Do
many of them have strong but different opinions about using Chinese in the
EFL classes?
(c) The university requirements about the language of instruction in the EFL
classes
• In the university, are there any requirements about the instructional lan-
guage in EFL classes? Does the university encourage English-only in EFL
classes?
(d) Their ideas about how English should be taught, and their perceptions of the
issue of using Chinese as a tool in the EFL classes as well as some relevant
theoretical issues.
• Have you heard of ‘language immersion class’ in which the mother tongue
is not allowed to be used? Can you tell me your opinion about this method?
• Do you think it is possible to completely avoid using Chinese in your
English teaching?
• Some people think that using Chinese in EFL classes means producing less
English input and may cause interlingual errors. However, some other
people think that using Chinese has many advantages over other methods.
Can you tell me your opinion about this?
• What advantages do you think the use of Chinese can bring to your English
teaching?
(e) Their requirements about students’ language use and students’ feelings
towards their language use.
• Do you mind the students using Chinese in your classes?
• What do you think about the students’ feelings and attitudes towards
teachers’ use of Chinese in EFL classes?
(f) Their perceptions of their roles
• How do you perceive your role in the two types of courses?
It should be noted that the questions asked in the interviews were not necessarily
asked in those words. Moreover, new questions and information were also allowed
to emerge as a result of what the informants said during the interviews.
The physical settings of the interviews were decided together by the participants
and me. All the pre-observation interviews were conducted in the classrooms in
which I had done my observations. Most of the post-observation interviews took
place at the teachers’ homes, according to their wishes. The only exception was the
post-observation interview with Betty, which took place in her classroom as well.
Furthermore, since it was hard to control the length of the semi-structured inter-
views, I explained to the teachers I might need about one and half hours for the two
types of interviews, for example, half an hour for the pre-observation interview, and
not less than one hour for the post-observation interview.
4.2.4 Stimulated Recall
The use of introspective and retrospective methods has been widely explored in the
field of second and foreign language research (see Cohen 1987; Faerch and Kasper
1987; Ericsson and Simon 1980, 1987; Gass and Mackey 2000). Stimulated recall,
according to Nunan (1992: 94), can be defined as ‘a technique in which the
researcher records and transcribes parts of a lesson and then gets the teacher (and,
where possible, the students) to comment on what was happening at the time that
the teaching and learning took place’. As an important introspective data elicitation
tool, stimulated recall is usually combined with other techniques to achieve trian-
gulation or further exploration (Gass and Mackey 2000: 19).
The main advantage of the stimulated recall technique is that it ‘enables the
teachers and students as well as the researcher to present their various interpreta-
tions of what is going on in the classroom and provides insights into aspects of
teaching which could be difficult to obtain in any other way’ (Nunan 1992: 94).
Mackey and Gass (2005: 203) offered a similar argument that ‘stimulated recall can
be used to provide the researcher with access to the learners’ interpretations of the
events that were observed and can be a valuable source of information for
researchers interested in viewing a finely detailed picture of the classroom’. Bloom
(1954: 25) also pointed out that ‘a subject may be enabled to relive an original
situation with great vividness and accuracy if he is presented with a large number of
the cues or stimuli which occurred during the original situation’.
Although Bloom (1954: 26) assumed that ‘the recall of one’s own private,
conscious thoughts approximates the recall of the overt, observable events’, he
found (1954, cited in Gass and Mackey 2000: 18) that accuracy decreased with
time, while recall was 95 percent accurate if conducted promptly. Moreover,
Nisbett (cited in Gass and Mackey 2000: 22) argued that people are more likely to
rely on their current perceptions, expectations or scripts, rather than their memory
and prompts, when interpreting their behaviours during a less recent event.
Therefore, ideally, the stimulated recalls in the present study should have been
conducted as soon as possible after the observation process, for the purpose of
improving recall accuracy. However, because of scheduling problems, the stimu-
lated recalls could not be arranged immediately after the observation process, as
planned, I had to change my plans and some recalls were carried out later, but all
within ten days of the observation.
Similarly, in order to improve recall accuracy, the episodes used in the stimu-
lated recalls were selected carefully from the audio recordings of the lessons
observed in the fifth week, which was closer to the end of the data collection. These
episodes were chosen for their frequent use of the L1 or code-switching, or because
they contained other features that seemed interesting.
In their communications before the stimulated recalls, two of the teachers said to
me that they might feel uncomfortable seeing themselves on video. Thus in order
not to affect their mood and thinking, I decided not to use the video clips, but to use
the audio recordings during the stimulated recalls, although the videos could have
provided more cues and details for the original events. Nevertheless, I copied the
video-recorded lessons of each of them onto four separate video compact discs and
asked them to watch their own video at home before participating in the stimulated
recalls, in the hope of strengthening their memory of what had happened in these
lessons.
In order to standardize the instructions for the four teachers, I produced a written
draft of the instructions and presented it to them at the beginning of the stimulated
recalls (see Fig. 4.1). Some of the points in this draft were also mentioned again
during the stimulated recalls to remind the teachers what to do.
In addition to the above, some instructions were specifically designed to remind
me what to do and what to say during the recalls. Thus the instructions contained
my prediction and description about some situations which were very likely to
occur in the stimulated recalls and the rules for dealing with them (see Fig. 4.2).
A list of possible questions to pose to the teachers was also included.
Since it was the first time I had employed this technique, events which I did not
anticipate also occurred. For example, sometimes the teachers did not know what to
say after listening to an episode. In these circumstances, I tried to describe in
general what they were doing at surface level, in the hope of stimulating their
memory, and then asked some specific questions like ‘in this situation, I see you
Next I’m going to show you some episodes of your lessons. I want you to listen to
these episodes carefully and try to remember what was happening and what you were
thinking at that moment, especially about your language use. You can tell me
whatever details you remember.
I will click the ‘pause’ button if I have a question. You can also pause the recording
anytime if you have something to say, and you can play the recording again if you
did not catch it clearly.
Fig. 4.1 The instructions for the teachers for conducting the stimulated recalls
a. Rules for how to act:

• To put the teachers at ease if they look uncomfortable.
• Not to lead their answers.
• Not to evaluate or reveal own perceptions on their language use in these episodes.
• Not to give concrete responses if they ask questions like ‘what do you think?’.
• Not to challenge their comments and perceptions.
• To accept if they shift away from recalling what happened to talking about their
thoughts in general.
• To accept if they say ‘I can’t remember’.
• To replay the tape if they are trying to remember the words on the tape.
• To help them stop the tape if they forgot to do so.
b. Possible questions:
• Do you remember what were you doing here?
• I see you were saying something in the L1/L2 here; what were you thinking at that
moment?
• Can you tell me why you said something in the L1/L2 here?
• Did you say it in the L1/L2 intentionally?
• In this situation, are there any factors that might have influenced your language
choice?
• Were you thinking about using an alternative language or other non-verbal methods
such as body language at that time?
• Did you notice how the students responded?
• Did you always/often choose to use the L1/L2 in this kind of situation?
Fig. 4.2 The instructions for the researcher for conducting the stimulated recalls
were saying something in the L1 or L2, what were you thinking then?’, although
‘fishing for recall comments that were not immediately given by the participant will
increase the likelihood that the recall comments will be based on what participants
think now, some other memory/perception, or some flawed or biased recollection’
(Gass and Mackey 2000: 59).
4.3 Approaches to Lesson Data Analysis
The following section describes and seeks to justify the main approaches to lesson
data analysis used in the present study. It starts by discussing three main analytical
approaches to the pragmatic aspects of code-switching, including the approach used
in this study. Then it introduces the approach adopted in the sequential analysis of
classroom language use. It also considers the various criteria used in the gram-
matical analysis of code-switching and describes the criterion chosen for this study.
Finally, the units of analysis selected for this study are discussed.
4.3 Approaches to Lesson Data Analysis 81
4.3.1 Analytical Approaches to the Pragmatic Aspects

of Code-Switching: The Taxonomic Approach Versus
the Markedness Model and the Conversation Analysis
Approach
According to Gafaranga (2007: 280), approaches to code-switching from the

socio-functional perspective fall into two main categories: ‘identity-related expla-
nation’ and ‘organizational explanation’.
Myers-Scotton’s Markedness model is a typical representation of a so-called
‘identity-related explanation’, since as discussed in Sect. 3.4.3, it assumes that the
social meaning of code-switching is derived from the social value attached to each
language in a community. However, as Auer (1995: 118) pointed out, ‘many speech
activities are not tied to one particular language, and even among those which have
a tendency to be realised more often in one language than in another, the correlation
is never strong enough to predict language choice in more than a probabilistic way’.
It was precisely because of this ambiguous relation between one language and a
specific conversational activity, and the separation from the conversational context,
that the Markedness model was not used for the present study.
The Conversation Analysis approach focuses on the ‘local organization of
bilingual conversation’ (Gafaranga 2007: 297). It aims to provide sequential
accounts of code-switching and to investigate the functions of code-switching within
the conversational context. However, it was rejected in this study for two reasons.
One reason is that this approach seems to ignore the significance of the macro social
context and the participants’ previous experiences (see Sect. 3.4.3). In classroom
settings, participants seem more likely to rely on their previous experiences to deal
with similar situations, since as Erickson and Schultz (1977, cited in McGilly 1994:
236) noted, the nature of classroom activities was essentially repetitive and ritual-
istic. Another reason for not using this approach is that CA needs very fine-grained
transcriptions to provide as much detail as possible for in-depth analysis, which, as
Gourlay (2003: 115) said, was extremely time-consuming, and seemed unnecessary
for the present study.
In addition to the above-mentioned approaches, many researchers have devel-
oped taxonomies to explain why people code-switch. Such work can be traced back
to Gumperz (1982). These studies usually present a list of functions with definitions
and examples.
Auer (1995: 120–121) offered the most extensive arguments against the taxo-
nomic approach:
1. The conversational categories used for the analysis are often ill-defined.
2. So-called typologies of code-alternation often confuse conversational structures, lin-
guistic forms and functions of code-alternation.
3. Lists of conversational loci for code-alternation, or typologies of functions, may give us
an initial clue as to what is going on.
4. The listing of conversational loci for code-alternation implies that code-alternation should
have the same conversational status in both directions, i.e. from language A into B or vice
versa.
Myers-Scotton (1993b: 63) also criticized these studies because they ‘stop short
of organizing any listings or insights into a coherent and comprehensive theoretical
framework’.
Nevertheless, the taxonomic approach was used in the present study for the
following reasons:
1. The functions of the teachers’ code-switching can be presented clearly and
visually in the form of a list.
2. In addition to identifying the functions of the teachers’ code-switching, it can
provide quantitative information about the frequency of their code-switching for
each particular function, which seems unable to be captured by both the
Markedness model and the CA approach.
3. Although it does not describe the sequential development of classroom dis-
course, the investigation of the teachers’ code-switching within a certain period
of continuous recording can avoid entirely separating their code choices from
the conversational context.
4. It does not reject the macro-level social value of code-switching deriving from
community norms.
By using the listing format, I did not intend to give a complete account of all
possible functions of the teachers’ code-switching in this particular language
teaching context. Rather, this approach was adopted only to provide initial insights,
and it must be acknowledged that there were probably other functions not captured
by this study. Moreover, ‘function’ is a high-inference category, and many, perhaps
all, utterances are multi-functional. In my analysis, I have used my own judgment to
choose what seemed the most important or most explicit function.
4.3.2 Sequential Analysis of Classroom Discourse:

An Approach Based on the Concept of ‘Frame’
Considering that the analysis of the functions of code-switching in this study did
not discuss the teachers’ code choices in the conversational context, it seemed
important to give an account of the sequential development of classroom discourse.
In doing so, in order to take the participants’ expectations and previous experiences
into consideration, an approach based on the concept of ‘frame’ was adopted, rather
than Conversation Analysis.
The concept of ‘frame’ has been widely used by researchers in diverse disci-
plines, such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, artificial intelligence and
linguistics. Since its first introduction by Bateson (1972), ‘frame’ has been devel-
oped and used by many others, for example, Goffman (1974), Gumperz (1982),
Tannen (1993), Hancock (1997), Pennington (1999) and Gourlay (2003, 2006). As
a concept with great potential in the area of linguistics, it has influenced methods of
language analysis, as can be illustrated by Tannen’s (1993: 4) statement that ‘the
concept of framing provides a fruitful theoretical foundation for the discourse

analysis of interaction’.
Tannen (1993) provided a theoretical overview of the development of ‘frame’
and related terms, such as ‘script’ and ‘schema’, and attempted to simplify matters
by using Ross’s (1975) term ‘structures of expectation’, which was explained as
follows: ‘on the basis of one’s experience of the world in a given culture (or
combination of cultures), one organizes knowledge about the world and uses this
knowledge to predict interpretations and relationships regarding new information,
events, and experiences’ (Tannen 1993: 16). According to her, whereas in one sense
‘frame’ was roughly synonymous with what she called ‘structure of expectation’, it
was also used in a different sense by Bateson and Goffman, referring to ‘what
activity is being engaged in, how speakers mean what they say’ (Tannen 1993: 60).
Tannen (1993: 18) also offered a detailed discussion of frames as used by Hymes
in his work on the ethnography of speaking. She not only emphasized the impor-
tance of using ‘frame’ to interpret an utterance or behaviour, but also pointed out
that Hymes used this term in the same way as Goffman:
In order to interpret utterances in accordance with the way in which they were intended, a
hearer must know what “frame” s/he is operating in, that is, whether the activity being
engaged in is joking, imitating, chatting, lecturing, or performing a play, to name just a few
possibilities familiar to our culture. This notion of frames as a culturally determined,
familiar activity is consonant with the term as used by Goffman (1974) and Frake (1977).
Gourlay (2006) was the most recent study involving the use of the concept of
frame in this area. The frames she used are essentially ‘structures of expectation’.
Gourlay proposed four kinds of frames, assuming four levels of information
Chinese students may rely on to interpret their transition from their previous edu-
cational culture to UK higher education. She adopted this concept because she felt
‘a scene of action alone does not provide sufficient information about the context’,
in accordance with Erickson (1982: 159): ‘The scene is too complex and broad to
be informative by itself. Specific features of context must be pointed to continually
and sustained through communicative behaviour’.
Like Gourlay, I believe that framing a scene can provide information at different
levels. Therefore, I adopted the idea of framing classroom discourse, for the purpose
of finding out more about the teachers’ language use. However, unlike in Gourlay’s
work, the notion of frame was applied to this study mainly at activity level, which
was basically the same as its use by Bateson, Goffman and Hymes. To be specific,
‘frame’, in this study, refers to the interpretive structures produced based on one’s
knowledge and experiences about teacher talk and classroom sequential events in a
lesson, within which classroom discourse can be understood and interpreted. In
addition, the main focus of the present study is not on how to make the concept of
frame fit into the classroom discourse analysis or how to frame the teachers’ dis-
course, but on analyzing their discourse within these frames.
4.3.3 Criteria for Grammatical Analysis of Code-Switching
In order to standardize the grammatical analysis of code-switching, an important

step was to determine the matrix language (ML) for each instance of insertional
code-switching. Gardner-Chloros (2009) provided a very detailed discussion of the
relevant criteria proposed from different perspectives in the research area of
code-switching. According to him (2009: 101–103), the quantitative criterion states
that the ML is the language with the greater number of words; the morpheme-type
criterion claims that the ML should be the language providing the function words,
except within EL ‘islands’; a psycholinguistic approach says that the ML is the
language in which the speaker is most proficient; a social approach chooses the
expected code for interactions in the community as the ML; other grammatically
oriented criteria suggest that the ML is determined either by the language of the
main verb or by the first major constituent in the utterance. Meanwhile, he also
pointed out that each of these criteria has its own problems, and presented relevant
arguments against them (For further discussion see Gardner-Chloros 2009: 101–
103).
Although it seemed that no agreement had been reached on this issue,
Myers-Scotton’s Matrix Language Frame model was chosen for this study because
it seemed more widely accepted, and fitted my own perceptions. In this model, the
ML is said to be the language determining word order and providing system
morphemes in a mixed utterance. The two principles she proposed for identifying
the ML are as follows:
The Morpheme Order Principle: In ML + EL constituents consisting of singly-occurring
EL lexemes and any number of ML morphemes, surface morpheme order will be that of
ML.
The System Morpheme Principle: In ML + EL constituents, all system morphemes which
have grammatical relations external to their head constituent will come from the ML.
(Myers-Scotton 1993a: 83)
It is clear that here the system morpheme principle does not require all system
morphemes to have come from the ML, but restricts its scope to late outsider
system morphemes, as specified in the extended version ‘4-M model’ (see also
Sect. 3.3.2.3).
Another problem for the grammatical analysis was to identify the switched
constituent(s) in each instance of code-switching. With regard to this, I followed
Prince and Pintzuk (1984) and took the highest constituent of non-matrix language
as the switched constituent. Thus, the first example contains only a single switched
constituent (verb phrase), rather than two constituents (verb + prepositional
phrase), three constituents (verb + preposition + noun phrase), or four constituents
(verb + preposition + determiner + noun phrase). In the second example, however,
there are two switched constituents (adjective phrase + tag), because the switched
items cannot form a single constituent.
1. T: 那我就go to the second part 啊.

Then I go to the second part.
2. T: You are very confident, 很自信,是不是啊?
You are very confident, very confident, right?
4.3.4 Units of Analysis
There were two types of units used in the analysis of the present study. First of all,
in order to find out the time the teachers spent in speaking each language, I used the
modified coding system of Duff and Polio (1990) and followed them in using
‘utterance’ as the unit for measuring spoken language. However, whilst Duff and
Polio used intonation contours as the only criterion for identifying an utterance, I
used three criteria, that is, intonation contours, pauses and semantic factors. This is
in line with Crookes and Rulon’s (1985: 9) operational definition:
An utterance [is] defined as a stream of speech with at least one of the following
characteristics:
1. under one intonation contour,
2. bounded by pauses, and
3. constituting a single semantic unit.
Accordingly, I coded a new utterance if it met at least one of the three criteria. To
be specific, a falling tone indicated the end of an utterance and a rising tone
indicated the end of an utterance if it was used to ask a question (Shewan 1988:
124). A pause of more than one second was also considered as a sign of an
utterance boundary. Moreover, an utterance usually contained a complete idea or an
identifiable theme. Topic shift was also used as factors to identify utterances.
Furthermore, the ‘AS-unit’ (Foster et al. 2000) rather than ‘utterance’ was
selected to segment the teachers’ spoken language when doing qualitative analysis
and measuring the frequency of code-switching, because of its clear definition and
advantages in dealing with some common features of non-native-speaker speech,
for example, fragments, repetitions, and self-corrections, which seemed difficult to
code by using other types of units, such as the T-unit and the C-unit.
The AS-unit was defined by Foster et al. (2000: 365) as ‘a single speaker’s
utterance consisting of an independent clause, or sub-clausal unit, together with any
subordinate clause(s) associated with either’. ‘An independent sub-clausal unit’ was
further defined as ‘either one or more phrases which can be elaborated to a full
clause by means of recovery of ellipted elements from the context of the discourse
or situation’ (Foster et al. 2000: 366).
Based on this definition, the AS-unit can be used to deal not only with utterance
fragments, but also with chunks of language which lack certain ‘normal’ sentence
constituents. For example, since a significant feature of the Chinese language is

topic-prominence, in certain situations, Chinese utterances only have a topic but not
a subject, and the subject is inferred from context. Chinese utterances with this kind
of feature in the data were all regarded as ‘independent sub-clausal units’.
Part II
Results
Chapters 5, 6 and 7 present the results of the analysis of data gathered from three
different sources: classroom observation, interviews and stimulated recall. They
examine, respectively, the four teachers’ actual L1 and L2 use in their teaching,
their general beliefs regarding the use of the L1 in L2 teaching, and their own
perceptions of their language use in specific episodes.
Chapter 5
Classroom Data
5.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to investigate the actual language use of the four Chinese EFL
teachers in the observed lessons. It consists of three main sections: (1) analysis of
the teachers’ code-switching; (2) global analysis [quantitative]; and (3) global
analysis [qualitative]. The first section looks at both the grammatical features and
functions of the teachers’ code-switching. The second section examines the dis-
tribution of each teacher’s L1 and L2 use, by quantifying their L1 and L2 use in all
the lessons observed, and attempts to identify possible reasons for the variation in
the amount of L1 use by each of them. The third section not only focuses on
exploring the functions of the teachers’ language use, but also investigates and
compares their language use across different frames of classroom discourse.
Although both the first and third sections investigate the functions of the teachers’
language use, there are several differences between them. First of all, while in the
first section the teachers’ code-switching is analyzed as individual acts, the third
section analyzes their language use within a sequential context and provides a
description of the circumstances in which they resort to L1 use. Secondly, the first
section only looks at the teachers’ language use at the switch points, whereas the
third section examines their use of the L1 and L2 in all situations. Thirdly, while the
first section carries out an analysis of the frequency of their code-switching for each
function, the third section is entirely qualitative. Lastly, the code-switching data is
extracted from just one of their observed lessons, whereas the episodes for global
qualitative analysis are selected from several lessons I observed.

90 5 Classroom Data
5.2 Analysis of the Teachers’ Code-Switching
In order to explore how the four Chinese EFL teachers code-switched in the real
situations of their lessons, this section investigates both pragmatic and grammatical
aspects of their code-switching. In doing so, it adopts a data-driven approach to the
analysis of the teachers’ code-switching, rather than applying pre-designed obser-
vation instruments. Both the functional and the syntactic category systems were
generated during the process of analyzing the half-hour audio-recorded data
selected from each teacher. Although some proposed analysis systems, such as the
Flint system (Moskowitz 1971), and some functional categories from Gumperz
(1982) and Chaudron (1988), had a certain influence on the analysis, the functional
categories generated in this study were basically data-driven.
This section aims to investigate research question 2 and parts of question 3
(other parts of questions 3 will be investigated in Sect. 5.4):
2. What grammatical patterns exist in these teachers’ use of the two lan-
guages in their classrooms?
5.2.1 Procedures of Analysis
The process of generating the data-driven categories consisted of three main steps.
First, since I was concerned with frequency and variation, I selected approximately
half-hour periods of continuous data involving more frequent and varied switches,
after listening to the audio recorded lessons of each teacher. I realize that selecting
these data was a somewhat subjective process, but in this study, I was not trying to
make any generalized quantitative claims about such switches. The next step was
to find and transcribe the examples in which switches occurred. The final step was
to find out for what functions the teachers switched and the syntactic environment
where their switches occurred. Moreover, the code-switches occurring for the same
function and at the same syntactic point were classified in the same way, and a new
category was established only when the switches took place for a function or at a
syntactic point that had not previously been found.
5.2.2 Taxonomy of Functional Categories
There are eight data-driven functional categories the four Chinese EFL teachers had
in common, and they will be presented with operational definitions and examples in
5.2 Analysis of the Teachers’ Code-Switching 91
this section. Other categories shared by only one, two, or three of the teachers will
be discussed afterwards when showing the analysis results of each teacher’s
code-switching. Moreover, in the following examples, the transcripts of the
teachers’ original words are presented in regular typeface. The translations of their
Chinese utterances are in italics and English utterances are in bold. Slashes indicate
points at which code-switches occur for a particular category.
1. Acceptance check: Checking whether students agree with the teacher’s opinion
or accept the teacher’s suggestion (often this is just formality), usually by using
tags at the end of a unit, such as ‘ok’ and ‘right’.
(1) (Betty, lesson 1)

T: 今天我们花了至少二十分钟在这个听写上, / ok?
Today we spent at least 20 min on this dictation, ok?
2. Reiteration: Repeating what has just been said to students, either partially or
fully, either literally or in modified form. The information quoted directly from
teaching materials is not included (adapted from Gumperz 1982).
(2) (Anne, lesson 3)

T: 那么你必须的话呢, 对它很了解。 / So you must be very familiar with the
answers to the question.
So you must be very familiar with it. So you must be very familiar with the
answers to the question.
3. Clarification: Explaining or elaborating on an idea or knowledge based on

lesson content, especially in order to make it easier to understand.

T: 是不是象以前一样的? / You go to the classroom and discuss them in person.
Is it the same as before? You go to the classroom and discuss them in person.
4. Translation: Translating meanings of L2 words, phrases, or sentences, usually

written in teaching materials, or their relevant examples through the L1, or vice
versa.
(4) (Carl, lesson 3)

T: Do you know the meaning of ‘awkward’? / 尴尬。
Do you know the meaning of ‘awkward’? Embarrassed.
5. Quotation: A message quoted either directly from teaching materials or from

previous speech.
92 5 Classroom Data
(5) (Carl, lesson 3)

T: 比如说这个 / ‘dealer’, 商人, 是不是?
For example, this ‘dealer’, businessman, right?
6. Reinforcement: Repeating a message after translation or explanation, or

repeating its translation or explanation, in order to reinforce students’ memory
or understanding of it.
(6) (David, lesson 4)

T: Just like the electric appliance. ‘Electric appliance’? 电器。 / Electric appliance.
Just like the electric appliance. ‘Electric appliance’? Electric appliance. Electric
appliance.
7. Giving examples: Giving examples related to the usage of a word, phrase or

structure which has just been taught.

T: 还记得‘via’ 吗? / V-i-a, via email, right?
Do you still remember ‘via’? V-i-a, via email, right?
8. Transition: The process through which a lesson gradually moves from one state
to another, usually by using conjunctions or adverbs.
(8) (David, lesson 4)

T: 一旦是 / you learn English, you have to, yes, have passion.
Once you learn English, you have to, yes, have passion.
5.2.3 Results
I will now discuss these teachers one by one and draw a profile of the categories
they switched for in the data. As I already mentioned, in order to do this, I will
propose a functional analysis of selected examples. I acknowledge there is probably
some ambiguity in the taxonomy, as in some cases I cannot know their real pur-
poses for code-switching, though I have tried to see ‘through their eyes’.
Additionally, for simplicity and clarity, the analysis results of each teacher’s
code-switches will be presented in the form of tables. Since the teachers’ language
use was examined not only at the functional level but also at the syntactic level, the
presentation of the data was organized according to these two categories as well as
which language they switched into.
5.2.3.1 Anne
Anne dominated the discourse during the extract. In the lesson, she first arranged
seating as she wanted it for the quiz that the students were going to take in the
following lesson of the day. Then she provided some information on the quiz, and
introduced lesson procedures for the day. After that, she moved on to the exercises,
which were the focus of the lesson. In terms of her language use, it can be seen that
she used Chinese almost exclusively when managing classroom behaviour and
talking about the quiz and lesson procedures. Although she seemed seldom to
switch between Chinese and English in these particular situations, she switched
more often between the two languages during the process of dealing with the
exercises in the same lesson. The following are the functions for which Anne
switched, additional to the eight categories introduced above.
A1. Repeating student response: Repeating exactly what students have said
(adapted from Moskowitz 1971).
(9) T: We 什么?
We what?
FS: We don’t
T: / We don’t? We don’t? 我们对它施加了限制。
We don’t? We don’t? We put some restrictions on it.
A2. Spelling: Spelling a word, prefix or suffix orally.
(10) T: ‘Add’ 吧? / A-d-d 吧?

‘Add’, right? A-d-d, right?
(11) T: 为什么我们上面的句子用了 / -i-n-g 而这里他用了 / -e-d 呢?

Why did we use -i-n-g in the last sentence but use -e-d here?
A3. Self-affirmation: Affirming (immediately) the information provided by the

teacher himself/herself.
(12) T: 好, 那么还有什么? ‘Action’./ 对了。

Ok, then what else? ‘Action’. Right.
(13) T: 然后呢? ‘Active’. / 对。

And then? ‘Active’. Right.
A4. Introducing another possibility: Providing another possibility, usually by using

the co-ordinating conjunction ‘or’.
(14) T: They can exchange ideas with each other through email, / 或者via. 还记得
‘via’ 吗? V-i-a, via email, right? / 或者 via internet.
94 5 Classroom Data
They can exchange ideas with each other through email, or via. Do you still
remember ‘via’? V-i-a, via email, right? Or via internet.
A5. Repair: An attempt to improve previously produced speech, which was

somewhat lacking in clarity, completeness, or correctness (adapted from
Chaudron 1988).
(15) T: 这个在原文中可以很容易。 / You can find the answer very easily, so I

don’t want to go through this part.
In the text this could be very easy. You can find the answer very easily, so I don’t
want to go through this part.
A6. Advice on learning: Advice on developing learning skills.
(16) T: It will, anyway, it will become very popular, right? Ok, it will, it will be, it
will be. / 如果你记不到课文里的原话的话, 你想一下将来的网络教育肯定是越
来越普通的, 是普遍的。
It will, anyway, it will become very popular, right? Ok, it will, it will be, it will be.
If you can’t remember the original sentence in the text, you can imagine that future
education on the internet will definitely be more and more common, be popular.
A7. Giving clues: Giving students prompts, usually for helping them to answer a
question or continue doing a task.
(17) T: We don’t? We don’t? / 我们对它施加了些限制。

We don’t? We don’t? We put some restrictions on it.
A8. Classroom routine vocabulary: Vocabulary relevant to the routines of the

classroom.
(18) T: 我们这个 / unit 2 讲完了。但估计的话还是很多同学没有去看哦。

We have finished this unit 2. But I suppose that many students haven’t read it.
(19) T: 然后我会把 / text B, text B 它的重点, 把它挑出来, 因为 / text B 我们在

原则上讲原则上讲是老师不讲的。
Then I will pick out the key points from text B, text B, because we in principle, in
principle teacher won’t explain text B.
A9. Free switching: No clear functions can be found for the switches in this
category.
(20) T: 可是我们有一些同学是比较比较 / hardworking 的。他不仅读的出来而

且读的很准确很流利。
But there are some students who are relatively relatively hardworking. He not only
can read it, but also can read it very accurately and fluently.
(21) T: 啊, 这是我们这个/ answer to the first question.

Ah, this is our answer to the first question.
A10. Giving information: Giving information or the teacher’s own opinions about
lesson content, classroom events, teaching agenda or institutional agenda.
Asking rhetorical questions is also included (adapted from Moskowitz 1971).
(22) T: 大家一起说一下。/ Teachers and students work together, work together.

Let’s say it together. Teachers and students work together, work together.
(23) T: 我们有很多的选择。什么样的选择呢? / Choices of of courses and sub-

jects, and time frames, right?
We have a lot of choices. What kind of choices? Choices of of courses and
subjects, and time frames, right?
A11. Emphasis: Emphasizing a particular point related to lesson content, or the

teacher’s own opinions or ideas. Reiteration is not included.
(24) T: 把这个答案填进去以后发现 you still, you still can’t understand, still you
can’t understand. / 那么这个时候的话呢, you can ask me, ok?
After filling in the blanks with the answers, you find you still, you still can’t
understand, still you can’t understand. Then at this time, you can ask me, ok?
A12. Sentence filler: The words used during speaking when the teacher is thinking
of what to say next or when he/she cannot find anything better to say.
(25) T: Ok, / 我们现在可以稍微提一下。

Ok, now we can slightly mention it.
A13. Asking questions: Asking questions to which students are expected to

answer. Questions for acceptance check, comprehension check and retention
check are not included in this category (adapted from Moskowitz 1971).
(26) T: 那么 ‘extend’. / 我们讲过它本来是指地理空间上的什么? 延伸吧? 是不

是啊?
Then ‘extend’. We have said what it refers to of geographical space? Extension?
Right?
A14. Grammar instruction: Instructions explaining grammar knowledge.

96 5 Classroom Data
(27) T: ‘Put restriction on something’. / 那么 ‘restriction’ 放到前面去了。因此

‘put’ 和 ‘on’ 的话就连在一块儿了。
‘Put restriction on something’. Then ‘restriction’ was put in the front. Thus
‘put’ and ‘on’ were linked together.
A15. Praising or encouraging students: Praising students for what they have said
or done. Encouraging students to continue doing a task or giving them
confidence. Telling students their answers are correct is also included in this
category (adapted from Moskowitz 1971).
(28) T: 就是, 我们传统的教室是一个 ‘room’, 是不是啊? 一个‘room’. 在这个里

面, ‘where’, 定语从句, 是不是啊? 在这个里面呢, ‘teachers and students work
together’. / 那我们能背得出来了, 你们的话呢应该能记得住它啊。
That is to say, our traditional classroom is a ‘room’, right? A ‘room’. In this room,
‘where’, attributive clause, right? In this room, ‘teachers and students work
together’. Now that we could recite it, you should be able to remember it.
A16. Comprehension check: Questions for checking whether or not students

understand lesson content or what the teacher has said (adapted from
Chaudron 1988).
(29) T: 把 ‘no’, 把 ‘restriction’ 做了主语放到前面去了。结果 ‘put’ 和 ‘on’ 放到

一块儿了。/ Are you clear now? 还不懂? 懂了没有?
Place ‘no’, place ‘restriction’ in the front as the subject. As a result, ‘put’ and ‘on’
were placed together. Are you clear now? Still not clear? Are you clear?
(30) T: 所以呢, they can exchange thought, 交流思想, opinion, information with
the classmates through internet, via internet. / 明白没有? 记下没有?
So, they can exchange thought, exchange thought, opinion, information with the
classmates through internet, via internet. Do you understand? Do you remember
it?
A17. Procedural language: In this category, code-switching is used to deliver a

message related to classroom procedures.
(31) T: ‘Project’, ‘working on the project’. / 好, 这里我们看一下啊。我们看一下

它的主语是什么样的。
‘Project’, ‘working on the project’. Ok, let’s have a look at it here. Let’s have a
look at what its subject is.
(32) T: 我们上节课讲了一下这个 text A, passage A. / 那么 33 面。

We have learned this text A, passage A. Then page 33.
A18. Retention check: Questions for checking students’ memory of what they
have learned before.
(33) T: They can exchange ideas with each other through email, 或者via. / 还记得
‘via’ 吗?
They can exchange ideas with each other through email, or via. Do you still
remember ‘via’?
Table 5.1 below shows the number and the percentage of Anne’s switches for
different functions and at different syntactic levels.
As we can see from Table 5.1, among the 26 functions, Anne switched most
frequently for three categories, quotation (39.2 %), reiteration (12.4 %), and
translation (7.6 %). She also switched relatively frequently for some functions, such
as giving information (5.8 %), classroom routine vocabulary (4.8 %), acceptance
check (4.1 %) and asking questions (3.1 %). There were also some functions for
which she rarely switched. For example, the percentages of her code-switches for
advice on learning, giving clues, praising or encouraging students, grammar
instruction and emphasis were only 0.3 %.
Furthermore, she seemed to use the two languages respectively for different
functions. For example, for quotation, classroom routine vocabulary, sentence filler,
giving examples, repair and reinforcement, she switched exclusively from Chinese
to English, while for acceptance check, asking questions, advice on learning, giving
clues, grammar instruction, transition, emphasis, self-affirmation, retention check
and praising or encouraging students, she shifted entirely to Chinese.
Nevertheless, for functions such as reiteration, procedural language, translation
and clarification, she switched into both Chinese and English, and for some of these
functions such as reiteration and clarification, the number of switches into Chinese
was not much different from that into English. Moreover, more than 80 % of her
switches for translation occurred from English to Chinese, and around 94 % of her
switches took place from Chinese to English for the purpose of giving information.
Table 5.1 also shows that her switches might occur at different syntactic levels.
According to the statistics, Anne usually switched at unit boundaries, but rarely
switched at clause boundaries. Furthermore, it is worth noting that lexical and
phrasal switches composed a crucial element of her switches, especially from
Chinese to English. For instance, apart from her switches for classroom routine
vocabulary, more than 2/3 of her switches for quotation and free switching were at
the lexical or the phrasal level. Moreover, noun phrases were switched more fre-
quently than other types, like verb phrases, adverb phrases, adjective phrases and
prepositional phrases.
Additionally, it is interesting to discuss some examples of her code-switches at
different syntactic levels. However, considering that there is no space to present
example switches of every syntactic category mentioned in Table 5.1, I limit the
examination to the syntactic patterns of the constituents in which the grammars of
the two languages seem to be in real contact. The following demonstrates some
typical patterns of ML + EL constituent of her code-switches.
98 5 Classroom Data
Table 5.1 Anne’s code-switches by functional and syntactic categories

Categories of code-switching Number of switches Percentage of
Functional level Syntactic level From English From Chinese code-switches (%)
to Chinese to English
1. Acceptance check Tag 12 4.1
2. Reiteration a. Unit 19 14 12.4
b. Propositional 1
phrase
d. Number 1
f. Adjective 1
3. Clarification a. Unit 3 4 2.7
b. Adverb phrase 1
4. Translation a. Verb phrase 4 2 7.6
b. Noun phrase 4 2
c. Unit 5
d. Noun 1
phrase + tag
e. Adjective 1
phrase + tag
f. Verb 2
phrase + tag
g. Noun 1
phrase + tag
5. Quotation a. Unit 29 39.2
b. Noun phrase 28
c. Verb phrase 26
d. Adverb phrase 3
e. Adjective 8
f. Determiner 2
g. Clause 2
h. Conjunction 1
i. Pronoun 2
j. Number 2
k. Prepositional 6
phrase
l. Particle phrase 5
6. Reinforcement Unit 5 1.7
7. Giving examples a. Unit 1 1.5
b. Noun phrase 1
c. Pronoun 1
d. Clause 1
8. Transition a. Conjunction 2 1.0
b. Adverb 1
9. Repeating student a. Adjective 1 0.7
response phrase
b. Unit 1
(continued)
Table 5.1 (continued)

10. Spelling a. Verb phrase 1 1.7
b. Suffix 4
11. self-affirmation Unit 3 1.0
12. Introducing Conjunction 2 0.7
another possibility
13. Repair a. Clause 1 1.0
b. Unit 2
14. Advice on Unit 1 0.3
learning
15. Giving clues Unit 1 0.3
16. Classroom routine Noun phrase 14 4.8
vocabulary
17. Free switching a. Noun phrase 7 4.8
b. Adjective 2
phrase
c. Verb phrase 1
d. Adverb 1
e. Clause 1
f. Pronoun + verb 1
Phrase + tag
g. Unit 1
18. Giving a. Unit 1 12 5.8
information b. Clause 2
c. Noun phrase 2
19. Emphasis Unit 1 0.3
20. Sentence filler Tag 4 1.5
21. Asking questions a. Unit 8 3.1
b. Pronoun 1
22. Grammar Unit 1 0.3
instruction
23. Praising or Unit 1 0.3
encouraging students
24. Comprehension Unit 3 1 1.5
check
25. Procedural a. Unit 2 1.0
language b. Adverb phrase 1
26. Retention check Unit 2 0.7
100 5 Classroom Data
Patterns of noun phrases in Anne’s talk
a. Chinese demonstrative + English noun

Anne usually used Chinese demonstratives to modify English nouns. In (34), ‘这
个’ (this) was used to modify the English head noun phrase ‘text A’.
(34) T: 我们上节课讲了一下这个 text A, passage A.
We talked about this text A, passage A in the last lesson.
b. Chinese classifier + English noun

English numbers can modify nouns directly. However, in Chinese, classifiers
must be used between them. Thus in the mixed constituents of Anne’s utterances,
English nouns were found to be preceded by Chinese classifiers. In (35), ‘个’ was
used to modify the following English head nouns ‘rule’ and ‘policy’.
(35) T: Normally, 这是一个 rule, 这是一个policy, 政策。
Normally, this is a rule, this is a policy, policy.
c. Chinese possessive + English noun

She used Chinese possessives to modify English nouns. As seen in (36), ‘你的’
(your) was used to modify the English head noun ‘classmates’.
(36) T: 那么在上网的话呢你要跟你的 classmates 交流, 应该怎么办呢? Then if
you would like to communicate with your classmates online, what should you do?
d. Loss of English plural markers

In Chinese, nouns do not have plural forms. So, when Anne embedded English
noun phrases in Chinese, English noun phrases expressing plural concepts lost their
plural marker ‘-s’. In (37), she used the singular form of the word ‘question’.
(37) T: 反正我们每个 text A 后面都有 five question.
After all, after every text A, there are five question.
e. English noun + Chinese particle ‘吧’

In her mixed utterances, English nouns or noun phrases were followed by the
Chinese phrase-final particle ‘吧’ to express an interrogative mood.
(38) T: ‘Foreign business’吧?
‘Foreign business’?
f. Chinese preposition ‘把’ + English noun

She tended to put the Chinese preposition ‘把’ before English nouns as an
indicator of active voice.
(39) T: 所以我把 quiz 安排在后半段考了。

So I arranged quiz in the latter part.
Patterns of adjective phrases in Anne’s talk
a. Chinese intensifier + English adjective
She used Chinese intensifiers to modify English adjectives in mixed utterances.
For example, in (20) and (40), ‘比较’ (relatively) and ‘很’ (very) are used before
the English adjectives ‘hardworking’ and ‘nervous’ respectively to mean ‘to a
certain degree’ or ‘in a high degree’.
(40) T: 答案到你手上了, 你应该很紧张啊, 应该很 nervous, 然后一个个去看。
You have the answers in you hands, you should be very nervous, should be very
nervous, and then look through them one by one.
b. English adjective + Chinese particle ‘的’

In English, attributive adjective can modify the head of noun phrases directly.
However, in example (41), it is interesting to see that she followed the Chinese
syntactic rule by using the Chinese particle ‘的’ to link the English adjective ‘basic’
and its Chinese head noun ‘东西’ (things).
(41) T: Basic 的东西啊, 是不是啊?
Basic things, right?
Patterns of verb phrases in Anne’s talk
a. Chinese auxiliary ‘就’ + English verb phrase
In modern Chinese, the auxiliary ‘就’ is often used to emphasize the following
verb. In ML + EL verb phrases by Anne, the Chinese auxiliary ‘就’ was used
before English verbs. For example, in (42), ‘就’ was used right before the English
verb ‘go’.
(42) T: 那我就 go to the second part 啊.
Then I go to the second part.
5.2.3.2 Betty
Betty also dominated the classroom discourse in the selected half-hour extract. In
this lesson, she talked about the dictation activity she had just carried out. In doing
so, she raised her requirements for doing this activity, encouraged the students to be
confident and carry on developing their skills, and advised them to practise doing
the activity both inside and outside classroom, during which she employed Chinese
as the main language of instruction and seldom switched into English. Moreover,
she went through the text and explained the key words and expressions in it. When
dealing with the text analysis, she used much more English and switched more
often between the two languages. This section will present the analysis of Betty’s
code-switches in detail. At first, the data-driven functional categories of her
switches are illustrated as follows, additional to the eight categories shared with the
other three teachers:
B1. Classroom management: The methods and strategies used by the teacher to
maintain classroom behaviour, in order to ensure lessons run smoothly.
(43) T: Ok, that’s all. / 呆会儿再交给我的, 我。

Ok, that’s all. If you hand it to me later, I.
(44) T: And according to useful expressions. / 再耽误一分钟时间。

And according to useful expressions. One more minute delay.
B2. Personalization vs objectivization: Personal comment or opinion versus gen-

erally known fact (adapted from Gumperz 1982).
(45) T: 我说过了/ this exercise is not only to check your new words memo
memory, right? But also is a good way to train your listening skills, right?
I’ve said this exercise is not only to check your new words memo memory,
right? But also is a good way to train your listening skills, right?
B3. Conclusion: Making conclusion of what he/she has just said, for example,
usage of the words or phrases, idea of the text, etc.
(46) T: Ok, ‘be involved in’, ‘get involved in’. / 它的用法非常简单。每个人都能

够造句。关键是我们要意识到它。这很重要, ok?
Ok, ‘be involved in’, ‘get involved in’, its usage is very simple. Everybody can
make sentence with it. The key point is that we need to be aware of it. This is very
important, ok?
B4. Joking: Attempting to be humorous. Unplanned joking is also included

(adapted from Moskowitz 1971).
(47) T: ‘In love’? [Laughing] / 为什么总有这个方向传来这个 ‘pretty girls’ or

‘love’ 这样的 such words?
‘In love’? [Laughing] Why did this ‘pretty girls’ or ‘love’, such such words,
always come from this direction?
B5. Praising or encouraging students: Praising students for what they have said or
done. Encouraging students to continue doing a task, or giving them confi-
dence. Telling students their answers are correct is also included in this cat-
egory (adapted from Moskowitz 1971).
(48) T: Do you know the meaning of ‘entertain’?

LL: 娱乐。
Entertain.
T: ‘娱乐’. / Yes, exactly.
‘Entertain’. Yes, exactly.
B6. Attracting students’ attention: Attracting students’ attention in the lesson

process, often by reminding them the location of what the teacher is talking
about in teaching materials.
(49) T: ‘Once economic conditions improve’. / 倒数第二行。 ‘Once’, 一旦, ok?

‘Once economic conditions improve’. The second last line. ‘Once’, once, ok?
B7. Repair: An attempt to improve previously produced speech, which was

somewhat lacking in clarity, completeness, or correctness (adapted from
Chaudron 1988).
(50) T: 呆会儿再交给我的, 我。/ It is invalid if you hand it in in later after class.

If you hand it to me later, I. It is invalid if you hand it in in later after class.
(51) T: Because we can, 不, / you see we can guess the meaning from the context.
Because we can, no, you see we can guess the meaning from the context.
B8. Classroom routine vocabulary: Vocabulary relevant to the routines of the

classroom.
(52) T: 关于这个/ dictation, 我们今天花的时间算是比较多的。

With regard to this dictation, the time we spent on it today is relatively more.
B9. Sentence filler: The words used during speaking when the teacher is thinking
(53) T: Ok, / 好, 只说这么多。

Ok, ok, that’s all.
B10. Repeating student response: Repeating exactly what students have said
(adapted from Moskowitz, 1971).
(54) T: 哎, 我们还学了一个词。听写第一句话当中。
Well, we have learned another word. In the first sentence of the dictation.
LL: A sense of frustration.
T: / ‘A sense of frustration’, right?
B11. Advice on learning: Advice on developing learning skills.

(55) T: We can use this structure. / 这个句型我们可以自己去想。我刚才说过了,

这个话一出口就是一个句型。我脑海当中老是会有一个例句。
We can use this structure. We can think about this structure by ourselves. Just
now I’ve said that once blurting out the words, they were exactly a structure.
I always have an example sentence in my mind.
B12. Grammar instruction: Instructions explaining grammar knowledge.
(56) T: ‘When I watch Emily collecting, fishing, enjoying’. Have you found that? /
三个现在分词短语在这里做状语, 是不是?
‘When I watch Emily collecting, fishing, enjoying’. Have you found that? The
three present particle phrases are used as adverbials, right?
B13. Asking questions: Asking questions to which students are expected to

answer. Questions for acceptance check, comprehension check and retention
check are not included in this category (adapted from Moskowitz, 1971).
(57) T: Yeah, you can say I have invested all my car, my energy and money in that
girl, but finally [Laughing] ‘But’. Yeah, you know ‘but’ means, ‘but’ means a sense
of failure, right? A sense or a feeling of failure, right? / 嗯, 那是一种什么感? 有成
就感也有失败感。
Yeah, you can say I have invested all my car, my energy and money in that
girl, but finally [Laughing] ‘But’. Yeah, you know ‘but’ means, ‘but’ means a
sense of failure, right? A sense or a feeling of failure, right? Hmm, what kind of
feeling is it? There is a sense of achievement and a sense of failure.
B14. Free switching: No clear functions can be found for the switches in this
category.
(58) T: 不光是骄傲, 或者自豪, 或者是忧伤。/ For example, 成就感, 成就感。

Not only arrogance, or pride, or sadness. For example, a sense of achievement, a
sense of achievement.
B15. Self-affirmation: Affirming (immediately) the information provided by the

teacher himself/herself.
(59) T: ‘Lawn mower’. What’s that? 割草机。/ Exactly.

‘Lawn mower’. What’s that? Lawn mower. Exactly.
B16. Emphasis: Emphasizing a particular point related to lesson content, or the

teacher’s own opinion or ideas. Reiteration is not included.
(60) T: ‘When the time comes’ / 又是谈到 ‘the time’, ok? ‘When the time comes’
means when the time comes for us to leave, right?
‘When the time comes’ It mentioned ‘the time’ again, ok? ‘When the time
comes’ means when the time comes for us to leave, right?
(61) T: ‘How much longer we’ll have enough money to stay on here is anybody’s
guess.’/ 这句话值得我们学习的地方首先, 什么什么is anybody’s guess, 什么什
么 is everybody’s guess, 什么什么 is my mother’s guess, is my, is my teacher’s
guess, ok?
‘How much longer we’ll have enough money to stay on here is anybody’s
guess.’ The point worth learning in this sentence, above all, what what is any-
body’s guess, what what is everybody’s guess, what what is my mother’s guess,
is my, is my teacher’s guess, ok?
B17. Introducing another possibility: Providing another possibility, usually by

using the co-ordinating conjunction ‘or’.
(62) T: A feeling of, / 或者是 a sense of accomplishment, right?

A feeling of, or a sense of accomplishment, right?
B18. Giving information: Giving information or the teacher’s own opinions about
lesson content, classroom events, teaching agenda or institutional agenda.
Asking rhetorical questions is also included (adapted from Moskowitz 1971).
(63) T: 再耽误一分钟时间。/ Ok, I have done this job, not for you, for myself.
Ok, don’t get me wrong.
One more minute delay. Ok, I have done this job, not for you, for myself. Ok,
don’t get me wrong.
B19. Procedural language: In this category, code-switching is used to deliver a

(64) T: 每一次采取抽查的方式, ok? / 今天我只抽查了非常少的一部分。

Every time we use the way of spot check, ok? Today we only spot-checked a very
small part of you.
(65) T: 大脑才会越来越灵活。/ Now the last sentence.

Your brain will become smarter and smarter. Now the last sentence.
B20. Confession: Acknowledging that he/she lacks knowledge or has made a

mistake.
(66) T: What is it? 是不是啊? / I never use it.

What is it? Right? I never use it.
B21. Justification: Trying to prove what he/she said or did to be right or

reasonable.
(67) T: Ok, ‘entertain much’. / 因为从上下文来判断这个地方翻译成 ‘我们不怎

么去娱乐’ 不是很合适, ok?
Ok, ‘entertain much’. Because judging from the context, it’s not appropriate to
translate into ‘not amuse ourselves much’, ok?
The number and the percentage of Betty’s switches for the established functional
categories are presented in Table 5.2. The number of switches at different syntactic
levels is also reported.
Table 5.2 Betty’s code-switches by functional and syntactic categories

Functional level Syntactic level From From code-switches
English to Chinese to (%)
Chinese English
1. Acceptance check a. Tag 9 7.4
b. Unit 1 2
2. Reiteration Unit 24 14.7
3. Clarification a. Verb phrase 1 3.1
b. Unit 1 3
4. Translation a. Verb phrase 5 15.3
b. Unit 14 1
c. Noun phrase 2
d. Adverb 1
e. Conjunction 1
f. Verb phrase 1
+ conjunction + verb phrase
5. Quotation a. Unit 15 17.2
b. Noun phrase 1
c. Verb phrase 7
e. Noun 2
phrase + conjunction + noun
phrase
f. Prepositional phrase 1
g. Verb phrase +tag 1
h. Noun phrase +tag 1
7. Giving examples a. Unit 7 6.1
b. Verb phrase 1
c. Noun phrase 1
d. Verb phrase + tag 1
8. Transition Conjunction 1 0.6
9. Classroom Unit 2 1.2
management
10a. Personalization a. Clause 2 4.3
versus objectivization b. Unit 3
c. Clause + tag 1
d. Tag + verb phrase 1
(continued)

Functional level Syntactic level From From code-switches
English to Chinese to (%)
Chinese English
10b. Objectivization Unit 1 0.6
versus personalization
11. Conclusion Unit 1 0.6
12. Joking Unit 1 0.6
13. Praising or Unit 2 1 1.9
encouraging students
14. Attracting Unit 1 0.6
students’ attention
15. Repair a. Unit 1 1.9
b. Verb phrase 1
c. Pronoun + verb + clause 1
vocabulary
17. Sentence filler Tag 2 5 4.3
18. Repeating student a. Verb phrase 1 1.2
response b. Unit 1
19. Advice on learning Unit 1 0.6
20. Grammar Unit 4 1 3.1
instruction
21. Asking questions Unit 1 3 2.5
b. Unit 1
23. Self-affirmation Unit 1 0.6
24. Emphasis Unit 2 1.2
25. Introducing Conjunction 1 0.6
another possibility
26. Giving Unit 1 0.6
information
27. Procedural Unit 1 4 3.1
language
28. Confession Unit 1 0.6
29. Justification Unit 1 0.6
As seen in Table 5.2, the three most frequent categories in Betty’s data were
quotation (17.2 %), translation (15.3 %), and reiteration (14.7 %). Apart from
these, she also switched frequently for acceptance check (7.4 %), giving examples
(6.1 %), personalization vs objectivization (4.3 %), sentence filler (4.3 %), proce-
dural language (3.1 %), clarification (3.1 %), reinforcement (3.1 %), and grammar
instruction (3.1 %). In addition, she switched much less frequently for many other
categories, for instance, the percentages of her switches for the functions such as
classroom routine vocabulary, advice on learning, joking, attracting students’
attention, confession and justification, were all 0.6 %.
It also appears that for performing some particular functions, she had a frequent
tendency to switch into a specific language. For example, for the purpose of quo-
tation, giving information, transition, self-affirmation, reinforcement, confession,
objectivization, and classroom routine vocabulary, she shifted to English entirely,
whereas for reiteration, classroom management, personalization, conclusion, justi-
fication, advice on learning, joking, emphasis, introducing another possibility and
attracting students’ attention, she only switched into Chinese. Moreover, it can be
seen that for a few other functions such as repair, acceptance check, procedural
language, giving examples, translation, clarification, and grammar instruction, she
switched into both English and Chinese. However, in most cases, for acceptance
check, procedural language and giving examples, she tended to switch into English,
while for translation and grammar instruction she was very likely to shift to
Chinese.
Table 5.2 also indicates that her switches occurred frequently at unit boundaries,
but rarely at clause boundaries. Furthermore, many of her switches also occurred at
the phrasal or lexical level and different types of syntactic constituents were found
to be switched, such as noun phrase, verb phrase, prepositional phrase and
conjunction.
Now I am going to illustrate some patterns of mixed constituent found in Betty’s
discourse. Also, the switched syntactic elements, in which there is no contact
between the grammars of the two languages, will not be discussed here. Example
(68) is such an utterance she used very often when explaining new English words or
phrases in the data. In this example, she was explaining the English word ‘enter-
tain’, and we can see that no grammatical relation exists between its Chinese
translation ‘请客’ (treat) and its English explanation ‘treat your friends’.
(68) T: Yeah, ‘请客’, ‘treat your friends’.
Yeah, ‘treat’, ‘treat your friends’.
The dominant types of ML + EL constituent used by Betty are presented below.
Patterns of noun phrases in Betty’s talk
Chinese demonstratives were used by Betty to modify English nouns. In (52),
‘这个’ (this) was used to modify the English head noun ‘dictation’.
Patterns of verb phrases in Betty’s talk

a. Loss of infinitive markers
In English, the marker ‘to’ must be inserted between ‘be’ and the base form of a
verb to constitute the structure—‘be to + infinitive’. However, in Betty’s mixed
verb phrases, when the base form of English verbs followed the Chinese verb ‘be’,
the infinitive marker ‘to’ was lost. For example, in (69), ‘to’ was lost between the
Chinese verb ‘是’ (is) and the English verb ‘work’.
(69) T: 我们需要的是, ok, work with your brains.
What we need is, ok, work with your brains.
5.2.3.3 Carl
In the selected half-hour lesson of Carl, only whole-class activities went on, and the
discourse was teacher-dominated. At the beginning, he gave the students detailed
information on the final English exams, and advised them to make preparations for
these exams. Then he started to deal with the English vocabulary exercises in the
handout, which required the students to fill in the blanks with the listed words or
expressions. When dealing with these exercises, he normally went through them
sentence by sentence, and put emphasis on making the students understand the
meaning or the usage of the selected words, expressions and entire sentences.
Furthermore, Carl mainly used Chinese and seldom switched into English when
giving information on the exams. However, in the process of dealing with exercises,
he was found to switch often between English and Chinese. This section will report
the analysis results of his code-switches in the selected data. The following are
another three functions he switched for, apart from the eight categories the four
teachers had in common.
C1. Classroom routine vocabulary: Vocabulary relevant to the routines of the
classroom.
(70) T: 不然的话, 谈一个/ topic, 你谈了两句话就谈完了, 是不是?

Otherwise, when talking about one topic, you can just say a few words and finish it,
right?
C2. Grammar instruction: Instructions explaining grammar knowledge.
(71) T: Or ‘the opera will be broadcast simultaneously’. / 这个地方它用做副词修

饰谓语。
Or ‘the opera will be broadcast simultaneously’. Here it is used as an adverb to
modify the predicate.
C3. Asking questions: Asking questions to which students are expected to answer.
Questions for acceptance check, comprehension check and retention check are
not included in this category (adapted from Moskowitz 1971).
(72) T: ‘You’, it is / 什么?

‘You’, it is what?
(73) T: ‘Vivid memory flood, came flooding back of the glorious, romantic
sophomore year.’ / 这说明你的二年级过得怎么样啊? 过得很不错的, 精彩的。
‘Vivid memory flood, came flooding back of the glorious, romantic sophomore
year.’ What does it say about your sophomore year? Very good, wonderful.
An analysis of Carl’s code-switching, organized according to these functional
and syntactic categories, is in Table 5.3.
According to Table 5.3, Carl switched most frequently for translation (32.8 %),
quotation (23 %), and reinforcement (9.9 %). He also switched comparatively
frequently for reiteration (8.2 %), classroom routine vocabulary (6.6 %), clarifica-
tion (4.9 %), transition (4.9 %), and asking questions (4.9 %). Grammar instruction
Table 5.3 Carl’s code-switches by functional and syntactic categories

1. Acceptance check Tag 1 1.6
2. Reiteration Unit 5 8.2
3. Clarification a. Verb phrase 1 4.9
b. Unit 2
4. Translation a. Unit 15 32.8
b. Verb phrase 2
c. Noun phrase 2
d. Noun 1
phrase + tag
5. Quotation a. Unit 4 23
b. Noun phrase 4
c. Verb 1
phrase + tag
d. Prepositional 1
phrase
e. Verb phrase 3
f. Adjective 1
phrase
7. Giving examples Clause 1 1.6
8. Transition Adverb 3 4.9
vocabulary
10. Grammar Unit 1 1.6
instruction
11. Asking questions a. Unit 2 4.9
b. Pronoun 1
(1.6 %), giving examples (1.6 %), and acceptance check (1.6 %) were the functions
for which Carl switched infrequently.
Table 5.3 also shows that he shifted exclusively to English for some functions,
namely classroom routine vocabulary, quotation, giving examples and reinforce-
ment. For grammar instruction, translation, transition, asking questions and reiter-
ation, however, he only switched into Chinese. Moreover, for clarification, he
switched into both English and Chinese.
In terms of the syntactic categories, it can be seen from Table 5.3 that like Anne
and Betty, he also often switched at unit boundaries, but very rarely at clause
boundaries. Furthermore, there were some switches occurring at the phrasal and
lexical levels. The typical syntactic patterns of ML + EL constituent in his dis-
course are discussed below.
Patterns of noun phrases in Carl’s talk
Chinese demonstratives were used by Carl to modify the following English
nouns. In (74), ‘这个’ (this) was used to modify the noun ‘dealer’.
(74) T: 比如说这个 ‘dealer’, 商人, 是不是?
b. Loss of English plural markers

When using Chinese demonstratives or quantifiers carrying plural concepts to
modify English nouns or noun phrases, Carl used the original form of the English
nouns or noun phrases. In (75) and (76), the English noun ‘topic’ lost its plural
marker, and also in (77), the English noun phrases ‘short conversation’, ‘long
dialogue’ and ‘short passage’ were used without any plural marker.
(75) T: 第三个呢给了大家十个 topic.
The third part gives you ten topic.
(76) T: 那么其实这些 topic 呢, 给的时候肯定不是特别, 不是那么清楚。

Then, actually these topic must be not especially, not that clear when given.
(77) T: 三十分钟的听力, 那么至少是十个 short conversation, 两篇 long dia-

logue, 两篇 short passage.
Thirty minutes’ listening, then at least ten short conversation, two long dialogue,
and two short passage.
Patterns of prepositional phrases in Carl’s talk
a. Chinese preposition + English noun phrase
In ML + EL prepositional phrases, he switched between prepositions and noun
phrases. For instance, in (78), switching occurred between the Chinese preposition
‘到’ (to) and the noun phrase ‘Division one’.
(78) T: 就是星期六的胜利将确保他们升到 Division one.

That is, a win on Saturday will assure them of promotion to Division one.
5.2.3.4 David
After the first few minutes of the selected audio-recorded data being dominated by a
group of the students acting out a scene, David led the classroom discourse for the
rest of the time. He first gave immediate comments on the performance of the group
of students and provided the whole class advice about how to give a performance.
Then he spent most of the time introducing the topic of a new unit and assigning
homework to the students. Although he employed Chinese exclusively when
assigning homework, in most cases he was observed shifting between English and
Chinese. The aim of this section is to explore his code-switches in the data. The
following categories are what seemed to be the main functions he switched for. The
eight categories common to all four teachers are not included.
D1. Adding supplement: Adding something to what he/she has just said, in order
to make it more complete.
(79) T: So, you know, I guess this morning, we’ll have a rough understanding of the
topic of unit 3. 先大概的了解这个话题, / and, yes, the the writing style, the
writing style.
So, you know, I guess this morning, we’ll have a rough understanding of the
topic of unit 3. First, generally understand this topic, and, yes, the the writing
style, the writing style.
D2. Sentence filler: The words used during speaking when the teacher is thinking
(80) T: 然后我希望你们仔细的去阅读。然后我们一起来, / yes, 欣赏一下, ok?

Then I hope you read it carefully. Then we together, yes, appreciate it, ok?
D3. Procedural language: In this category, code-switching is used to deliver a

(81) T: 用英语啊。不是用中文啊, ok? Of course, English, English. / 这个我们放

到听说课上, 听说课上。
Use English. Don’t use Chinese, ok? Of course, English, English. We leave
this to the listening-and-speaking class, the listening-and-speaking class.
D4. Free switching: No clear functions can be found for the switches in this
category.
(82) T: 主要是, 你不是说其实知道也已经演讲过了。我要你去体会这种演讲

的 / feeling.
The main point is not that actually you have known it and have already given a
speech. I would like you to realize this kind of feeling of speech.
(83) T: 然后关于我们怎样进展这个/ speech contest, speech contest, 我会在听

说课上, 听说课上再着重来讲一下 / speech contest 应该怎么样举行。
Then, regarding how to carry out this speech contest, speech contest, I will focus
on talking about how to hold speech contest in the listening-and-speaking class, in
the listening-and-speaking class.
D5. Introducing another possibility: Providing another possibility, usually by using

the co-ordinating conjunction ‘or’.
(84) T: ‘Cart’, c-a-r-t, yeah? 这个轮车, 木轮车, 对不对? Or / 独轮车, 对不对?

‘Cart’, c-a-r-t, yeah? This vehicle, wooden vehicle, right? Or vehicle with one
wheel, right?
D6. Comprehension check: Questions for checking whether or not students

understand lesson content, or what the teacher has said (adapted from
Chaudron 1988).
(85) T: 然后我有一个目的就是让大家, 希望能让大家熟悉这种演讲的方式或

者方法, / you know?
Then I have an objective that making everybody, I hope to be able to make
everybody get familiar with the way or method of giving speech, you know?
D7. Praising or encouraging students: Praising students for what they have said or
done. Encouraging students to continue doing a task or giving them confi-
dence. Telling students their answers are correct is also included in this cat-
egory (adapted from Moskowitz 1971).
(86) T: I think all, all of you are very young, are very young guys, so you must be
very imaginative, you know, and very creative. 很有想象力, 很有创意。/ I hope,
you know, yes, you can try.
I think all, all of you are very young, are very young guys, so you must be very
imaginative, you know, and very creative. Very imaginative and very creative.
I hope, you know, yes, you can try.
Table 5.4 below shows the frequency of David’s code-switches at both func-
tional and syntactic levels.
Table 5.4 David’s code-switches by functional and syntactic categories

Functional level Syntactic level From English From code-switches
to Chinese Chinese to (%)
English
1. Acceptance a. Tag 15 16.6
check b. Unit 1
2. Reiteration a. Unit 15 1 19.8
b. Clause 1
c. Conjunction + noun phrase 1
d. Adjective 1
3. Clarification a. Unit 4 1 6.3
b. Verb phrase 1
4. Translation a. Noun phrase 3 18.8
b. Unit 14
c. Adjective 1
5. quotation Noun phrase 1 1
6. reinforcement Unit 2 2.1
7. Giving examples Unit 1 1
8. Transition Conjunction 1 1 2.1
9. Adding a. Conjunction + noun phrase 1 2.1
supplement b. Conjunction + tag + noun 1
phrase
10. Sentence filler Tag 9 9.4
11. Procedural Unit 1 1 2.1
language
b. Clause 1
13. Introducing Conjunction 1 1
another possibility
14. Comprehension Tag 8 8.3
check
15. Praising or Unit 1 1 2.1
encouraging
students
As seen in Table 5.4, David switched most frequently for the following three
functions: reiteration (19.8 %), translation (18.8 %), and acceptance check
(16.6 %). He also switched frequently for sentence filler (9.4 %), comprehension
check (8.3 %), free switching (7.3 %) and clarification (6.3 %). Moreover, he rarely
seemed to switch for the functions, such as giving examples (1.0 %), quotation
(1.0 %) and introducing another possibility (1.0 %).
Furthermore, as we can see, he switched only from English into Chinese for
translation, while for sentence filler, adding supplement, quotation, reinforcement,
free switching, giving examples, introducing another possibility, and comprehen-
sion check, he switched entirely from Chinese into English. In addition, for other
functions such as acceptance check, reiteration and clarification, he switched into
both Chinese and English. Nevertheless, approximately 93 % of his switches for

acceptance check occurred into English, and 89 % of his switches for reiteration
occurred into Chinese.
Table 5.4 also indicates that, similar to the other three teachers, David usually
switched at unit boundaries, but rarely at clause boundaries. Many of his switches
also took place within units, and the most frequent type of ML + EL constituent
found in the data was noun phrase, presented below.
Patterns of noun phrases in David’s talk
a. Chinese classifier + English noun
In English-Chinese mixed discourse, he used Chinese classifiers to modify
English nouns. As in (87), the Chinese classifier ‘个’ was used to modify the
English noun phrase ‘speech contest’.
(87) T: 这是一个 speech contest.
This is a speech contest.
b. Chinese demonstrative + English noun

David also used Chinese demonstratives to modify English nouns. For instance,
in (83), the Chinese demonstrative ‘这个’ (this) was used to modify the English
noun phrase ‘speech contest’.
c. Chinese particle ‘的’ + English noun
In Chinese, when a noun is modified by another noun, the particle ‘的’ must be
inserted between them. When using Chinese as matrix language, David usually
inserted the Chinese particle ‘的’ between two nouns. For example, in (82), the
particle ‘的’ (of or ’s) was inserted between the Chinese noun ‘演讲’ (speech) and
the English noun ‘feeling’.
5.2.4 Further Considerations
Although quotation is an important category in the data-driven functional system,

quoted language cannot be counted as the teachers’ real language use since it is
simply taken from teaching materials or previous speech. That is to say, in most
cases the Chinese utterances containing quoted English words or phrases can still be
considered as Chinese, although they have all been categorized as intrasentential
switches in the analysis.
Furthermore, in some situations, the types of the switched syntactic units do not
matter. For instance, all types of the switched phrases can be regarded as noun
phrases when the teachers switched for quotation, and moreover, many of the
switched constituents can also be seen as noun phrases when the teachers shifted for
translation, clarification and repeating student response. In (88), for example, the
Chinese translations of the English verb phrase ‘be involved in’ or ‘get involved in’
can also be seen as nouns in this utterance.
(88) T: ‘Be involved in’ or ‘get involved in’, 参与, 涉及, 与什么相关。
‘Be involved in’ or ‘get involved in’, participate, refer to, be related to something.
5.2.5 Conclusion
This section has provided a description of both functional and grammatical features
of the four Chinese EFL teachers’ code-switching. Apart from establishing the
functional categories and exploring the typical patterns of mixed constituent of each
teacher, it has presented relevant examples and a quantitative account of their
code-switches for different functional categories and at different syntactic levels.
These examples show how, in syntax as well as in function, individual differences
between the teachers co-exist with a large amount of regularity and patterning.
The functional categories of the four teachers’ code-switching are summarized in
Table 5.5 below, and the three most frequent categories for each teacher are marked
by the numbers ①, ②, and ③. It can be seen from Table 5.5 that these teachers
had eight functional categories in common. The three functions which Anne and
Betty switched most frequently for were almost the same. Furthermore, while
translation was the most frequent category common to all four teachers, quotation
was a category shared only by Anne, Betty and Carl, and reiteration was a category
shared only by Anne, Betty and David.
Since in many cases these teachers used Chinese and English to serve distinct
functions, their language use can be considered fairly systematic. In spite of indi-
vidual differences, they uniformly made use of English when switching for func-
tions such as reinforcement, quotation and giving examples, whereas for translation
they tended to employ Chinese. Moreover, some of them can be seen to switch into
Chinese for advice on learning, grammar instruction, classroom management,
joking, giving clues, emphasis, reiteration, personalization, conclusion, justification
and attracting students’ attention, while using English for functions such as class-
room routine vocabulary, giving information, objectivization and confession.
With regard to the syntactic features, these teachers switched very frequently at unit
boundaries. A large number of their switches also occurred within units, at the lexical
and phrasal levels. However, although different elements were switched in these
intrasentential code-switching instances, such as noun phrase and verb phrase, noun
phrase was the only type of mixed constituent that these teachers had in common, and
the typical pattern they shared was ‘Chinese demonstrative + English noun’.
It is also interesting to see that they used Chinese as the matrix language of their
mixed utterances in most cases. In addition, all the analyzed examples of mixed
constituents in the data appeared to follow the word order of Chinese and almost all
the system morphemes appeared to come from Chinese as well, which accorded
Table 5.5 Common ground and differences in functional categories of the four teachers’
code-switching
Functional categories Anne Betty Carl David
1. Acceptance check ☑ ☑ ☑ ☑③
2. Reiteration ☑② ☑③ ☑ ☑①
3. Clarification ☑ ☑ ☑ ☑
4. Translation ☑③ ☑② ☑① ☑②
5. Quotation ☑① ☑① ☑② ☑
6. Reinforcement ☑ ☑ ☑③ ☑
7. Giving examples ☑ ☑ ☑ ☑
8. Transition ☑ ☑ ☑ ☑
9. Repair ☑ ☑
10. Introducing another possibility ☑ ☑ ☑
11. Free switching ☑ ☑ ☑
12. Adding supplement ☑
13. Sentence filler ☑ ☑ ☑
14. Asking questions ☑ ☑ ☑
15. Grammar instruction ☑ ☑ ☑
16. Classroom routine vocabulary ☑ ☑ ☑
17. Giving clues ☑
18. Giving information ☑ ☑
19. Attracting student attention ☑
20. Emphasis ☑ ☑
21. Self-affirmation ☑ ☑
22. Joking ☑
23. Advice on learning ☑ ☑
24. Conclusion ☑
25. Praising or encouraging students ☑ ☑ ☑
26. Repeating student response ☑ ☑
27. Personalization versus objectivization ☑
28. Classroom management ☑
29. Spelling ☑
30. Procedural language ☑ ☑ ☑
31. Comprehension check ☑ ☑
32. Retention check ☑
33. Confession ☑
34. Justification ☑
with Myers-Scotton’s Morpheme Order principle and System Morpheme principle

(see Sect. 4.3.3).
This is of course partly a ‘method effect’, because I used Myers-Scotton’s
principles to guide the analysis, but I believe it is also a real finding, because the
teachers’ language in mixed utterances nearly always fitted this pattern.
5.3 Global Analysis [Quantitative]
The previous section examined the functions and grammatical patterns of the
teachers’ code-switching. This section aims to investigate another important aspect
of the teachers’ actual language use—the distribution of L1 and L2 use in their total
talk in the observed lessons. The numerical data, complementing the other two parts
of the findings in relation to the lesson data: analysis of the teachers’
code-switching and global analysis [qualitative analysis], provide a comprehensive
account of the teachers’ actual use of the L1 and L2 in their teaching. This section
aims to address the first research question:
advanced?
5.3.1 Coding
The teachers’ utterances in the observed lessons were coded using a modified
version of Duff and Polio’s system (1990) (see Table 4.3 in Sect. 4.2.2.4) for
quantifying the actual time they spent speaking the L1 and L2, since the categories
of this system seem to include all types of teacher talk. Each utterance spoken by
the teachers was classified into one of the five main categories: L1, L1c, Mixed, L2
and L2c. The amount of time spent on these types of teacher talk was quantified by
listening to the recordings. The length of a pause was also noted when it was more
than one second. The following are examples of the five main types of the teachers’
utterances in the data.
L1: The utterance is completely in Chinese
明白没有?
Do you understand?
L1c: The utterance is in Chinese with one word or phrase in English.
第三个呢, 给了大家十个 topic.
‘Mixed’: The utterance contains a substantial amount (more than a single word or
phrase) of both languages.
啊, 这是我们这个 answer to the first question.
Uh, this is our answer to the first question.
L2: The utterance is completely in English.
Remember that?
5.3 Global Analysis [Quantitative] 119
L2c: The utterance is in English with one word or phrase in Chinese.

It is 什么?
What is it?
5.3.2 Results
The quantitative results of the four teachers’ L1 and L2 use will be presented in the
form of tables organized on the basis of the five main categories above. L1 and L1c
were grouped together as Chinese, and L2 and L2c were regarded as English. These
tables show not only the percentages of the time the teachers spent on the five
different types of utterances in six different lessons of each course, but also the mean
percentages of the time spent on the three kinds of utterances: Chinese, English and
mix. I will now present and comment on the tables relating to the four teachers.
5.3.2.1 Anne
I will start with the first teacher, known by the pseudonym ‘Anne’. Tables 5.6 and
5.7 show the time spent on English and Chinese utterances in Anne’s
reading-and-writing course and listening-and-speaking course respectively. She
seemed to use Chinese as the main language of instruction in these two different
courses, but to use much more Chinese in the reading-and-writing lessons than in
the listening-and-speaking lessons.
As seen in Table 5.6, the amount of time spent on Chinese utterances ranged
from 73 to 96 %. It was in lesson 4 that Anne used the highest amount of Chinese,
and a reasonable explanation for this is probably that she spent most of the time in
this lesson conducting a quiz rather than dealing with the textbook, and before
doing that, she used Chinese exclusively to manage classroom discipline and to
give relevant directions.
Table 5.6 Summary of the amount of time Anne spent using English and Chinese in the
reading-and-writing course
Chinese ‘Mixed’ (%) English
L1 L1c L2 L2c
Lesson 1 (40.0 + 37.9) = 78 % 3 (15.9 + 3.1) = 19 %
Lesson 2 (30.3 + 43.1) = 73 % 0 (17.5 + 9.1) = 27 %
Lesson 3 (43.0 + 38.4) = 81 % 5 (8.9 + 5.1) = 14 %
Lesson 4 (66.8 + 29.1) = 96 % 2 (2.2 + 0) = 2 %
Lesson 5 (48.6 + 36.4) = 85 % 5 (5.3 + 4.5) = 10 %
Lesson 6 (50.6 + 36.4) = 87 % 4 (3.0 + 6.2) = 9 %
Mean 83 % 3 14 %
Table 5.7 Summary of the amount of time Anne spent using English and Chinese in the
listening-and-speaking course
L1 L1c L2 L2c
Lesson 1 (39.9 + 16.4) = 56 % 1 (40.7 + 1.8) = 43 %
Lesson 2 (34.3 + 19.0) = 53 % 0 (45.7 + 1.0) = 47 %
Lesson 3 (34.7 + 26.7) = 61 % 7 (25.8 + 6.2) = 32 %
Lesson 4 (43.0 + 28.4) = 71 % 8 (16.6 + 4.3) = 21 %
Lesson 5 (38.3 + 26.1) = 64 % 12 (16.3 + 7.4) = 24 %
Lesson 6 (32.2 + 28.7) = 61 % 5 (28.7 + 5.2) = 34 %
Mean 61 % 5 34 %
In Table 5.7, the range in the amount of time spent on Chinese utterances was from
53 to 71 %. In lesson 4, she used relatively more Chinese, largely because she used it
almost exclusively to clarify the aim of the quiz expected to be conducted on the same
day and to advise the students to take a ‘correct’ attitude towards the quiz. In this
lesson, she also used Chinese-only to advise the students to pay attention to accu-
mulating vocabulary and expressions, and in order to encourage them to do so, she
used Chinese-only to mention one of her previous students as a negative example.
5.3.2.2 Betty
Unlike Anne, Betty appeared to spend most of the time speaking English in her
reading-and-writing course: the overall averages in Table 5.8 show that she spent
61 % of the time speaking English and 29 % speaking Chinese. The amount of time
she spoke Chinese in this course ranged from 19 to 36 %. In general we can say
that she used English as the main medium of instruction in her reading-and-writing
lessons.
Table 5.9 shows that she also used English as the main language of instruction in
her listening-and-speaking lessons, on average English for 72 % of her actual
Table 5.8 Summary of the amount of time Betty spent using English and Chinese in the
Chinese ‘Mixed’ English
L1 L1c L2 L2c
Lesson 1 (25.4 + 6.2) = 32 % 7 (60.7 + 0.7) = 61 %
Lesson 2 (16.6 + 17.4) = 34 % 12 (53.2 + 1.2) = 54 %
Lesson 3 (20.9 + 14.2) = 35 % 5 (60.4 + 0) = 60 %
Lesson 4 (5.4 + 13.7) = 19 % 15 (62.8 + 3.1) = 66 %
Lesson 5 (12.0 + 8.5) = 21 % 11 (68.1 + 0.3) = 68 %
Lesson 6 (23.8 + 12.5) = 36 % 8 (53.0 + 2.8) = 56 %
Mean 29 % 10 61 %
Table 5.9 Summary of the amount of time Betty spent using English and Chinese in the
L1 L1c L2 L2c
Lesson 1 (17.2 + 4.1) = 21 % 6 (72.7 + 0) = 73 %
Lesson 2 (27.7 + 8.4) = 36 % 6 (56.2 + 1.5) = 58 %
Lesson 3 (5.4 + 2.4) = 8 % 2 (90.4 + 0) = 90 %
Lesson 4 (14.5 + 5.1) = 20 % 3 (76.5 + 0.5) = 77 %
Lesson 5 (44.3 + 2.9) = 47 % 0 (52.7 + 0.1) = 53 %
Lesson 6 (7.8 + 5.0) = 13 % 5 (82.0 + 0) = 82 %
Mean 24 % 4 72 %
speaking time. Nevertheless, we can see that the amount of time spent on her
Chinese utterances ranged from 8 to 47 %, an unusual degree of variability across
these lessons. One reason for higher L1 use in lesson 5 may be that she spent more
than 20 % of class time talking about examination-related matters, and in doing so
she used Chinese almost exclusively.
5.3.2.3 Carl
Tables 5.10 and 5.11 show very different amounts of time spent on English and
Chinese by Carl in the reading-and-writing course and the listening-and-speaking
course. Whereas the mean percentages in Table 5.10 show that he used Chinese for
relatively longer in his reading-and-writing lessons, Table 5.11 shows that he used
English as the main medium of instruction in his listening-and-speaking lessons.
As seen in Table 5.10, the time he spent on Chinese utterances varied from 28 to
73 %. One possible reason why he used the highest amount of Chinese in lesson 6
is that he gave information about the quiz and oral exam almost entirely in Chinese.
Moreover, in lesson 6, he went through the exercise handouts to explain in detail
the organization and main idea of the text as well as the author’s intention, and did
Table 5.10 Summary of the amount of time Carl spent using English and Chinese in the
L1 L1c L2 L2c
Lesson 1 (44.1 + 8.0) = 52 % 7 (40.3 + 0.8) = 41 %
Lesson 2 (57.5 + 11.8) = 69 % 10 (19.8 + 1.0) = 21 %
Lesson 3 (23.2 + 4.7) = 28 % 2 (69.1 + 0.9) = 70 %
Lesson 4 (35.4 + 15.8) = 51 % 10 (38.8 + 0.4) = 39 %
Lesson 5 (26.1 + 10.6) = 37 % 4 (58.1 + 0.9) = 59 %
Lesson 6 (63.6 + 9.4) = 73 % 5 (21.6 + 0.5) = 22 %
Mean 52 % 6 42 %
Table 5.11 Summary of the amount of time Carl spent using English and Chinese in the
Chinese ‘Mixed’ (%) English L2 L2c
L1 L1c
Lesson 1 (3.4 + 0) = 3 % 0 (96.6 + 0) = 97 %
Lesson 2 (13.2 + 2.1) = 15 % 1 (83.2 + 0.3) = 84 %
Lesson 3 (0.4 + 6.0) = 6 % 0 (92.6 + 0.9) = 94 %
Lesson 4 (15.6 + 4.3) = 20 % 1 (79.3 + 0) = 79 %
Lesson 5 (7.4 + 4.7) = 12 % 2 (84.6 + 1.1) = 86 %
Lesson 6 (32.8 + 0.6) = 33 % 2 (64.5 + 0.3) = 65 %
Mean 15 % 1 84 %
all these mainly in Chinese. He also translated some entire paragraphs of the text
into Chinese in this lesson.
Similarly, in Table 5.11, we can see that Chinese utterances occupied more time
in lesson 6. One possible reason is that Carl used more than 14 % of the time in this
lesson to make a surprise roll call for the purpose of classroom administration and
in doing so he used Chinese-only. Furthermore, when some students in class said
‘here’ for absent students, Carl also used Chinese to reprimand them.
5.3.2.4 David
The overall averages in Table 5.12 appear to show that David used English more
often in the reading-and-writing lessons. Surprisingly, however, the table also
shows that the variation across the six lessons in the amount of the time used for
Chinese utterances was from 9 to 81 %. As we can see, the ‘81 %’ occurred in
lesson 3, and it is obviously much higher than the mean percentage. It seems to me
the main reason is that he dealt with the quiz exercises rather than the textbook in
lesson 3. When explaining the selected quiz exercises, he used Chinese a lot for
translation. In lesson 3, he also used Chinese almost exclusively to give information
Table 5.12 Summary of the amount of time David spent using English and Chinese in the
L1 L1c
Lesson 1 (6.4 + 2.5) = 9 % 1 (90.0 + 0) = 90 %
Lesson 2 (22.4 + 14.0) = 36 % 6 (54.8 + 2.7) = 58 %
Lesson 3 (60.2 + 21.2) = 81 % 9 (9.6 + 0.4) = 10 %
Lesson 4 (35.7 + 10.7) = 46 % 1 (52.6 + 0.3) = 53 %
Lesson 5 (10.3 + 3.1) = 13 % 4 (83.0 + 0) = 83 %
Lesson 6 (30.6 + 6.5) = 37 % 8 (53.7 + 1.6) = 55 %
Mean 37 % 5 58 %
Table 5.13 Summary of the amount of time David spent using English and Chinese in the
L1 L1c
Lesson 1 (13.6 + 6.0) = 20 % 1 (78.3 + 0.8) = 79 %
Lesson 2 (12.7 + 8.6) = 21 % 4 (74.0 + 0.5) = 75 %
Lesson 3 (16.0 + 6.8) = 23 % 3 (74.0 + 0.3) = 74 %
Lesson 4 (10.4 + 6.0) = 16 % 1 (82.7 + 0) = 83 %
Lesson 5 (4.3 + 1.2) = 6 % 2 (90.4 + 1.4) = 92 %
Lesson 6 (22.2 + 12.2) = 34 % 3 (61.2 + 1.4) = 63 %
Mean 20 % 3 77 %
about his plan for the lesson and to comment on the students’ performance during
the quiz. In addition, almost all of English used by David in this lesson was read
directly from the quiz papers.
In contrast, he used English most of the time in lesson 1, which was maybe
because the main purpose of this lesson was to introduce the topic of the unit to the
students and get them to talk about it in English. Moreover, Chinese was just used
for translating certain words in this lesson.
Table 5.13 indicates that David used English as the main language of instruction
in the listening-and-speaking course, because he used English for 63 % or more of
his speaking time in the six lessons. Furthermore, compared to the results in
Table 5.12, he used more English in this course than in the reading-and-writing
course. Table 5.13 also shows that the time he spent on Chinese utterances in lesson
5 was the shortest (6 %), which was probably because he spent most of the time in
this lesson initiating English dialogue with some nominated students on selected
topics rather than dealing with listening exercises. In addition, he spent 34 % of the
time speaking Chinese in lesson 6, which was slightly higher than the average. One
reason for this may be that at the end of this lesson, he assigned speaking home-
work to the students and nominated and encouraged some of them to put on
performances in the next lesson, and he used more Chinese to do this compared to
his language use when dealing with other activities in this course.
5.3.3 Conclusion
This section has examined the amount of time spent by the four Chinese teachers on
L1 and L2 utterances in their EFL classrooms. The major finding is the average
amount of time occupied by different types of utterances of the four teachers in the
two kinds of courses, and this is summarized in the bar-charts below.
As indicated in Fig. 5.1, while Anne had very high use of Chinese in the
reading-and-writing course, Betty and David seemed to use English mainly. Carl
used slightly more Chinese than English.
Fig. 5.1 The average time the four teachers spent on English, Chinese and ‘Mixed’ language in
the reading-and-writing course
Fig. 5.2 The average time the four teachers spent on English, Chinese and ‘Mixed’ language in
the listening-and-speaking course
Figure 5.2 shows that Betty, Carl and David used English as the medium of
instruction in the listening-and-speaking course, whereas Anne used Chinese
mainly.
Though my aim in this book is not evaluative, it might well be felt that these
teachers, especially Anne, used ‘too much’ Chinese, especially in the
reading-and-writing course. This goes against many experts’ belief that the quantity
of L2 input should be maximized in foreign language classrooms as teacher talk is
the main source of L2 input for learners, and that we learn an L2 by using it as
much as possible. Moreover, it seems to me that their high use of the L1 cannot just
be accepted as a social fact and there must be other factors underlying their lan-
guage use, which I will discuss later in Chap. 8 ‘Discussion and Conclusions’.
Another important finding of this study is the wide variation in the amount of
time spent on English and Chinese utterances in Betty’s listening-and-speaking
lessons, and Carl’s and David’s reading-and-writing lessons. In this case, I did not
attempt to generalize about their language use on the basis of the averages. Rather, I
tried to suggest some factors that might have influenced these results, by looking at
what teaching materials they dealt with and what they did in a specific lesson. For
instance, in some of the lessons in which these teachers used the highest amount of
the L1, we can see that Anne, Betty and Carl used Chinese almost entirely to give
information about exams or quizzes, and David used Chinese almost exclusively to
give information about his lesson plans. Moreover, David used a lot of Chinese for
translation when explaining the quiz exercises and Carl used Chinese mainly for
explanation and translation when dealing with a specific type of exercise on the
handouts—text analysis. It seems likely that the teachers tended to use more
Chinese for some particular functions, such as delivering information related to
examinations and lesson plans, translation, and explanation, which will be further
investigated in Sect. 5.4.
Comparing the results in Figs. 5.1 and 5.2, it is obvious that all four teachers
used more English in their listening-and-speaking course than in their
reading-and-writing course. Thus it appears that their language use was affected by
the type and objectives of the course. However, in terms of the language use of the
four teachers teaching students at four different proficiency levels, there seems to be
no clear relationship between students’ English proficiency and the amount of L1
and L2 use by these teachers, although Anne, teaching the group at the lowest level
of proficiency, spent the most time speaking Chinese in both courses.
5.4 Global Analysis [Qualitative]
In this section, a few typical episodes selected from each teacher’s audio recorded
reading-and-writing lessons are analyzed, and the results are presented to provide a
more informative account of the four Chinese teachers’ language use in their EFL
classrooms. Moreover, I applied a key concept—‘frame’—to the analysis of
classroom discourse produced in the observed EFL lessons, in order to help
interpret the results.
This section will address parts of research question 3, complementing the
analysis in Sect. 5.2. It will also contain the main analysis relating to question 6.

5.4.1 Framing Classroom Discourse
A frame-based approach to sequential analysis of classroom discourse has been

adopted (see Sect. 4.3.2). The four kinds of frames I identified are as follows:
a. Extra-lesson frame: in which the teacher provides or asks about knowledge,
experiences, or opinions irrelevant to language learning and lesson content.
b. Intra-lesson frame: in which the teacher introduces background knowledge
related to lesson content, manages classroom behaviour, assigns homework,
checks students’ understanding or retention, gives advice on learning, and
responds to students’ requests for clarification or confirmation, usually between
sequential classroom events or sequential phases of an event, to help move the
lesson forward.
c. Lesson frame: in which the teacher teaches L2 language and knowledge based
on lesson content, or organizes classroom activities.
d. Inter-lesson frame: in which the teacher delivers information about teaching
agenda, institutional agenda, tests or other kinds of assessment, or relates them
to the current lesson.
All these are my own definitions although the name ‘lesson frame’ is also in
Pennington (1999).
5.4.2 Results
I will now offer brief general comments about each of the four teachers, followed by
examples and detailed analysis of their language use within these frames.
5.4.2.1 Anne
Anne’s reading-and-writing lessons strictly followed the textbook and centred on

explaining the vocabulary, texts and exercises. She used Chinese predominantly in
the observed lessons. It seems that for her, Chinese was the main language used for
5.4 Global Analysis [Qualitative] 127
real communication in class, whereas English was treated more as a subject. Next I
will look at her language use across the different frames of a lesson.
a. Inter-lesson frame
She usually talked about her teaching plans at the very beginning of her
observed lessons. The next episode gives an example of her language use when she
was introducing her lesson plan to the students.
Episode 1
T: 好的, 那么我们今天的话呢内容还比较 T: Ok, then the content for today is quite a
多, 主要的话是讲这个 unit2, passage A. 因 lot. I will mainly explain unit 2, passage A.
为我们下星期运动会冲掉一节课, 再接下 Because the sports meet will take up a lesson,
来的话就是小测验哈, 已经跟你们再次强 and next is the quiz, I have already
调了。所以我们要把这个 unit 2, passage emphasized it, so we need to finish explaining
passage A 呢它的一些 language points 先讲 some language points of the unit 2, passage
完。 passage A.
As can be seen, she used Chinese almost exclusively except for some English
classroom routine vocabulary, for example, ‘unit 2’, and ‘passage A’. These words
were very limited and very likely to be used singly within Chinese utterances.
Considering that they appeared frequently in her classroom discourse, it seems that
these English words can be considered as loan words in Chinese, and thus her
language use in this episode can be regarded as Chinese-only.
Episode 2 is another example of her language use in the inter-lesson frame of
classroom discourse. In this episode, she was relating the requirements of the oral
test to the students’ everyday practice.
Episode 2
T: 那么要记住啊, 你们在最后期末的时候 T: So please remember you have an oral test
有一个口语考试。占到10 %吧。还有口语 at the end of this semester. It constitutes
考试啊, 占到10 %。那么口语考试的话呢, 10 %. You also have an oral test which
包括一部分朗读哈。以前跟你们讲过…… constitutes 10 %. Then the oral test includes
然后的话呢, 就是还有一部分 ‘answer the part of reading aloud. I mentioned it to you
question related to our text’, 回答与我们课 before… Then, there is another part, ‘answer
文相关的问题。我也不知道是哪一个, 反 the question related to our text’, answer the
正我们每一个text A 后面都有five question related to our text. I don’t know
question。那么你必须的话呢对它很了 which one it is, but there are five question
解。You must be very familiar with the after each text A. So you must be very
answer to these questions related to our text familiar with them. You must be very
A. 跟我们课文相关的。 familiar with the answer to these questions
related to our text A. Related to our text.
In this episode, she provided information about the oral test which was sched-
uled to be carried out at the end of the semester, and she gave the students directions
for this test, for instance, she said they needed to be familiar with the questions. In
doing so, she used Chinese as the main medium. She also used Chinese to translate
the English information quoted from the textbook, for example, ‘answer the
question related to our text’, and she used Chinese for reiteration as well.
It should be noted that the English information quoted from the textbook is not
her own language. Apart from quotation, she also used English to repeat her
directions in Chinese. She also used some simple English words such as ‘five
question’ for no clear reason. Moreover, as already mentioned, ‘text A’, as a
classroom routine vocabulary appearing frequently in her discourse, was used just
like a loan word in Chinese.
b. Lesson frame
The next episode shows how she dealt with the typical exercises, which required
the students to answer the questions with information they obtained from the text.
Episode 3
T: 好, 我们先看一下第一题, 第一题。它 T: Ok, first we can have a look at the first
说: ‘What characteristics’, characteristics, 特 question, the first question. It says: ‘What
征, ‘are typical of the traditional classroom?’ characteristics’, characteristics,
我们传统的教室它有什么样的特征呢? 回 characteristics, ‘are typical of the
到课文里面去。Revert back to your text A, traditional classroom?’ What are the
and try to find the answer. 传统教室它有一 characteristics of our traditional classroom?
个什么样的特征呢? 对, 我们很多同学可能 Revert back to the text. Revert back to your
会找到这个‘typical’吧, 是不是啊? ‘Typical’ text A, and try to find the answer. What’s
在哪里呢? 在哪里呢? ‘Typical’? 第一段。 the characteristic of the traditional
In the first paragraph, the second line, right? classroom? Ok, most of us probably can find
Ok, let’s see what it’s like. What is a this ‘typical’, right? Where is ‘typical’?
traditional classroom like? 一间传统的教室 Where is it? ‘Typical’? The first paragraph.
它是怎么样的? 大家一起说一下。 In the first paragraph, the second line,
Teachers and students work together, work right? Ok, let’s see what it’s like. What is a
together. 师生的话在教室里面是有一个互 traditional classroom like? What is a
动的有一个共同的教与学的过程的, 是不 traditional classroom like? Please say it
是啊? 这是我们传统教室的一个主要特 together. Teachers and students work
征。 together, work together. Teacher and
student have an interaction with each other in
the classroom, have a mutual process of
teaching and learning, right? This is the main
characteristic of our traditional classroom.
In this episode, she first used Chinese to deliver the procedural information
—‘first we can have a look at the first question’. Then she read the English question
in the textbook, and translated the key word ‘characteristics’ and the whole question
into Chinese. After that, she continued using Chinese to direct the students to the
text, and English to repeat her directions. Then she used Chinese to restate the
question and give a clue to the answer by mentioning the word ‘typical’ quoted
directly from the textbook. Next, it can be seen that she used Chinese to ask about
and point out its position in the text. She also repeated its position in English.
After providing the clue, she made use of another English procedural expression
—‘let’s see what it’s like’. She then repeated the English question, and also
translated it into Chinese. After that, she asked everybody in class to say the answer
together, and then she switched into English to provide the answer. Finally, she
switched back into Chinese to explain the answer.
In general, when referring to a question for the first time, she was likely to use
the L2 first and then add an L1 translation to it. When giving information based on
the textbook, she seemed to use either the L1 or L2, and then she usually added
explanation, reiteration, or translation. Moreover, in terms of giving clues, she
normally used L1-only. As for giving directions, she either employed L1-only, or
used the L1 first and then the L2 for repetition. That is to say, no matter whether she
used the L2 for repetition, it seemed that she usually made use of the L1 first to give
directions that the students were expected to carry out.
Episode 4 provides another example of her discourse within the lesson frame. It
occurred during the process of the text analysis in one of her observed lessons.
Episode 4
T: ‘Typical’ 我们刚才讲过。你看它很象哪 T: We have talked about ‘typical’ just now.
个词啊? T-y-p-e. ‘Type’ 什么意思啊? Can you tell which word it looks like?
‘Type’ 什么意思啊? 打字啊. 大家都知道打 T-y-p-e. What’s the meaning of ‘type’?
字啊。 ‘Type’ 确实有打字的意思, 是不是 What’s the meaning of ‘type’? Typewrite.
啊? 还有呢? 不记得了? ‘Type’ 有没 Everybody knows typewrite. ‘Type’ really
有‘kind’ 的意思? K-i-n-d. 你的这个型是什 means typewrite, right? What else? Don’t you
么? 是不是啊? 你的这个 type 是什么呀?对 remember? Does ‘type’ have the meaning of
不对?你的这个类型是什么呀?有人会经常 ‘kind’? K-i-n-d. What’s your type? Right?
问你: What’s your type? 你的这个型是什么 What’s your type? Right? What’s your type?
呀?类型是什么呀? Someone often asks you: What’s your type?
What’s your type? What’s the type?
In this episode, she dealt with the word ‘typical’ in the text. As we can see, she
did not try to explain ‘typical’ directly, but related it to its conjugate ‘type’. Then
she used Chinese to ask about the meaning of ‘type’. After that, she explained the
first meaning of ‘type’ in Chinese-only, but she provided its second meaning by
using the English synonym ‘kind’.
We can see that she used Chinese as the main medium of instruction, in spite of
some single English words such as ‘typical’ and ‘type’ which could be regarded as
quoted words in most cases.
In addition, she offered an example of how to use the word ‘type’. An interesting
point is that she first provided this example almost exclusively in Chinese three
times, and then she also repeated this example twice in Chinese after translating it
into English. So it seems that she made great efforts to explain the Chinese meaning
of this example to the students.
As can be seen in episodes 3 and 4, her lesson-talk in many cases belonged to a
non-literal frame (Hancock 1997), in which her discourse was mainly a form of
prestructured practice based on the textbook, and thus she could usually only
animate the authors’ words or state other people’s opinions rather than her own
voices and ideas. Nevertheless, in other cases, she was found to use shared real-life
experiences and knowledge common to her and her students in order to illustrate the
lesson content, as in episode 5, where she focused on exemplifying the usage of the
word ‘typical’. In doing so, she assumed a situation based on their real-life expe-
riences and then tried to compose a dialogue with ‘typical’ on this situation.
Episode 5
T: ……我们经常到一个陌生的地方你就会 T: …Usually when arriving at a strange
问, 一般会问吃的喝的什么典型, 什么特 place, you will ask, usually you will ask what
别, 是不是啊?那么比如我们说就问南昌有 the special, what the typical foods or drinks
什么好吃的。 are, right? So, for example, we ask what the
LL: 没有。 delicious foods of Nanchang are.
T: ……那你就说: ‘I don’t think there is LL: None.
anything special’. 对不对?没有什么特别 T: …Then you can say: ‘I don’t think there
的。好, ‘What is’, 你就可以问: ‘What is the is anything special’. Right? There’s nothing
typical food of Nanchang?’ Uh huh. ‘Is there special. Ok, ‘What is’, you can ask: ‘What is
any special thing of about Nanchang food?’ the typical food of Nanchang?’ Uh huh. ‘Is
是不是啊?那你就说: ‘nothing’, ok? ‘I don’t there any special thing of about Nanchang
know’. 其实的话一般只会说没有, 不会说 food?’ Right? Then you say: ‘nothing’, ok?
‘nothing’. 就说: ‘I don’t know, I don’t ‘I don’t know’. In fact, usually we just say
know’. 我不知道。其实就是很保守的说可 none, rather than ‘nothing’. Just say: ‘I
能没什么好吃的。‘Nothing special’, 对不 don’t know, I don’t know’. I don’t know.
对? …… This is actually a conservative way to say
there is nothing delicious. ‘Nothing special’,
right? …
Her discourse in the above episode can be divided into two layers, and her
language choice was different in each. In one layer, she used the L1 almost
exclusively to give an example of a situation in which the target word ‘typical’

could be used, and she also used the L1 to explain and translate the L2 dialogue,
and occasionally check the students’ agreement by using the tag ‘right’. In the other
layer, she used L2-only to compose the situation-based dialogue. Her talk in this
layer was more like a form of performance in the L2, rather than authentic use of
the language.
This seems to show that there was a strong tendency for her to use the L2 to deal
with more structured and institutionalised practice, such as giving examples of the
target language. Moreover, the L1 was more likely to occur when she tried to have
real communication with the students.
c. Intra-lesson frame
Within this frame, Anne occasionally tried to explore the students’ feelings
about the lesson content before actually starting to deal with it. Episode 6 provides
an example of an exchange in the intra-lesson frame, when she was asking the
students’ opinions about the exercises before explaining them.
Episode 6
T: 两天前我们就把答案发下来了, 有问题 T: We handed out the answers two days ago.
吗?有问题就说! 哪道题? 把这个答案填进 Are there any questions? Speak out if you
去了以后发现 you still, you still can’t have questions! Which one? After filling in
understand, still you can’t understand. 那么 the answers, you find you still, you still can’t
这个时候的话呢, you can ask me, ok? 这里 understand, still you can’t understand.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 道题, 有哪道题不懂的? Then at this time, you can ask me, ok? Here
Any question? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 questions, which one can’t
F: 不懂就讲? you understand? Any question?
T: 嗯, 不懂就说!…… F: Just say it if I don’t understand?
T: Yes, just say it if you don’t understand! …
As shown above, she first used Chinese-only to repeatedly ask the students
which questions they had problems with and to encourage them to speak out, so that
she could probably concentrate on explaining these questions. However, since most
of the students did not respond, she then used both English and Chinese to elaborate
on her directions and repeat the question. To be specific, she employed English
either for reiteration, for example, ‘any question’, or for no clear reason, such as
‘you can ask me, ok?’.
Moreover, the above episode includes an exchange in which a female student
requested confirmation of the teacher’s directions, and Anne repeated the direction
in response to this student. In doing so, both of them used Chinese. So it appears
that both she and the students preferred to communicate in the L1 when the students
requested confirmation of her directions.
In the observed lessons, she might also stop to check the students’ understanding
or retention, as illustrated in the following episode which occurred immediately
after she had finished explaining the meaning of the word ‘extend’.
Episode 7
T: 现在对 ‘extend’ 这个词, 尤其是它的第 T: Now do you have the impression about the
三层含义, 有没有印象啊? 有吧? 不会忘记 word ‘extend’, especially the third meaning
吧? 会不会忘记? 啊, 如果说, 你这个, 在课 of it? Yes? You will not forget it? Will you
堂上你都忘记了, 那么你的效率就不高了, forget it or not? Uh, if you are like this, you
是不是啊? 你说课堂课后50分钟, 两个小时 forget it in class, your efficiency is not high,
之后你忘记了我可以理解。在两个星期 right? If you say you forget it after 50 min or
之后, quiz 之前你忘记了我可以理解。但 2 h after class, I can understand. If you forget
是我现在问你 ‘extend’ 第三层含义记得吗, it after two weeks or before quiz, I can
千万不要忘记了哈! 高效利用一下你在课 understand. But now if I ask you whether you
堂上的时间! 既然你已经在这个教室里面 remember the third meaning of ‘extend’,
了, 是不是啊? 就不要daydreaming了哈! don’t forget it! Make efficient use of your time
in class! Now that you are already in this
classroom, right? Don’t daydreaming!
In this episode, she asked a few questions to quickly check if the students could
remember the meaning of ‘extend’. In the course of this, she stressed the point that
the students should at least be able to remember what she had just explained in
class. Then she also advised the students to make good use of their time in class,
and managed their behaviour by urging some inattentive students to pay attention.
As far as her language use was concerned, she delivered this part of the lesson
mainly in Chinese. The utterances were either Chinese-only or Chinese with one
English word. Except for the word ‘extend’ quoted directly from the textbook, she
only used the English classroom routine vocabulary ‘quiz’ and the English word
‘daydreaming’.
Episode 8 provides another example of her language use within this frame. After
giving the students interesting examples, she drew a conclusion about them and
emphasized the importance of remembering target words rather than examples. In
doing so, she also used Chinese mainly, except for the very common classroom
routine vocabulary ‘words’, and some seemingly evaluative words or phrases, such
as ‘interesting’. Moreover, she used ‘ok’ at the end of her utterances, seemingly in
order to check whether the students understood her.
Episode 8
T: 其实所有的例子都是围绕着课文。只不 T: Actually all these examples are around
过有些例子要 interesting 一点, 那么你对它 the text. Some examples are merely a bit
的印象就要深。我不希望你记住了我的 more interesting, so you have a deep
interesting example, 而忘了我们的 words, impression about them. I don’t want you to
ok? remember my interesting example and
forget our words, ok?
Within this frame, Anne was also found to manage classroom behaviour.
Episode 9 is an example when she was speaking to disruptive students.
Episode 9
T: 你们要安静一些啊…… 好, 不管是谁, T: You should keep quiet…Ok, no matter who
不管是谁啊。 To be serious, ok? 好, 严肃 you are, no matter who you are. To be
一点啊…… 你现在不学, 我现在很用心很 serious, ok? Ok, be serious… Now you are
耐心的去教你啊。你下课去学啊?下课花 not learning, but now I am teaching you very
多少个小时?你不浪费时间吗?而且你下课 attentively and very patiently. Do you want to
肯定不会去学的。 learn it after class? How many hours do you
want to spend on it? Aren’t you wasting your
time? And you will certainly not learn after
class.
There she used Chinese as the main medium to maintain discipline. Apart from
this function, she also used Chinese for reiteration, asking questions, giving
opinions by a rhetorical question, and making a guess. Moreover, here she also used
English to manage the students’ behaviour.
However, it should be noted that on occasions she also used almost entirely
Chinese for classroom management, as in episode 10, where she only used one
English word ‘explore’, quoted directly from the textbook and the previous talk.
Episode 10
T: 何林, 就你名堂多。你好好记吧! 你刚刚 T: He Lin, you are the only troublesome
‘explore’ 你都忘记什么意思啦。别以为我 person. Remember this well! Just now you
没听到啊, 何林啊! even forgot the meaning of ‘explore’. Don’t
think I didn’t hear it, He Lin!
d. Extra-lesson frame
Anne seldom mentioned information completely irrelevant to her teaching
content. But the following episode, in which she used only the L1 to talk about the
issue of class attendance and complain about the irresponsible headteacher of this
class, may be an example of her discourse within the extra-lesson frame.
Episode 11
T: ……你们班上的话好象班主任还没有来 T: …It seems that your headteacher hasn’t
查过哦, 查过这个考勤。那个舞蹈班和那 checked yet, checked your attendance. The
个表演班, 经常老师, 经常班主任要来查考 dancing class and the performance class,
勤的。有时候我们任课老师都不太点 their teacher usually, their headteachers
名。他们那个班主任会来点名查考勤 usually check their attendance. Sometimes
啊…… we, course instructors don’t call roll. Their
headteachers will come to call roll and check
their attendance…
Based on the above description and analysis, the functions of her discourse in the
four different frames can be summarized as follows (Table 5.14).
Table 5.14 Functions of Anne’s use of the L1 and L2 in the four frames
Frames Functions
L1 L2
Lesson frame a. Procedural language a. Procedural language
b. Translation b. Reiteration
c. Giving directions c. Giving information
d. Reiteration d. Quotation
e. Giving clues e. Giving examples
f. Asking questions f. Translation
g. Giving information
h. Clarification
i. Giving examples
j. Acceptance check
Intra-lesson a. Retention check a. Classroom routine
frame b. Emphasis vocabulary
c. Classroom management b. Quotation
d. Reiteration c. Free switching
e. Asking questions d. Classroom Management
f. Advice on learning e. Reiteration
g. Clarification f. Clarification
h. Giving information (asking rhetorical g. Comprehension check
questions)
i. Making a guess
j. Conclusion
Inter-lesson a. Giving information about teaching plans a. Classroom routine
frame or exams vocabulary
b. Translation b. Reiteration
c. Giving directions c. Free Switching
d. Reiteration
Extra-lesson Complaining None
frame
5.4.2.2 Betty
Like Anne, Betty normally placed emphasis on explaining the meaning and usage
of the new vocabulary, the meaning of the text and the language points in the text in
the observed lessons. In addition, she paid close attention to assessing student
learning, and offering the students guidance on good foreign language study skills.
Although her students were at advanced English proficiency level, the observation
seems to indicate that Betty made use of the L1 in many cases. The following
episodes will show how she used the L1 and L2 in the four frames of discourse.
a. Lesson frame
In the observed lessons, she usually carried out a whole-class activity—‘sen-
tence dictation’, after finishing each unit or at least most of it, mainly for the
purpose of assessing the students’ learning outcomes. In the dictations, the sen-
tences she read were all selected from the text she had taught. She normally read 5
sentences, each sentence three times, and the students were required to write down
exactly what she had read and to give Chinese translations. The following is an
example when Betty was conducting ‘sentence dictation’ for the first time in her
class.
Episode 1
T: 空开一行。No 4…Now the last one, No T: Leave a line. No 4….Now the last one,
5. No 5. ‘Because we are so busy and on such No 5. No 5. ‘Because we are so busy and on
a tight budget, we don’t entertain much.’… such a tight budget, we don’t entertain
一分钟的时间检查。写上姓名, 学号, 班 much.’… One minute for check. Write down
级。Ok, write down your student number your name, student number and class
and your name. 点到名的同学请交上 number. Ok, write down your student
来…… number and your name. The students whose
names are called out hand in your work
please…
As can be seen, Betty used English to read the target sentences and deliver the
procedural information, such as ‘now the last one’. Furthermore, she used English
to repeat her directions in Chinese, for instance, asking the students to write down
their name and student number at the end of the dictation.
Moreover, it can be observed that she gave the students directions mainly in
Chinese. For example, she used Chinese-only to ask them to leave space between
each sentence and check for one minute, although she had already mentioned these
requirements in English before starting the dictation. In addition, she also used
Chinese-only to command the nominated students to hand in their work. Therefore,
it seems that here she used Chinese as a tool for ensuring every student in the class
could understand and follow her directions.
Although Betty used Chinese in the first dictation session in her lessons, it
should be mentioned that she used English almost exclusively to organize the
dictation activities in the subsequent lessons. That is to say, as the students became
familiar with the procedures and requirements for doing this task, her use of
Chinese reduced significantly. This change seems to indicate that her use of the L1
was more likely to occur when introducing or conducting an activity in her class for
the very first time.
Text analysis was also a crucial part of her teaching within the lesson frame. In
doing so, she normally explained the text sentence by sentence or focused on
explaining certain words or phrases in the text. The next episode illustrates how she
explained the following sentence in the text.
‘Because we are so busy and on such a tight budget, we don’t entertain much.’
Episode 2
T: …But it has another meaning. Yes, 请客, T: …But it has another meaning. Yes, treat,
treat your friends. Yeah, treat your friend, treat your friends. Yeah, treat your friend,
hold parties, and ect. Because we can, 不, you hold parties, and ect. Because we can, no,
see we can guess the meaning from the you see we can guess the meaning from the
context. Do you understand? 我们可以从上 context. Do you understand? We can guess
下文中, 当中猜出这个词的意思…… So the meaning from the context… So
‘entertain’ here, 娱乐或者呢请客。这句话 ‘entertain’ here, amuse or treat. In this
当中我们翻译成请客, 款待朋友可能更合 sentence, it is probably more appropriate to
适一点, ok? It’s appropriate to translate to, translate it to treat, treat friends, ok? It’s
uh, 请客, 款待朋友。我们非常忙手头也很 appropriate to translate to, uh, treat, treat
紧, 因此呢不怎么请客, 不怎么款待朋友, friends. We are so busy and on such a tight
不怎么请朋友来家里做客, 都可以这样 budget, thus we don’t entertain much, we
翻。 Ok, ‘entertain much’. 因为从上下文判 don’t treat friends much, or we don’t treat
断, 这个地方翻成‘不怎么去娱乐’不是很合 friends at home much. The sentence can be
适, ok? translated this way. Ok, ‘entertain much’.
Because judging from the context, it’s not
appropriate to translate into ‘not amuse
ourselves much’, ok?
As we can see there, Betty’s use of English served several different functions.
First, she started to give information about the word ‘entertain’ in English. She also
used English to paraphrase it. Then, perhaps in order to prove that her explanation
was reasonable, she used English to tell the students its meaning could be inferred
from the context. Besides these, she asked an English question to check the stu-
dents’ understanding. She also employed English to reiterate what she said in
Chinese, and moreover, she repeated the English words ‘entertain much’ after
translating the whole sentence, seemingly for enhancing the students’ memory of it.
Furthermore, she used a single English word ‘ok’ at the end of this episode,
probably to check whether the students agreed with her about the meaning of
‘entertain’.
Moreover, we can see that here she used Chinese mainly for translating the word
‘entertain’ and the whole sentence. Apart from translation, she used Chinese for the
interesting function of justification, for example, she said that her explanation of
‘entertain’ could be verified according to the context. She also used Chinese to
repeat the information given in English.
Episode 3 provides another example to show her language use when dealing
with text analysis. In this example, like Anne, she linked the students, and her own
real-life experiences with the target expression ‘on such a tight budget’ to elicit
authentic communication and develop the teaching content.
Episode 3
T: …You are quite familiar with this phrase, T: …You are quite familiar with this
right? Did I guess right? 我猜对了吗? 你们 phrase, right? Did I guess right? Did I
对这个短语非常熟悉, because you often say guess right? You are very familiar with this
I’m on such a tight budget. Are you on such a phrase, because you often say I’m on such
tight budget? a tight budget. Are you on such a tight
LLL: Yes. budget?
T: Yes? Really? So do I. Do you think there LLL: Yes.
have ever been a time that you are not on a T: Yes? Really? So do I. Do you think there
tight budget? Never, never, right? Because have ever been a time that you are not on a
when I was in university, I felt that I was on tight budget? Never, never, right? Because
such a tight budget. How I wish I can earn when I was in university, I felt that I was
money for myself. And now you see I am on such a tight budget. How I wish I can
working as a teacher, I earned salary, I still earn money for myself. And now you see I
feel the same. I am always on a tight budget. am working as a teacher, I earned salary, I
This phrase is quite useful. ‘On a tight still feel the same. I am always on a tight
budget’, ok? ‘On a tight budget’. budget. This phrase is quite useful. ‘On a
tight budget’, ok? ‘On a tight budget’.
At the beginning of this episode, Betty employed English to guess that the
students were familiar with the expression, and after that she used a tag ‘right?’ to
check whether they agreed with her. But since the students gave no response, she
immediately used English again to rephrase the question. However, the students
still did not respond to her, so she repeated what she had said in Chinese. But she
subsequently switched back into English, probably because she made a transition
from reiteration to making a guess.
After that, she asked a more direct question in English by using the expression,
and the interesting point was that this time the students responded to her together
very loudly. Therefore, it seemed difficult for her to elicit the students’ response by
using English-only, and her Chinese repetition probably enabled the students to
understand the question.
In addition, it should be noted that, unlike Anne, she used only the L2 to narrate
her own real-life experiences around the theme of ‘on such a tight budget’. She used
the target expression several times in her L2 utterances, which could also be seen as
showing examples of how to use it.
Besides text analysis, vocabulary teaching was another significant part of Betty’s
teaching. The next episode is an example from the observed lessons when she was
teaching the phrases ‘close in on’ and ‘close in around’.
Episode 4
T: ‘Close in on’, ‘close in around’. 注意这个 T: ‘Close in on’, ‘close in around’. Pay
词。请同学们注意。并不是说 ‘in, on, attention to this phrase. Please pay attention.
around’ 这三个介词取一, 而是, 而是 ‘close We do not choose one among the three
in’, ‘on’ 跟 ‘around’ 取任意一个。We say prepositions ‘in, on, around’, but, but keep
‘close in on’, ok? We can say I don’t know ‘close in’ and choose one between ‘on’ and
why people all close in on me. Understand? ‘around’. We say ‘close in on’, ok? We can
(continued)
(continued)
Close in around me. All my students close in say I don’t know why people all close in on
around me. All my students close in on me. me. Understand? Close in around me. All
Ok, ‘come near in order to attack’, uh, 不能 my students close in around me. All my
用这个, ‘attack from several directions or students close in on me. Ok, ‘come near in
surround’. ‘Close in’, 这个接近, 包围, 请同 order to attack’, uh, we can’t use it in this
学们注意, 它不是一般的围着你。刚刚我 way, ‘attack from several directions or
举的那个例子其实不是很恰当。因为你 surround’. ‘Close in’, please pay attention,
们不会围着我要攻击我, 对不对?这个‘包 it refers to come near, surround, but does not
围, 接近’是带有一种要攻击的意思…… mean surround you in general sense. The
example I gave just now actually is not very
appropriate, since you would not attack me
from surround, right? This ‘come near or
surround’ means a kind of attack…
That extract shows that when talking about two phrases quoted from the
vocabulary list of the textbook, she first used Chinese to draw the students’
attention to the composition of the phrases. She then switched to English to provide
several examples of the phrases in use. However, after reading the English expla-
nations of the phrases in the textbook, she immediately realized that the way she
had made sentences with the phrases was inappropriate. So she used Chinese to
‘confess’ that she had misused the phrases and explain them again. However, since
she rarely made mistakes, it was uncommon that she used Chinese for ‘confession’.
b. Intra-lesson frame
The intra-lesson frame was very prominent in Betty’s observed lessons, since
encouraging students and giving them advice on learning were crucial parts of her
teaching. In this frame, she usually used Chinese-only. An example is her mono-
logue shown in episode 5.
Episode 5
T: ……就是每一个人摸索出你自己的方法 T: …That is, every person should try to find
方式。我们可以和其他人交流, 可以向别 out a method, way suitable for yourself. You
人取经。记得一定要去摸索最适合自己 can communicate with others, and you can
的方式…… 找到最适合你的方法, 这才是 learn from others. Remember you must find
我们课堂活动的意义所在。不是为了听 out a method suitable for yourself… Finding
写而听写。一定要找到适合自己的方 the best way for you is just the significance of
法。一定要自己去想办法。我们头几次 the classroom activity. You can’t just do
都是尝试, 你写的不好, 不要紧张。 dictation for dictation. You must find a
suitable method for yourself. You must find a
way. We are trying the first several times we
do the activity, so don’t be nervous if you did
a poor job.
This episode occurred after a dictation. We can see that she used Chinese-only to
advise the students to find out the best way for them to do dictations, and to instill
confidence in them as well.
Episode 6 again illustrates that Betty was very likely to use entirely Chinese to
perform the function of encouraging students. This episode took place in one of the
observed lessons after she required the students to summarize useful vocabulary in
the text. As we can see, she used Chinese almost entirely to encourage the students
to take responsibility for their learning, apart from a single English utterance used to
reiterate and emphasize the fact that they were mature students already.
Episode 6
T: ……交流需要学习, 需要每个人都出力, T: …Communication needs study and needs
不是等着老师为你们做什么, ok? 那样的时 everybody to make efforts for it rather than
代已经过去了。你应该感到高兴而不是 wait and see what teacher can do for you,
感到忧伤, right? 你们是大学生。 You are ok? That kind of time has already passed.
not, you are not high school students You should feel happy instead of sadness,
anymore, right? 不再是中学生了, 等待老师 right? You are university students. You are
为你做好一切。这也是值得我们高兴的 not, you are not high school students
地方, right? 充分发挥我们的主动性, 积极 anymore, right? You are no longer high
性和我们的这个潜力啊, 对不对? school students, and wait for teacher to do
everything for you. We should be happy for
this, right? Bring our initiative, enthusiasm
and our potentials into full play, right?
Moreover, although episode 5 shows that she used Chinese-only when giving
advice, in other cases she might also make use of English to perform this function.
In episode 7, for instance, she used English to offer the students advice on their
vocabulary learning, and repeated it in Chinese.
Episode 7
T: …And I suggest that you can make T: …And I suggest that you can make
sentences to get familiar with the phrases or sentences to get familiar with the phrases
words we’ve learned. Ok, 建议每位同学通 or words we’ve learned. Ok, I suggest that
过造句的方式来熟悉我们学过的生词和短 every student get familiar with the words and
语…… phrases we’ve learned by means of making
sentence…
Within this frame, she also occasionally tried to justify what she said or did in
the lesson frame. For example, in episode 8, since some students expressed dis-
content with dictation and its time limit, she provided reasons to justify why she
conducted this activity in class, and why the students needed it.
Episode 8
T: Ok, 你 ‘啊’ 就意味着你要花更多的时间 T: Ok, if you say ‘ah’, you need to spend
或者说我们需要一段时间来适应这样的听 more time, or you need a period of time to
写。Ok, 我说过了 this exercise is not only adapt to this kind of dictation. Ok, I’ve
to check your new words memo-, memory, already said that this exercise is not only to
right? But also is a good way to train your check your new words memo-, memory,
listening skills, right? And also I want to right? But also is a good way to train your
check whether you have reviewed the text or listening skills, right? And also I want to
(continued)
(continued)
not. 不光是检查同学们对生词的听写。说 check whether you have reviewed the text
了这只是一部分。对同学们来说这样的 or not. So the dictation is not only used to
听写可以检查同学们对课文的熟悉程度。 check your memory for new words. I have
相对来说…… said this is just one part. And for you, the
dictation can also check the extent to which
you are familiar with the text. Relatively
speaking…
In response to the students’ discontent, therefore, Betty first expressed her own
ideas in Chinese, and then used both Chinese and English to state the advantages of
dictation in order to justify doing it in class.
In the process of justifying the necessity of doing dictation, it can be seen that
she first switched from Chinese to English, seemingly because she changed from
stating her own personal opinions to providing a generally accepted fact. She then
switched back into Chinese for reiteration.
In addition, within this frame, she might interrupt a classroom exchange based
on the lesson content to require the students to use the L2 if they answered her
question in the L1, as illustrated in episode 9.
Episode 9
T: …What symbolizes ‘peace’? T: …What symbolizes ‘peace’?
LL: 鸽子。 LL: Dove.
T: 鸽子。In English, ok? You are not T: Dove. In English, ok? You are not
kindergarten children. 你又不是幼儿园的小 kindergarten children. You are not a
朋友, 用中文回答不行。 kindergarten child anymore, so you cannot
answer this question in Chinese.
Here we can see that at the beginning the discourse was in the lesson frame when
she tried to communicate with the students about the lesson content. However, she
brought the lesson into the intra-lesson frame after repeating the students’ answer in
the L1, since she did not accept it, and instead required them to use English.
Moreover, she used English to emphasize the fact that they were not children,
seemingly in order to indicate that they were not allowed to give answers in the L1
anymore. Finally she also repeated this again in Chinese, apparently for emphasis as
well.
c. Extra-lesson frame
In this frame, Betty sometimes told her anecdotes, which seemed to have no
direct connection to the lesson content she was trying to teach in her class. When
doing so, she usually made use of Chinese as the main medium, although she also
used some English. The following episode provides an example.
Episode 10
T: …Ok, this reminds me of some something T: …Ok, this reminds me of some
very interesting. 这让我想到了一件我自己 something very interesting. This reminds me
的很有意思的事情。有一次在麦当劳, 应 of something very interesting. On one
该是逛街的时候买了一瓶可乐, 然后然后 occasion, in McDonald’s, I must have bought
就到麦当劳里面去吃东西, 可乐就放在桌 a bottle of coke while shopping, then, then I
上。然后非常和善的, I have to say she is went to McDonald’s to get something to eat,
very kind. A kind waitress came forward and and my coke was on the table. Then, very
asked me to hide the coke. 她让我把可乐收 kind, I have to say she is very kind. A kind
起来。And later I realized that McDonald waitress came forward and asked me to
sells coke, right? hide the coke. She asked me to put the coke
away. And later I realized that McDonald
sells coke, right?
It can be seen that she first used English to make the transition from vocabulary
explanation to story-telling, which brought the discourse into the extra-lesson
frame. Then she used Chinese to repeat this transitional utterance.
After that, she started to tell her story. In this process, she switched between
English and Chinese several times, and both languages served the functions of
story-telling and reiteration.
Moreover, in her teaching, she might also stop to react to some students’
attention-seeking or transgressive behaviours in class, as in episode 11.
Episode 11
T: …I have invested all my energy in this T: …I have invested all my energy in this
project, in this project, in this
M: In love. M: In love.
T: [Laughing] ‘In love’? 为什么总有这个方 T: [Laughing] ‘In love’? Why did this ‘pretty
向传来这个 ‘pretty girls’ or ‘love’ 这样的 girls’ or ‘love’, such such words always
such words? Ok, 不知道是谁说的, 下课调 come from this direction? Ok, we can check
查一下啊。 who said it after class.
As we can see, in response to an unknown male student who often shouted

words like ‘pretty girls’ and ‘love’ in her class, she first repeated his utterance, and
then she spoke to the whole class in a facetious tone using mainly Chinese. Some
L2 words used here, such as ‘pretty girls’, were mainly quoted from the students’
previous utterances. Besides, she was found to sometimes use the L2 conjunction
‘or’ for providing another possibility, and the L2 phrase ‘such words’ for no clear
reason.
d. Inter-lesson frame
In the observed lessons, Betty also tried to deliver information about her
teaching plans to the students. It was noteworthy that she used Chinese-only when
delivering this particular kind of information. The next episode is such an example.
Episode 12
T:……但我们今天不会讲到课文的部分。 T: …But today I will not move on to the part
接下来的安排是这样的。同学们应该也, of text explanation. What comes next is
我们在课程上也有宣布的。你们应该也看 arranged as follows. You should also, we
的出来。今天完成词汇, 一起来学习词 have also made an announcement in the
汇。下个星期完成课文。再下个星期是全 curriculum. You should probably be able to
年级同学小测验。请同学们做好准备。 see it. Today we will finish the vocabulary,
learn the vocabulary together. Next week we
will finish the text. And the week after next, all
of the first-year students have to take a quiz.
Please be well-prepared for it.
Table 5.15 presents the functions of her language use in the four different frames
of classroom discourse.
Table 5.15 Functions of Betty’s use of the L1 and L2 in the four frames
Frames Functions
L1 L2
Lesson frame a. Giving directions a. Quotation
b. translation b. Procedural language
c. Justification c. Reiteration
d. Reiteration d. Giving information
e. Attracting the students’ attention e. Clarification
f. Confession f. Justification
g. Comprehension check
h. Reinforcement
i. Acceptance check
j. Giving examples
k. Making a guess
l. Asking questions
m. Narration
Intra-lesson a. Praising or encouraging students a. Giving information
frame b. Advice on learning b. Justification
c. Giving information c. Objectivization
d. Reiteration d. Advice on learning
e. Justification e. Giving directions
f. Personalization f. Emphasis
Inter-lesson a. Giving information about teaching None
frame plans
Extra-lesson a. Narration a. Narration
frame b. Reiteration b. Transition
c. Joking c. Repeating students’
response
d. Quotation
e. Free switching
5.4.2.3 Carl
Carl taught this course very differently from the other three teachers. While they
used the prescribed textbook as the main basis of their lessons, Carl normally
designed his own exercises to fit each unit of the textbook, handed these out to the
students before class, and based his lessons entirely on these exercises. Moreover,
although there were many types of exercises in the handouts, such as vocabulary,
text structure analysis, paraphrasing and translation, the vocabulary exercises
accounted for a considerable proportion of these, on which he spent relatively more
time.
a. Lesson frame
In the vocabulary exercises, the students were normally asked to fill in the blanks
with listed words or expressions selected from the textbook, and Carl usually placed
emphasis on the meaning and usage of the target words when explaining them.
Given that this kind of exercise occupied most of his time in the observed
lessons, it is important to show how he dealt with them in order to analyze his
language use within the lesson frame. In episode 1, for instance, he used
English-only to read and explain the target English word ‘strike’, and moreover, he
tried to reinforce the students’ memory by repeating the English explanation again.
Episode 1
T: ‘Everything seemed to be going fine when T: ‘Everything seemed to be going fine
suddenly disaster strike’. ‘Strike’ means when suddenly disaster strike’. ‘Strike’
something suddenly happens, or something means something suddenly happens, or
suddenly begins to affect somebody, something suddenly begins to affect
especially bad things, just like disaster, like somebody, especially bad things, just like
earthquake, like snowstorm, rainstorm, disaster, like earthquake, like snowstorm,
hurricane. Suddenly happen or suddenly rainstorm, hurricane. Suddenly happen or
begin to affect somebody. suddenly begin to affect somebody.
Although the above episode is fairly typical of his language use, by itself it is
insufficient to show exactly how he used the two languages when teaching these
vocabulary exercises, since his language use was quite flexible. Therefore, next I
will present several more examples to illustrate his flexibility of language use.
In episode 2, for example, his language use seemed quite the opposite of the
above. He did not take time to paraphrase the target sentence, but translated it little
by little. Furthermore, apart from the English language quoted directly from the
handouts, it would be true to say that he used Chinese-only to make this sentence
explicit. Here Chinese seemed to be used as a tool for saving time and effort, and it
was mainly used for asking questions, translation and acceptance check.
Episode 2
T: ‘Vivid memory flood, came flooding back T: ‘Vivid memory flood, came flooding
of the glorious, romantic sophomore year.’ 这 back of the glorious, romantic sophomore
说明你的二年级过得怎么样啊? 过得很不 year.’ What does it say about your
错的, 精彩的。你的很精彩的, 很浪漫的大 sophomore year? Very good, wonderful. How
学二年级的生活怎么样啊? ‘Came flooding was your wonderful, romantic sophomore
back’, 象潮水一般的涌回来。涌回到哪里 year? ‘Came flooding back’, came back like
呢?‘Memory’ 来, 是吧?‘Vivid’ 表示清晰, a flood. Where did it flood back? Into
清晰, 生动的出现在脑海。 ‘Memory’, right? ‘Vivid’ means clearly,
clearly, vividly come to mind.
In episode 3, he used the mixed medium when trying to explain the word
‘address’ in the sentence—‘That letter was addressed to me’.
Episode 3
T: …Look at the first sentence. ‘That letter T: …Look at the first sentence. ‘That letter
was addressed to me.’ So if you address a was addressed to me.’ So if you address a
letter or a package 什么叫‘package’? 包裹。 letter or a package What’s ‘package’?
Or an envelope. That means you write it, you Package. Or an envelope. That means you
write on it the name of the person, the address write it, you write on it the name of the
you are sending the letter to, or package to, person, the address you are sending the
right? So that’s the meaning of the address. letter to, or package to, right? So that’s the
So if you address a letter, an envelope or a meaning of the address. So if you address a
package. That means you write on it the name letter, an envelope or a package. That
and the address of the person you are sending means you write on it the name and the
it to. So that’s the first sentence. 所以说这句 address of the person you are sending it to.
话应该翻成:这封信是寄给我的, 因为上面 So that’s the first sentence. So this sentence
是我的名字地址。 should be translated into: This letter was
addressed to me, because it had my name and
address on it.
Here we can see that he first used the L2 to deliver the procedural information
‘look at the first sentence’, by which he directed the students’ attention to the target
sentence. Then he read the sentence from the handouts and started to explain it in
English. But after using the word ‘package’ in his English explanation, he switched
into Chinese to ask a question about its meaning and immediately translated it into
Chinese. Subsequently, he switched back into English to continue his explanation
of the word ‘address’ and reiterated it again in English as well. However, although
he explained the target word twice in English, he still finished by adding the
Chinese translation of the whole sentence. Here Chinese seemed to be used as a last
resort to make sure every student could understand this sentence. To sum up, in this
episode, while employing Chinese to perform the functions of translation and
asking questions, he used English for quotation, explanation and procedural
language.
In episode 4, although he also interwove English and Chinese, Chinese was used
in a different pattern.
Episode 4
T: ‘All colour fade, especially, under the T: ‘All colour fade, especially, under the
impact of direct sunlight.’ So you know that impact of direct sunlight.’ So you know
means, uh, lose colour, or lose brightness. 这 that means, uh, lose colour, or lose
叫褪色, right? Lose colour or lose brightness. brightness. This is called fade, right? Lose
colour or lose brightness.
It can be seen that Carl routinely read aloud the target sentence first. Afterwards,
he explained the word ‘fade’ in English, and then provided its Chinese translation
‘褪色’. He then used ‘right’ after the translation to check whether the students
agreed with his opinion. Finally, he repeated his English explanation again,
apparently for the purpose of strengthening the students’ memory of it. As Lin
(1990:116) pointed out, this kind of ‘L2-L1-L2 sequence’ reflected not only an
attempt to achieve the requirement of teaching the L2 vocabulary in the L2, but also
an attempt to ensure learners’ profound understanding of the target word by
translating it into the L1.
In this example, Chinese was employed only for translation, whereas English
was used for quotation, explanation, reinforcement and acceptance check.
Furthermore, it seems that here he used Chinese neither as a tool for saving time
and effort, nor as a last resort to make the students understand. It appears very likely
that he used it just for assisting the students’ understanding of the target word.
Moreover, he seemed to make more effort to explain its English meaning.
In the next episode, he also used Chinese for assistance, not to translate the target
sentence, but to repeat his English explanation of it. Here Chinese was used only for
reiteration, while English was used for explanation.
Episode 5
T: ‘It was worth the trouble, I figure.’ So T: ‘It was worth the trouble, I figure.’ So
whether should I do it? Whether should I do whether should I do it? Whether should I
it? Does it deserve doing? 我应不应该做这 do it? Does it deserve doing? Whether
件事情呢?这件事值不值得我做呢? So at should I do it? Does it deserve doing? So at
first, you go through a lot of, uh, first, you go through a lot of, uh,
considerations, right? And then you should considerations, right? And then you should
make decision to do it, right? make decision to do it, right?
Episode 6 suggests that Carl attached great importance to the Chinese transla-
tions of the target sentences. He first used the English word ‘influence’ and ‘affect’
to clarify the meaning of ‘come over’. However, when referring to the issue of
translating these sentences, he switched into Chinese to express his opinion about it.
He followed that by justifying his opinion by translating the example sentences into
Chinese in various ways.
Episode 6
T: Uh, ‘He has never been so rude to me. T: Uh, ‘He has never been so rude to me.
What’s come over him? What’s come over What’s come over him? What’s come over
him? A wave of sleepiness sleepiness came him? A wave of sleepiness sleepiness came
over me.’ Here ‘come over’ just means affect, over me.’ Here ‘come over’ just means
influence, affect, influence. 当然有的地方我 affect, influence, affect, influence. Of course
们理解为affect。并不这样翻啊。不这样翻 in some cases we can understand it as affect.
的, 虽然它的意思是 affect. 比如说, 第56 But we don’t translate this way. We can’t
句。难道你翻成一波睡眠影响了我吗? 应 translate this way, although it means affect.
该是一阵睡意袭来…… For example, sentence 56. Do you translate it
as a wave of sleepiness affected me? It should
be a wave of sleepiness swept over me…
As mentioned above, he paid a great deal of attention to translation, even when

dealing with the vocabulary exercises. His self-designed handouts also included
specific translation exercises. For example, in the next episode, he discussed how to
translate the sentence—‘He imagined what surely awaited’.
Episode 7
T: ……我们是不是把它翻译成说他想象的 T: …Shall we translate it as he imagined
什么东西在等着他? 等着他干嘛? 所以虽 something is waiting for him? Wait for him to
然在我的原则我没有说‘看’, 对不对? 但是 do what? So, although I didn’t say ‘see’,
其实你知道是等着他看的。那么这句话 right? But actually you know something is
应该怎么理解呢? In his imagination, he will waiting for him to see. So how shall we
surely find or he will surely see. 你知道翻译 understand this sentence? In his
的前提是什么呢? 是理解。其实还是把它 imagination, he will surely find or he will
变成什么? Paraphrase. 这样就好翻。所以 surely see. You know what the prerequisite of
在他的想象中, 他肯定会看到什么呢? …… translation is? Understanding. What is it
changed into in fact? Paraphrase. It’s better
to translate in this way. So in his imagination,
what will he surely see? …
As we can see, he did not try to translate the whole sentence directly. Instead, at the
beginning, he used Chinese to elaborate on how to understand ‘awaited’, and then he
continued using Chinese to ask how to understand the sentence. In answer to this
question, he subsequently switched into English to paraphrase it. After that, he
switched back into Chinese to draw a conclusion about doing translation and relate it
to another language skill, ‘paraphrase’, which is an English word used frequently in
his normal classroom practice. Finally, he translated the target sentence into Chinese.
On the basis of this example, it seems that when dealing with translation, Carl
was likely to use the L1 to clarify and elaborate on the deep meaning of certain
words. Moreover, before translation, he tended to use English paraphrases to
facilitate the students’ understanding.
The next two episodes show how Carl reacted to student answers in his class
within the lesson frame. Primarily, we can see that he used either English or
Chinese to comment on the student response. For example, for somewhat rejecting
the student response, he used English in episode 8. However, in episode 9, he used

Chinese for the same function.
Episode 8
T: I think your translation is about, I think it’s T: I think your translation is about, I think
about 50 percent correct. 嗯, 为什么说他的 it’s about 50 percent correct. Uh, why did
翻译只有大概50 的是对的呢? 首先你没有 we say her translation was about 50 percent
翻出 ‘what surely awaited’. This is the most correct? At first, you didn’t translate ‘what
difficult one. 这是最难翻的地方。 surely awaited’. This is the most difficult
one. This bit is the most difficult to translate.
Episode 9
T: 太文绉绉了啊! 你要知道它是, 当然它某 T: It’s too genteel! You know that translation
些地方要看你的受众, 也就是读者是谁。 is, of course it sometimes depends on the
我们现在随随便便翻译就不要把它翻的那 audiences, that is, who the readers are. We
么文绉绉……. are now translating it in a casual way, so
don’t translate it genteelly…
He also tried to justify his rejection in these two examples. In doing so, in
episode 8, he used Chinese to ask why the student answer was not completely
acceptable, and then he provided reasons to support his opinion by using both
Chinese and English. In episode 9, on the other hand, he used Chinese-only to
justify his comments.
b. Inter-lesson frame
For the purpose of reminding the students of the need for careful management of
their study, he occasionally mentioned the coming exams in the observed lessons.
In the next episode, for example, he said that if the students wanted to make the
final exam easier, they must do both intensive and extensive reading.
Episode 10
T: ……不光是涉及到考试的问题。当然 T: …This not only relates to a matter of
考试也是很关键的。如果你做了, 那么到 exam. Of course exam is also very important.
了考场上对你来说是轻而易举; 如果你不 If you have read them, passing the exam
做, 可能到时候在考场上连题目都做不出 comes naturally to you; if you haven’t, you
来, 因为到时候我们的题量是很大的。 30 probably can’t do those questions since there
分的听力, 是吧? 那么至少是10个 short will be lots of them by that time. Listening (30
conversation, 两篇 long dialogue, 那么两篇 points), right? So at least 10 short
short passage. 阅读理解4 篇。其实也不少, conversation, two long dialogue, and then
是不是? 完形填空两篇。两篇都是课本上 two short passage. Four passages of reading
的。啊, 我们B类的学生这个学期不考写 comprehension. They are actually quite a
作。下个学期考。 few, aren’t they? Two passages of cloze. The
two passages were selected from the
textbook. Uh, students in group B don’t need
to take writing exam this semester. You will
do it next semester.
He delivered this part of the lesson almost exclusively in Chinese, except for
some English vocabulary frequently used in the routine classroom practices, such as
‘short conversation’ and ‘long dialogue’. Moreover, he used Chinese for giving
information about the exam and justifying why he required the students to read the
textbooks.
However, this was not always the case. For example, in episode 11, he used
English entirely to introduce his teaching plan for the next lesson.
Episode 11
T: Uh, from unit 3, I will ask you to do T: Uh, from unit 3, I will ask you to do
another job I have prepared… Uh, I another job I have prepared… Uh, I
mentioned last week. I will add composition mentioned last week. I will add
writing into our. So from next time we will composition writing into our. So from next
start to learn how to organize a paragraph, time we will start to learn how to organize
how to organize a paper, ok? a paragraph, how to organize a paper, ok?
c. Intra-lesson frame
Within this frame, he was found to give directions for doing homework and
provide reasons to show why the students could not have time to do it in class. In
doing so, he used Chinese-only, as illustrated in episode 12.
Episode 12
T: ……你们课后都要自己做哈! 我们为了 T: …Do it by yourselves! We are trying to
省时间。本来大家都知道按道理课堂上 gain time. Essentially, you know you should
做的效果是最好的。但是我想我相信大 best do it in class on principle. But I think I
家会课后独立的去做。当然你跟同学商 believe that you will do it independently after
量我也没有任何的意见。但是我有一个 class. Of course, if you discuss with your
要求。你可以跟任何一个同学商量怎么 classmates, I have no any opinion about it.
去把答案做出来。这个是我赞赏的, 因为 But I have a requirement. You can discuss
我要求你做。但是我反对的是你去抄答 with your classmates to figure out the
案。没有意义的哈! answers. I will speak very highly of this,
because I ask you to do so. But I objected that
you copy the answers. There is no sense in
doing that!
d. Extra-lesson frame
When narrating an event beyond the lesson content and language learning in the
observed lessons, Carl used Chinese-only as the instructional language, as shown in
the following episode.
Episode 13
T: 昨天晚上我正好在看电视。你们知道崔 T: I was watching TV last night. You know
永元现在有一个访谈节目。昨天呢他就 now Cui Yongyuan hosts an interview
访谈了谁呢? 一个中科院的院士, 原来的中 programme. Who did he interview yesterday?
科大的校长, 中科大的前校长。那么这个 An academician of the Chinese Academy of
中科大的校长谈到了哪些问题呢? …… Sciences, the former president of the
University of Science and Technology of
China, the former president of the University
of Science and Technology of China. So what
issues did this president of the University of
Science and Technology of China mention?
…
The functions for which Carl used the L1 and L2 in the four frames of classroom
discourse are summarized in Table 5.16.
Table 5.16 Functions of Carl’s use of the L1 and L2 in the four frames
Frames Functions
L1 L2
Lesson frame a. Asking questions a. Clarification
b. Translation b. Reinforcement
c. Reiteration c. Quotation
d. Giving information d. Procedural language
e. Justification e. Acceptance check
f. Rejecting student response f. Rejecting student response
g. Clarification g. Justification
h. Conclusion h. Classroom routine vocabulary
i. Acceptance check
Intra-lesson a. Giving directions None
frame b. Justification
Inter-lesson a. Giving information about a. Classroom routine vocabulary
frame exams b. Giving information about teaching
b. Justification plans
Extra-lesson Narration None
frame
5.4.2.4 David
A unique characteristic of David’s reading-and-writing lessons was that he paid a

great deal of attention to cultivating the students’ English speaking ability. When
starting to teach a new unit, he roughly followed a routine consisting of asking the
students some general questions about the main topic and stimulating them to
express their ideas. He also organized some speaking activities in class, such as role
playing and giving speeches. Text analysis and assigning homework were also
crucial parts of his teaching. When dealing with text analysis, he usually incor-
porated vocabulary explanation. His language use in each of the above areas
deserves closer analysis, and the following section thus presents examples to
illustrate his use of the L1 and L2 in these lessons.
a. Intra-lesson frame
In this frame, he introduced knowledge relevant to the major topic of each unit
of the textbook. For instance, in the following episode, in order to introduce the
topic ‘friendship’, he mentioned the popular American situation comedy ‘Friends’.
Although this sitcom was not directly related to the teaching material, he still
introduced it to the students.
Episode 1
T: Have you seen this? ‘Friends’? Have you seen T: Have you seen this? ‘Friends’? Have you
this before? No? It is the most popular sitcom in seen this before? No? It is the most popular
America, you know. It has in total ten seasons. sitcom in America, you know. It has in total
Ten seasons? ‘Season’? So maybe you have seen ten seasons. Ten seasons? ‘Season’? So maybe
‘Prison break’. ‘Prison break’? 越狱, yeah? And you have seen ‘Prison break’. ‘Prison break’?
now it is in the fourth season, yeah? 第四季吧, Escape from prison, yeah? And now it is in the
对不对? Am I right? No? fourth season, yeah? It’s in the fourth season,
M: Yes. right? Am I right? No?
T: Yes. And this this sitcom ‘Friends’. ‘Sitcom’? M: Yes.
情景喜剧, sitcom, s-i-t-c-o-m. Situation comedy T: Yes. And this this sitcom ‘Friends’.
的缩写。它一共有十季。 10 seasons, from ‘Sitcom’? Sitcom, sitcom, s-i-t-c-o-m. It is short
1994 to 2004. Yes. It is a very simple story, you for situation comedy. It has ten seasons in total.
know, maybe many stories between, happened 10 seasons, from 1994 to 2004. Yes. It is a very
between these six friends… simple story, you know, maybe many stories
between, happened between these six friends…
In this episode, he used English at the beginning to ask several questions about the
sitcom and provide information about it. Then he tended to raise questions about the
meaning of certain English words by repeating them in a rising tone, and he usually
translated them into Chinese, for example, ‘越狱’ and ‘情景喜剧’. After providing
the Chinese translations, he might also repeat these English words for enhancing the
students’ memory of them, or add further explanation mainly in the L1.
Here he also used Chinese to repeat information given in English, for example,
‘It is in the fourth season, yeah?’. In addition, he was found to use both the English
tag ‘yeah’ and the Chinese tag ‘对不对’ at the end of his utterances to confirm the
students’ agreement.
In other cases, he might employ the mixed medium to manage classroom

behaviour, as in episode 2, which occurred while the nominated group of students
was about to put on a role-playing performance in class.
Episode 2
T: 要不要过来, 还是站座位上? T: Do you want to come up here, or stay where
M: 站座位上。 you are?
T: 就站座位上。Ok, 就站座位上也可以。那 M: Stay where we are.
尽量大点声音, 大点声音。然后其他的人 keep T: Just stay where you are. Ok, you can just stay
quiet, keep quiet, ok? where you are. Try to speak louder, speak louder.
And other students, keep quiet, keep quiet, ok?
As shown above, David used the L1 to solicit the nominated students’ opinions
on whether to perform in the front of the classroom or just stay where they were.
After receiving the students’ response, he subsequently used the L1 almost entirely
to manage their behaviour, and gave directions for their following performance,
such as ‘try to speak louder’. However, he then switched into the L2 for discipline
when speaking to the majority of students in the class.
Thus it seems that in terms of managing classroom behaviour, he prefered to
make use of the L1 to communicate with individual students and the L2 to speak to
most students or the whole class. However, it is also possible that his use of English
at the end of this episode was to prepare the students for the English activity
afterwards, rather than just maintaining discipline. In this episode, he also used the
English word ‘ok’ as sentence filler.
Assigning homework was another important part of his discourse in the
intra-lesson frame. He frequently did this in his lessons, occasionally, even several
times in a single lesson. The next episode provides such an example.
Episode 3
T: ……同时我还需要另外一条就是 to T: …At the same time, another assignment is
write, write, write an essay or write a short that I want you to write, write an essay or
story by using a surprising ending. 运用到这 write a short story by using a surprising
种, 就是说写一篇小小说, 写一篇微型小 ending. By using this, in other words, to
说。But in English, in English, ok? I want a write a short novel, to write a mininovel. But
group to write, you know, several passage. 一 in English, in English, ok? I want a group
个小组啊不是写一篇。然后, 大概你们一 to write, you know, several passage. A
个小组5到6个人, 对不对? 写5到6篇。 group cannot just write one passage. There
are 5 to 6 persons in a group, right? Write 5
to 6 passages.
From the above transcript, we can see that he employed both English and
Chinese in this part of the lesson. But it seems clear that he used English-only to
give the exact information and relevant requirements about the homework, whereas
he used Chinese to clarify or elaborate on what he said in English about the
homework and his requirements. Thus it appears that he used Chinese mainly for
clarification, while he used English to give information and directions for com-
pleting homework.
b. Lesson frame
As mentioned above, David attached great importance to developing the students’
abilities to express themselves in English. Although it was called a reading-and-
writing course, he still spent time on speaking activities, such as role play. The next is
an episode when he was distributing role play tasks to a group of students.
Episode 4
T: So, then I will ask several groups, 几个小 T: So, then I will ask several groups,
组to role play, role play this story. We may several groups to role play, role play this
have a student to play the role of the cabbie. story. We may have a student to play the
‘Cabbie’? 出租车司机这个角色。And the role of the cabbie. ‘Cabbie’? The role of the
passenger or the author. 作者这个角色, 对不 taxi driver. And the passenger or the
对? And we may have a narrator. 旁白, 对不 author. The role of the author, right? And
对? Narrator, 叙述者, 因为有这个旁白的内 we may have a narrator. Aside, right?
容, ok? Three three students a group, a group, Narrator, teller, because it has the aside,
ok? Ok, the first group. So you, you, and you, ok? Three three students a group, a group,
ok? [David points to three students]. So come ok? Ok, the first group. So you, you, and
up here. you, ok? [David points to three students]. So
come up here.
As we can see, he delivered the procedural information mainly in the L2 at the

beginning of this episode, and then he seemed to continue using the L2 as the main
medium to give information about the activity and the roles. He also raised ques-
tions about the meaning of certain L2 words he mentioned in this process, such as
‘cabbie’, by repeating them in a rising tone. Furthermore, he used the L2 to give
directions, for instance, ‘three students a group’, and he used the L2 tag ‘ok?’ at the
end of his utterances to check the students’ agreement.
The L1 he used in this episode seems to serve three main functions. Firstly, he
used it simply for repeating what he said in English, for instance, ‘several groups’.
Secondly, he used Chinese for translating certain L2 words, such as ‘cabbie’ and
‘narrator’. Thirdly, he used the L1 to justify why the role of ‘narrator’ was needed
in the following activity. Finally, he also used the Chinese tag ‘对不对’ at the end
of his utterances to check the students’ agreement.
Within this frame, interactions between him and his students were frequent in the
observed lessons. When communicating with the students, he normally used a
combination of English and Chinese, as in episode 5, where he communicated with
the students about some old sayings.
Episode 5
T: So, do you know this kind of saying? This T: So, do you know this kind of saying?
saying, ‘A friend in need is a friend indeed’. This saying, ‘A friend in need is a friend
Yes? indeed’. Yes?
LL: 患难见真情。 LL: Calamity is the touchstone of man.
T: 患难见真情。Yes, very good. And T: Calamity is the touchstone of man. Yes,
another phrase about a ‘friend’. What is a very good. And another phrase about a
‘fair weather friend’? ‘friend’. What is a ‘fair weather friend’?
(continued)
(continued)
M: 酒肉朋友。 M: Wine-and-meat friend.
T: 酒肉朋友。Yes, very good. Fair weather T: Wine-and-meat friend. Yes, very good.
friend, ok? A fair weather friend is one who is Fair weather friend, ok? A fair weather
happy to stay with you when things are going friend is one who is happy to stay with you
well, but leaves as soon as trouble arrives. 酒 when things are going well, but leaves as
肉朋友, ok? soon as trouble arrives. Wine-and-meat
friend, ok?
This episode shows a frequent feature of David’s lessons, in which he used the
L2 to ask questions about the meaning of old sayings and the students usually
responded to him with the Chinese translations. Moreover, he seemed to be very
satisfied with the students’ answers in the L1, since he not only repeated their
translations but also gave them positive comments like ‘Yes, very good’.
Furthermore, although he explained the expression ‘fair weather friend’ in English,
afterwards he still repeated its Chinese translation, seemingly in order to reinforce
the students’ understanding of it.
Another interesting point about his interaction within the lesson frame was that
he might use L1 to speak to the students in an informal and casual way, especially
when nobody wanted to answer his questions voluntarily, as illustrated in episode 6.
Episode 6
T: No volunteer? 刚才不是有一个帅哥要回 T: No volunteer? Didn’t a handsome guy
答问题啊? [David then looks at a student] want to answer this question just now?
Yes, can you? Yeah. [David then looks at a student] Yes, can you?
Yeah.
There David used the Chinese phrase ‘帅哥’, which is very popular in China. It
originally meant ‘handsome guy’, but lately it has been used widely to informally
address any male, young or old, good-looking or ordinary-looking, friends or
strangers. Nevertheless, it is seldom used between people of different social status,
so it seems humorous for it to be used by a teacher towards students within
classroom discourse.
So it appears that he used the L1 in a humorous way in order to put the students
in a more relaxed mood, because no students volunteered to answer his question.
Moreover, he switched back into English to ask for the so-called ‘handsome’ guy’s
opinion on whether he could answer the question.
Within this frame, there is also a need to look at his discourse when dealing with
text A, which is the central part of each unit of the textbook. The following is an
episode when he was talking about the writing style of a text.
Episode 7
T: What’s the difference in the writing style? T: What’s the difference in the writing
‘Writing style’? 写作, 写作上, 或者说 style? ‘Writing style’? Writing, writing, or
language, language. 语言上, 语言上的不同 language, language. The difference in
啊。 Difference? Yes, if you are careful, you language, language. Difference? Yes, if you
may find that, you know, in unit 1 it’s a kind are careful, you may find that, you know,
of formal writing. ‘Formal’? The words, in unit 1 it’s a kind of formal writing.
phrases and expressions are very formal. ‘Formal’? The words, phrases and
‘Formal’? 正式。 But in this text we find that expressions are very formal. ‘Formal’?
it’s a kind of informal English or colloquial Formal. But in this text we find that it’s a
English. ‘Colloquial’? Do you remember the kind of informal English or colloquial
word ‘colloquial’? 口语化的。我们听写, English. ‘Colloquial’? Do you remember
听说课上学的这个单词。‘Colloquial’? Or the word ‘colloquial’? Colloquial. We
informal English. ‘Informal English’? 不正式 learned the word in the dictation, the
的英语。 Or some kind, just like spoken listening-and-speaking course. ‘Colloquial’?
English, oral English, yeah? You find so Or informal English. ‘Informal English’?
many, yes, oral English in this text. 不正式的 Informal English. Or some kind, just like
这个文体。 spoken English, oral English, yeah? You
find so many, yes, oral English in this text.
The informal style.
Episode 7 is another example showing a characteristic feature of David’s

English: as mentioned earlier, he usually raised questions about the meaning of
certain English words by repeating the words in a rising tone. Furthermore, he used
English to ask questions about the text, to give information based on the textbook,
and to explain certain English words.
Moreover, after raising questions about certain English words and phrases, such as
‘writing style’, ‘formal’ and ‘colloquial’, he usually provided their Chinese trans-
lations straight away, rather than making efforts to explain them in English, although
he occasionally added an English explanation after the Chinese translation. He also
used Chinese to give clues to the students in order to help them remember certain
English words they had learned already, for example, he mentioned that the word
‘colloquial’ had been taught in the listening-and-speaking course.
He also dealt with vocabulary explanation within the lesson frame. Although
there is a list of vocabulary in each unit of the textbook, he did not normally go
through it word by word. Instead, he incorporated vocabulary teaching into text
analysis. The next is an episode when he was explaining the phrase ‘or something’
in the process of the text analysis.
Episode 8
T: 再接下来, ‘He sounded as if he had a cold T: And then, ‘He sounded as if he had a cold
or something.’ 虚拟语气的用法, you know? or something.’ The use of subjunctive mood,
在哪一个句子啊? 第二段, 对不对? …… you know? Which sentence is it? The second
‘He sounded as if he had a cold or paragraph, right?… ‘He sounded as if he
something.’ 听上去好象感冒了, 或者是其 had a cold or something.’ He sounded as if
它的事情, 对不对? 推测, 推测。‘Or he had a cold or something, right?
something’, 是我们要学到的一个口语当中 Speculation, speculation. ‘Or something’, is
经常用到的。 When you are not very sure the phrase we are going to learn and it is
about what you have just said. 当你不确定你 used frequently in oral English. When you
刚才说的内容的时候。For example, the are not very sure about what you have just
airfare was 199 lb or something. 这个飞机票 said. When you are not very sure about what
的费用, 飞机票大概是多少钱一张? 199 英 you have just said. For example, the airfare
镑, 对不对? 大概是199 英镑 or something. was 199 lb or something. The price for the
但是不是很确定。And here is some money. flight ticket, what’s the approximate price for
Get yourelf a sandwich or something. 给你点 the flight ticket? 199 lb, right? Around 199 lb
钱, 你自己去买点三明治或者是其它的吃 or something. But not sure. And here is
的东西, 对不对? 并不一定要买三明治, 你 some money. Get yourself a sandwich or
可以自己选择。 something. Suppose I give you some money,
you go to buy a sandwich or something,
right? You don’t have to buy sandwich, you
can choose by yourself.
In that instance, after giving a Chinese transitional phrase ‘接下来’, David read
an English sentence involving the phrase ‘or something’. Then he used Chinese for
grammar explanation, and attached the English tag ‘you know?’ for acceptance
check.
Subsequently he used Chinese to ask a question about the position of this
sentence in the text, and to point it out. After that, he read the sentence again and
translated it into Chinese. He also added the Chinese tag ‘对不对’ at the end of the
translation to check the students’ agreement. Finally, he also used Chinese for
further explanation.
In order to explain the phrase ‘or something’, he employed not only Chinese to
give information about it, but also English to clarify it. He then repeated his English
clarification in Chinese. Next, in order to illustrate the usage of this phrase, he
subsequently provided two English example sentences. Lastly, probably to facilitate
the students’ understanding of these examples, he used Chinese to clarify them.
To sum up, in this episode, Chinese was used to perform functions such as
transition, grammar instruction, translation, asking questions, clarification, and
giving information, whereas English was used mainly for quotation, clarification,
giving examples, and acceptance check.
c. Extra-lesson frame
Episode 9 provides an example of David’s discourse in the extra-lesson frame,
when he showed concern for a student absent from the class.
Episode 9
T: Next one, Feng Liang. [David waits a few T: Next one, Feng Liang. [David waits a few
seconds, but no response] seconds, but no response]
M1: 没来。 M1: Not here.
T: 没来? 没来, 是吧? T: Not here? Not here, right?
M1: 训练去了。 M1: He went training.
T: 是有事还是没有报到的? T: Is he occupied, or have not registered yet?
M2: 篮球队的。 M2: He is the member of basketball team.
M1: 篮球队的。训练去了。 M1: He is the the member of basketball team.
He went training.
As we can see, at the very beginning, he used English to nominate a student

named Feng Liang to answer a question, which should be framed as lesson-talk. But
since, coincidentally, this student was absent from the class, some other students
spontaneously started to provide information about him in Chinese. Then in
response to these students, David switched into Chinese to ask several questions
about the absent student. It seems that the lesson was brought into the extra-lesson
frame as the conversation started, and that the switch to this frame was realized by
his use of Chinese. That is, he spoke Chinese-only when shifting from
textbook-based communication to real communication with the students.
d. Inter-lesson frame
In the observed lessons, he might use the L1 to give the students information
about his teaching plan for a specific lesson, as in episode 10, in which he used
Chinese almost exclusively apart from the classroom routine vocabulary ‘quiz’.
Episode 10
T: 这样的。我们第一节课先考一个 quiz. T: Just like this. In the first class, we will have
都知道吧? 用30 分钟的时间。然后我们再 a quiz first. Does everybody know it? 30 min’
用10分钟的时间来讲解一下。主要是那个 time. And then we will spend another 10 min’
翻译题啊。 time explaining it. Mainly those translations.
The functions for which David used the two languages within the four frames of
classroom discourse are presented below (Table 5.17).
Table 5.17 Functions of David’s use of the L1 and L2 in the four frames
Frames Functions
L1 L2
Lesson frame a. Reiteration a. Giving information
b. Translation b. Asking questions
c. Justification c. Giving directions
d. Acceptance check d. Acceptance check
e. Reinforcement e. Procedural language
f. Repeating student response f. Praising or encouraging
g. Joking students
h. Giving clues g. Clarification
i. Transition h. Quotation
j. Grammar instruction i. Giving examples
k. Asking questions
l. Giving information
m. Clarification
Intra-lesson a. Translation a. Asking questions
frame b. Clarification b. Giving information
c. Reiteration c. Reinforcement
d. Acceptance check d. Acceptance check
e. Classroom management e. Classroom management
f. Giving directions f. Sentence filler
g. Giving directions
Inter-lesson Giving information about teaching Classroom routine vocabulary
frame plans
Extra-lesson Asking questions None
frame
5.4.3 Conclusion
In the Chinese EFL university classroom context, where English is the required
medium of instruction, the lesson frame might be expected to be a frame where only
talk in English occurs. However, this analysis of the four teachers’ classroom
discourse shows that all of them used Chinese within the lesson frame to assist in
developing the content presented in English, and they were all found to use Chinese
for the functions of reiteration and translation. In addition, some of them used it to
give information or their opinions about the lesson content, and some of them used
it for characteristic functions such as giving clues, ‘confessing’ mistakes and jus-
tifying what they said or did in class.
Although, in most cases, the teachers in the lesson frame voiced other people’s
words or opinions based on the prescribed lesson content, two of them—Anne and
Betty—were found to use the students’ and their own real-life experiences and
knowledge to help illustrate the content of instruction. However, whereas Anne
used Chinese-only to deal with ‘real’ talk, Betty used English-only for this purpose,
as also for presenting the lesson content.
In my frame analysis of classroom discourse, the purpose of the intra-lesson

frame is to back up the formal lesson structure. In this frame, we have seen that
these teachers made use of Chinese for more learner-support and classroom-support
functions, such as encouraging the students, giving them advice on learning,
checking their retention, and managing their behaviour. Although Carl seemed to
employ no English in this frame, the other three teachers used English for a variety
of similar functions: for example, Anne used English for comprehension check and
classroom management; Betty used English to give the students advice on learning;
and David used English to manage classroom behaviour and reinforce the students’
memory.
In the inter-lesson frame, these teachers mainly delivered information about their
teaching plans or exams to the students. In this study, there was a strong tendency
for them to use Chinese as the main medium to spell out this particular kind of
information, in order to ensure the students’ understanding. Betty used
Chinese-only within this frame, while the other three teachers used English to
varying degrees. For instance, while David only used a single item of English
classroom routine vocabulary, Carl might employ English as the medium to give
information about his teaching agenda. In addition, Anne usually used English at
word or phrasal level, though she might also use it to repeat the information she had
already given in Chinese.
Unlike the teachers’ talk in the above three frames, their discourse in the
extra-lesson frame seemed to be a form of ‘real’ talk. In this frame, the teachers
were very likely to make use of Chinese-only to produce discourse irrelevant to the
teaching content. Apart from Betty, all the teachers used Chinese-only for this
purpose. It should also be pointed out that the relationship between these teachers
and their students seemed to change when the lesson shifted into this frame. While
the teachers normally adopted an authoritative role in the other frames of classroom
discourse, in the extra-lesson frame they appeared to speak to the students more like
friends or ‘cultural member to cultural member’ (Lin 1996:66), especially when
making use of the shared mother tongue.
In general, the four Chinese EFL teachers used the L1 with varying frequency
across these four frames, and their use of Chinese occurred in a variety of cir-
cumstances, such as talking about teaching plans or examinations, dealing with
exercises, text analysis, vocabulary teaching, checking the students’ comprehension
or retention, giving the students’ advice on learning, telling anecdotes and assigning
homework. It is particularly noteworthy that the use of Chinese by these teachers
seemed to serve to reduce social distance between them and their students, and to
signal their shared cultural membership.
Chapter 6
Interviews
6.1 Introduction
The previous chapter investigated the four teachers’ actual use of the L1 and L2 in
the observed lessons from different angles. The aim of this chapter is to explore the
teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards the issue of using Chinese in English
teaching and to identify factors that might influence their language choices, by
looking at the interview data. It will address research question 7 and offer some
answers to research question 8, as indicated below:
Some parts of question 8 are also explored in Chap. 7.
6.2 Results
I will now look at the four teachers one by one and provide a detailed description of
both process and product of the interviews with each of them.

160 6 Interviews
6.2.1 Anne
Pre-observation interview: The interview started with questions about her students’
background, including their university major and English proficiency level. Anne’s
students majored in music and painting. She said that the overall English level of
her students was low because the admission requirements for art students were
much lower and some of them had not even learned any English in high school. She
further mentioned that the scores most of her students had in the national college
entrance examination were between 60 and 70 (the full mark is 150), and that
compared to the students at grade A, B, C, art students were definitely the ‘worst’.
The next part of the interview dealt with her perceptions of the students in the
class I was to observe. She first spoke a lot about her students’ problems. For
example, she mentioned that some of her students had no interest in English study
because they felt English had no connection with their major, and thus there was no
need to learn it. She also said that it was very difficult for her students to discipline
themselves in class. Therefore, she felt that she had to remind them repeatedly of
the importance of English study and that, if she had not continued to do this, these
students’ attention and interest would have been lost immediately. Furthermore,
Anne emphasized that the majority of her students had a weak grounding in
English, especially grammar and vocabulary, which resulted in difficulty in reading
and writing. She felt that even if she gave clear and precise explanations, the
students often failed to keep up with her pace. She also felt that there was a long
way to go before the students could speak English fluently, although she trained
them to practise reading aloud and imitation and was reasonably satisfied with their
current progress.
Despite the above problems, her general feelings about the students seemed quite
positive; for example, she said:
I feel that students can be taught well. This mainly depends on whether you can read their
minds…the most important point for dealing with these students is definitely patience…
they can be very cooperative if they like the teacher.
In Anne’s opinion, her students’ main motivation to learn English was to pass
the exams, although sometimes she reminded them also of the increased chance to
communicate with native English speakers. As far as her expectations about the
students were concerned, she hoped that they could make improvements in the two
main areas of reading and listening.
The interview then moved on to her current teaching in general, including
materials, objectives, her feelings about teaching the two types of courses, and
constraints. She said that she only used teaching materials prescribed by the uni-
versity. Furthermore, for her, the general objective in teaching English was to help
more students to pass the exams, especially the College English Test (Band 3).
While in the reading-and-writing course she mainly aimed to help the students
understand difficult and long sentences, her objectives in teaching the
listening-and-speaking course were to improve students’ listening skills, and to
6.2 Results 161
stimulate their interest in English learning by introducing them to western cultures.

She accepted that her objectives seemed somewhat inconsistent with the national
English curriculum requirements which were focused on the development of the
four language skills, because in her opinion, it was more important to take students’
real needs into consideration. Moreover, as the two types of English courses had
different characteristics, she had no preference for teaching either of them. She also
mentioned two major limitations on her current teaching: firstly, she could not help
her students individually in the reading-and-writing lessons because of the large
class size (76 students); secondly, the students with a very weak grounding in
English were not able to speak it and therefore could not cooperate with her in the
listening-and-speaking lessons.
Post-observation interview: At the beginning of this interview, I told Anne that I
was particularly interested in her language use in the EFL classes. Then I started the
interview with a question concerning teacher role. Anne believed that she played
different roles in the two types of courses: a lecturer in the reading-and-writing
course, and both a lecturer and an organizer in the listening-and-speaking course.
However, she did not relate these roles to her language choice.
When referring to the issue of using Chinese in English teaching, Anne first said
that deciding whether or not to use Chinese had long been a problem for all
teachers. She knew that teachers’ views on this issue differed, and that some of
them used Chinese in their classes. Then, she enthusiastically disclosed her own
opinion. She made it quite clear that she personally preferred to use a combination
of English and Chinese as the language of instruction:
According to my observation and practice, I chose to use Chinese-aided English teaching…
I don’t think using English-only is a very good way of teaching English since we need to
take students’ actual situation and objective limitations into consideration.
Moreover, she did not approve of using English to teach grammar:

You can imagine, when analyzing a long sentence, if you use ‘subject’ for ‘主语’, ‘object’
for ‘宾语’, ‘clause’ for ‘从句’, students cannot understand at all…
She even argued that native English-speaking teachers were not the best:
Actually, we have many examples to demonstrate that classes given by foreign teachers are
not always the best, and instead, many of their classes are not successful or even have been
complained about. It is really true…
It seems clear that Anne thought speaking English-only was not necessarily the
best way to teach English, at least not the best choice for her in her teaching. These
statements also show that she was very confident in her own language choice.
Using Chinese to facilitate English teaching, in her opinion, was not only based on
her own observation and practice, but also consistent with her students’ current
English proficiency level. Furthermore, in order to make her argument convincing,
she spoke of her previous experience of using English-only to teach engineering
students:
162 6 Interviews
I have tried for a while. At that time, my students’ proficiency level was relatively higher.
They were engineering students…I used almost English-only…including explaining new
words and analyzing sentence structures. As a result, only top students were interested (in
my classes). Generally speaking, about 80 to 90 % of my engineering students could not
keep up with me.
She had similar experience with her current students:

I noticed that within the first twenty minutes, the students might listen to me very carefully,
because they were keen to catch every word I spoke. But after that, students looked tired
and then gave up easily.
According to Anne, there were several reasons not to use English-only in her
teaching. Firstly, a major factor she emphasized was the low English proficiency of
her students. In her opinion, these students could not understand if she used English
exclusively, and therefore it was difficult to improve their ability to analyze long
and difficult sentences and to understand texts thoroughly. Secondly, if her students
could not understand, they would probably act against the discipline of the class-
room. Thirdly, speaking English-only worked against building her students’ con-
fidence and interest. Lastly, she mentioned that all Chinese EFL students were
under pressure to pass various kinds of English tests, and using English-only in
class to prepare them for these tests was ‘unrealistic’.
However, she accepted that there might be some situations in which using
English-only was possible, for instance, if students had high English proficiency
and a large vocabulary; if they were highly motivated and disciplined; if they had
no pressure to pass English tests; and if the university created a good English
environment. When talking about her own educational experience, she mentioned
that most of her teachers used almost English-only, and she thought that their
language use was reasonable because the proficiency level of English major stu-
dents was high. But she implied the students I had observed were not of this kind.
As for the university policy on the language of instruction, she said there were
no relevant requirements. But she pointed out that there was a common belief that
English classes should be conducted in English-only and that teachers could not
show their English competence without speaking English-only, so teachers were
very likely to use English exclusively when observed by other ‘experts’. However,
this view seemed to have no influence on Anne, who cared more about her students’
feelings. As she said:
There are also some students who said to me: ‘I have been learning English for a long time,
but it was only your classes that I could understand’. I felt this gave me confidence… If I
were interested only in exerting my English competence, these students would lose their
confidence in learning English. So I would rather exchange the opportunity of showing off
my own English competence for their confidence.
In terms of the advantages of using Chinese in her teaching, she felt that it was
very beneficial in helping students understand the structures of texts and stimulating
their interest in learning English. She also described some circumstances in which
Chinese could be used, such as teaching grammar and giving practical examples
relevant to students’ life. Furthermore, she felt that she tried to use less Chinese in
6.2 Results 163
the listening-and-speaking lessons and that the quantity of Chinese she used was
different when teaching students at different levels. In addition, she mentioned that
she encouraged her students to speak only English in the listening-and-speaking
lessons.
6.2.2 Betty
Pre-observation interview: The first topic of this interview was the students’ aca-
demic background. Betty talked quite a lot about her students’ proficiency level. In
doing so, she explained that all the first-year students were divided into four groups:
grades A to D, and that her students belonged to grade A (the highest level of
proficiency in English), and had very high scores in the national college entrance
exam, that is, above 125 (the full mark being 150).
Although what she said about her students’ proficiency gave me the impression
that she was quite satisfied with them, she hesitated for a moment when I sought
confirmation whether the overall level of these students was high. In her opinion,
the students’ high scores in the exam mainly reflect their good abilities in reading
and writing, but, based on the students’ performance in the listening-and-speaking
lessons, she felt that they were much weaker in these areas. She further mentioned
that these students had problems with their oral expression in English, especially
when not given enough time for preparation. According to her, the students first
used Chinese rather than English to ‘rehearse internally’ what to say when given a
topic, and then tried to translate it into English. Thus they usually spoke incoher-
ently if they could not find the English equivalents of those Chinese words.
Moreover, she said that she usually analyzed the students’ performance in listening
exercises, and the proportion of correct answers turned out to be about 60 %, which
was not satisfactory.
She added that students’ listening and speaking abilities might have connection
with their majors, and based on her teaching experience, she felt that the overall
listening and speaking level of students majoring in science and engineering was
weaker than that of arts students. She also mentioned that the students I was going
to observe were mainly science students.
When the interview moved on to the impression she had of the students, Betty
said that they were disciplined and hardworking and that the high scores they had
obtained in the national college entrance exam might show their interest in English
learning. Furthermore, she mentioned that since she always stressed that the pur-
pose of language learning was communication, many of the students had realized
their problems in listening and speaking and wished to improve their commu-
nicative abilities, which was in accordance with her expectations of them.
The next part of the interview dealt with her teaching in general. Firstly, she said
that the teaching materials were mainly prescribed by the university, but some
supplementary materials might also be used. Secondly, she believed that she played
different roles in the two types of courses. In the reading-and-writing course, she
164 6 Interviews
adopted a teacher-centred approach and aimed to present her own understanding of

the texts, vocabulary, phrases, sentence structures and authors’ styles. She also
considered reading the basis for developing other language abilities, such as lis-
tening, speaking, writing and translating. In the listening-and-speaking course, she
acted as an organizer and a participant rather than a leader, and her objective was to
provide the students with more chance to practise. Thus she seldom corrected the
students’ mistakes in this course. She also mentioned that 40 % of class time in this
course was used for listening and the remaining 60 % for speaking. This ratio in her
opinion was in accordance with the requirements of the syllabus. Moreover, she
described teaching the two types of courses as pleasant and rewarding.
With regard to constraints on her current teaching, Betty pointed out with strong
feeling that because of the huge class size (75 students) and the limited class hours,
it was difficult for her to involve more students in class discussions in the
reading-and-writing course, although ideally she wanted to keep them involved.
Also, she said frankly that she was not very satisfied with the amount of class time
she currently spent in ‘leading’ (providing input in) the reading-and-writing lessons,
and hoped to reduce it in the future.
Post-observation interview: After making it clear that I was interested in learning
about her use of Chinese in the EFL classrooms, I first asked about Betty’s per-
ceptions of her roles in the two types of courses. She believed that her amount of
Chinese use was determined by the role she played in class. To be specific, she used
much more Chinese in the reading-and-writing lessons because she perceived
herself as a lecturer, and she needed to provide explanations. She added that in
many cases Chinese needed to be used to explain the exact meanings of sentences
to the students.
Then I asked whether she had discussed with other teachers the issue of using
Chinese in their teaching. When hearing this question, she laughed and told me
about an interesting problem she and another teacher found in common with their
language use. Both of them felt that they tended to speak more and more Chinese in
class after the first lesson, although they thought that Chinese should be used less
and less, especially after the students became familiar with their pronunciation,
intonation and teaching methods. After rethinking her own language use, she
acknowledged that sometimes she used Chinese not because of the need for
explanation but because it was natural to use the language she knew best. This
seemed to result in feelings of guilt. As she explained:
I think as a teacher, we didn’t do a good job in this aspect since we slightly relaxed the
requirements for ourselves. In fact, conducting English classes in English is first a
requirement for us and then a requirement for students. But sometimes we are relaxed, we
are in a relaxed state and do not pay much attention to what atmosphere we should create;
we somewhat forget to or do not put it in an important position, which in my opinion is not
good for students. As a teacher, I feel that we should make a self-criticism. I think that
Chinese should not be used more and more. Just as we thought, in the first several classes,
after all the students are freshmen, or you could say the teacher and students are strangers to
each other, they need mother tongue for communication to get familiar with each other. But
finally, but I think gradually Chinese should be used less and less, since teachers not only
can, teachers not only can do it but also must do it.
6.2 Results 165
However, even if she experienced feelings of guilt when using a lot of Chinese,
she believed that the L1 had an important role to play in L2 learning. As she put it,
‘we cannot learn a second language without the mother tongue; the mother tongue
is an indispensable tool’.
Like Anne, she said that the university did not have specific requirements about
teachers’ language use. In her opinion, there was no need to specify the medium of
instruction because she required herself and her students to speak English as much
as possible. This seemed to indicate that she was also influenced by the so-called
‘common belief’ that English classes should be conducted in English. However, she
argued that a reasonable requirement should not completely exclude the L1 since
L2 teaching usually needed the L1 for explanation and translation. Nevertheless,
Betty did not conceal her preference for using English-only in EFL classes. For
example, she said:
My ideal is to speak no Chinese in class, but most of the time you will find students looking
puzzled and you can’t help using Chinese for explanation. Then when you see they sud-
denly understand, you will know you need to use Chinese for explanation.
She clearly felt that she was in a dilemma. While she preferred to use
English-only because of an obligation to create a target language environment for
the students, she also felt the need to use Chinese in some circumstances. Thus she
argued that Chinese should be used only when necessary, for example, for trans-
lating or analyzing a difficult sentence. Moreover, she mentioned that some students
were easily distracted from English classes and speaking Chinese occasionally
could turn their attention back. She suggested an interesting analogy between this
way of using Chinese and ‘traffic cones’ which could alert a person who had been
driving on a straight road for a long time.
She thought that she used Chinese in her teaching mainly for the purpose of
explanation. Although sometimes she could also use English to explain, she
believed that using Chinese could achieve a better effect, for example, to ensure the
students’ understanding and to emphasize the important points.
Betty also mentioned her awareness of her own Chinese use and her efforts to
control this, for example:
Once I did it, I would gradually form the habit of using Chinese for explanation…but after
class, sometimes I felt I spoke a bit too much Chinese and reminded myself to be cautious
in the next lesson…If I realized I spoke a bit too much Chinese in one class, I would pay
special attention when teaching the other two classes and consciously control the quantity
of Chinese I spoke.
She seemed to have positive attitudes towards the language immersion method.
In her opinion, her listening-and-speaking lessons were similar to immersion
classes, in which the students were required to use English-only for oral expression.
She explained her belief as follows:
For example, you can’t understand this lesson. As long as you keep listening and never give
up, gradually you will understand, just like a stowaway who didn’t know English at all but
finally can understand and speak English after living in America.
166 6 Interviews
This view seemed to contradict what she said about the indispensable role of the
L1 in L2 learning, which might indicate that her beliefs about the use of L1 in L2
education was more complicated than the interview could fully reveal.
Concerning the students’ responses to her language use, she mentioned that
since one of her previous students had asked her not to speak Chinese in class, she
consciously used English-only in the first two weeks of classes this semester. As a
result, a student with poor listening ability asked her to use some Chinese for
explanation. Thus she felt that it was necessary to put a limit on her use of Chinese,
probably not more than 5 % of class time. She also mentioned that she did not
allow her students to speak Chinese in class, especially when answering questions
and expressing their ideas.
With regard to her own teachers’ language use when she was a student, she said
many of them had used more Chinese than she did. She also discussed her language
use when teaching art students. She said she had no choice but to use more Chinese
for explanation since art students could not understand even very simple English.
6.2.3 Carl
Pre-observation interview: The first part of the interview was focused on the stu-
dents’ academic background. Carl said that all his students were from the School of
Economics and some of them majored in business English. Regarding their English
level, he said that these students had marks above 110 in the national college
entrance exam and thus belonged to grade B. In general, he was satisfied with their
English proficiency.
The interview then moved on to Carl’s perceptions of his students. His opinion
about them seemed rather positive, since the students were quite active and
cooperative in class. However, he also found some problems: for example, students
who were from different parts of China or had different study backgrounds might be
different in terms of their comprehensive English abilities. Furthermore, he pointed
out that, because of the influence of society, the students’ needs to learn English had
changed over time. Carl also talked about his expectations of the students this
semester. Since he stressed the importance of reading and listening, he hoped that
they could make improvements in these two areas, and in writing as well if
possible.
The last part of the interview was about his current teaching. As for teaching
materials, Carl mentioned that in addition to the prescribed textbooks, he used
handouts designed on the basis of the textbooks. Furthermore, the aims of his
teaching were to improve the students’ reading and writing abilities in the
reading-and-writing course, and to improve their listening abilities in the
listening-and-speaking course. Based on his past experience, Carl had decided not
to teach speaking until the second semester, which seemed to conflict with the
national English syllabus that required developing the four language skills of stu-
dents. However, he argued that his teaching was still in line with this English
6.2 Results 167
syllabus in spite of a one-semester delay in teaching speaking, since there was

enough time for doing that in the next three semesters. In addition, he mentioned
several limitations on his current teaching, for example, class size, textbooks and
the physical structure of classrooms.
Post-observation interview: The first topic of this interview was teacher role.
Carl believed that he played three different roles in both the listening-and-speaking
course and the reading-and-writing course: ‘lecturer’, ‘organizer’ and ‘supervisor’.
To be more specific, he considered his major role in the reading-and-writing course
to be a lecturer, whereas he mainly acted as an organizer in the
listening-and-speaking course.
Furthermore, he acknowledged that his language use might be relevant to the
roles he played in class, and described some circumstances in which he might
choose to use Chinese:
Lecturer—‘We usually require giving a lecture in English. But sometimes I found that
using English was firstly time-consuming and secondly incomprehensible. At this point, I
will add some mother tongue, after all everyone shares the same first language, everyone
learns Chinese. If using one Chinese sentence will get everything solved, I see no point to
beat around the bush and to use English for explanation. Of course, if students can
understand English explanations, usually I will choose to use English. But as for something
which is difficult and can’t be understood immediately…’
Organizer—‘For example, I asked the students to do an activity. I gave them a lot of
directions in English and told them to do this or that in English. Finally, the students all
looked at me and didn’t understand… I had two choices. The first choice was to repeat the
directions in English. What if the students still could not understand after I repeated the
directions for the second time? Should I repeat in English for the third time or just give up?
Why couldn’t I use Chinese at this point? Since using Chinese could make everyone
understand, the activity could move forward.’
Supervisor—‘My intention is to check students’ homework, instead of checking their
speaking or listening abilities. Why do I have to ask them in English to let me see their
books, right? …At this point, I don’t need to use English at all, do I?’
We shall see that Carl did not reject the use of Chinese in his teaching. He
preferred to use Chinese as the medium of instruction when acting as a supervisor,
while as a lecturer or organizer, he chose to use English first.
According to him, he usually chose to use English first, although for him using
Chinese was much clearer and more time-efficient. Even if students were puzzled
by his English explanations, he might explain it again in simpler English. Thus, it
seems that in most cases Carl used Chinese-only as a last resort to keep his lessons
moving forward.
He believed that using Chinese could enhance students’ understanding of a
difficult point. He claimed that even if students seemed to understand the provided
English paraphrase, they were very likely to have no concept of what a target word
or sentence meant, unless they found the corresponding Chinese translation.
Carl also believed that students’ solid foundation in English was a prerequisite
for using it as the medium of instruction. Although for him, whether to use Chinese
in class largely depended on the students’ English proficiency, he mentioned some
168 6 Interviews
situations in which he might choose to use Chinese for another reason. For
example, he preferred to use Chinese-only to explain the deeper meaning of a text,
because sometimes he was unable to explain it clearly in English.
Based on his communications with other teachers, Carl thought that at least
90 % of English teachers in Nanchang University used Chinese in their classes and
that the quantity of Chinese they used might vary from 5 to 30 %. Moreover, he
said that although there were no well-documented rules for teachers’ language use,
the university authorities, teachers and students had a subconscious ‘common
understanding’ that English classes should be conducted in English. According to
Carl, this so-called ‘common understanding’ greatly affected many teachers’ lan-
guage use, for example, they were more likely to use English-only when being
observed. He said that one teacher just used Chinese twice in class when observed
in order to meet ‘university requirements’, and that some teachers were criticized by
the head of department for using more than 30 % of Chinese. He further explained
that it was because of this ‘common understanding’ that teachers tried to reduce
their use of Chinese in class. He even said that if there was no such ‘common
understanding’, he would use more Chinese in his classes, since speaking Chinese
was obviously much easier for Chinese EFL teachers.
Carl expressed the strong belief that using a certain amount of Chinese did not
have a negative influence on English learning because almost every successful EFL
learner used his/her mother tongue in daily life. Although he was not sure about
whether using Chinese could help English learning, he believed that it at least did
not do any harm.
Carl also said that he used different amounts of Chinese when dealing with
students at different levels and that he accepted the students’ use of Chinese when
they had difficulty in expressing themselves, but encouraged them to use English.
Additionally, he mentioned that he had conducted a survey of a group of stu-
dents’ perceptions of their teacher, including the teacher’s language use, and found
that these students liked the teacher to use English in most circumstances, but they
hoped to hear Chinese in some particular cases, for example, when they could not
understand.
6.2.4 David
Pre-observation interview: At the beginning of this interview, David mentioned that

all his students majored in journalism and that they belonged to grade C—high
beginners level (the scores they had in the national college entrance exam were
under 110).
The interview then focused on David’s perceptions of his students, on whom he
made very positive comments. For example, he said that most of these first-year
students were enthusiastic and aware of the importance of English learning. He also
mentioned that they were very cooperative in class, which in his opinion was
probably because arts students were more interested in English than science
6.2 Results 169
students. Moreover, he pointed out that his students’ main problem was their poor
English proficiency and that they thought they mainly needed more vocabulary and
grammar, just the same when learning English in high school. However, in David’s
view, university English teaching should not focus just on teaching basic knowl-
edge of grammar and vocabulary, but also on cultivating students’ interest in
English learning. He expected that his students could become more interested in
English classes and be better team workers. However, he acknowledged that he
might overestimate these students’ English abilities, for example, he had to change
some parts of his original teaching plans, such as holding a speech contest, due to
the students’ low speaking abilities.
The final part of the interview was about his current teaching. He first mentioned
that the teaching materials he used were prescribed by the university. Moreover, his
aim in teaching the reading-and-writing course was to improve students’ abilities in
analyzing and summarizing written texts, while in the listening-and-speaking
course he aimed to improve the students’ two basic language skills—listening and
speaking. Unlike the other three teachers, David expressed a preference for teaching
the listening-and-speaking course, because it provided more opportunities for him
to communicate with the students. Additionally, for him, the class time was a limit
on developing the students’ speaking ability, and the listening textbook was slightly
difficult for his students to learn from.
Post-observation interview: This interview also started with a question about
teacher role. David believed that university English teachers should act as a guide to
show students how to learn, and he said that he played this role in both the
reading-and-writing course and the listening-and-speaking course.
On the issue of L1 and L2 use, he said that he had discussed this with many other
teachers and that they agreed to conduct English classes in English supplemented
with Chinese, especially when teaching first-year students, because the overall
English proficiency of first-year students was low and they were not accustomed to
the use of English-only. However, he also mentioned that a small number of
teachers chose to use Chinese-only in the first academic semester and then to
gradually increase the quantity of English in class.
Like the other three teachers, David said that there were no specific requirements
regarding the medium of instruction. But he also mentioned that there was an
informal agreement that English classes should be conducted in English-only.
Furthermore, he thought that the national English syllabus required teachers to use
English as the main medium of instruction and encouraged them to use
English-only. However, he stressed that using English-only in EFL classes could
not be achieved easily for some reasons such as students’ proficiency and that many
teachers used the combination of English and Chinese in their practices.
Although he used a mixture of English and Chinese in his current practice,
David said that using English as the medium of instruction was an ultimate goal of
his teaching:
170 6 Interviews
This is also, this should be a goal. At present these students are in their first year of their
university study and have just entered the university. Maybe they are not accustomed to
teaching English in English-only. But in the next three semesters, we will gradually make
the transition to teaching exclusively in English.
He further explained that first-year university students needed at least one

semester to adapt to this new teaching method since English teaching in Chinese
high schools used lots of Chinese. He also believed that teaching exclusively in
English was possible only when the students had improved their listening and
speaking abilities.
Moreover, David acknowledged that the students’ responses had certain influ-
ence on his language choice. In fact, he asked for the students’ opinions about the
medium of instruction at the beginning of his teaching. Since their responses varied
widely, he decided to use a combination of English and Chinese at the beginning
and then gradually increase the quantity of English, a strategy supported by most of
his students. Furthermore, he did not allow his students to speak Chinese in class,
but encouraged them to use simple English to express themselves.
David mentioned that he used less Chinese in the listening-and-speaking course
and that he had used much more Chinese to teach art majors because they could
hardly understand any English sentences he said in class. In his opinion, art students
were very likely to lose their interest in English learning if he spoke English-only.
He also said that using Chinese was a feature of English teaching in China and that
many of his own teachers had used Chinese as well.
At the end of this interview, David expressed the belief that using Chinese could
make his explanations much clearer. He therefore concluded that Chinese should be
used to explain some complicated concepts or sentences in the reading-and-writing
course and to present related background on some topics in the
listening-and-speaking course.
6.3 Conclusion
This chapter has examined the four teachers’ beliefs and attitudes regarding L1 and
L2 use as well as the factors that influenced their language choices, which are
summarized in Table 6.1.
As we have seen, all the teachers mentioned the positive effects of the L1 on L2
teaching and suggested a variety of circumstances in which Chinese should be used.
Although they seemed to believe that using Chinese could facilitate their English
teaching, not all of them positively advocated this. For instance, Betty personally
would have preferred to speak English-only in class and perceived her use of
Chinese as a ‘compromise’. David also aimed to conduct his lessons in
English-only and saw using Chinese as an ‘expedient’. Compared to the other three
teachers, Betty’s beliefs on the issue of L1 and L2 use seemed to be more com-
plicated. Her preference for using English as the medium of instruction seemed
contradictory to her belief that the L1 played an indispensable role in L2 learning.
6.3 Conclusion 171
Table 6.1 Summary of the four teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of L1 and L2 use
Choice of and attitudes towards the Anne Prefers to use a combination of English and Chinese
medium of instruction Betty Prefers to speak English-only, but using a
combination of English and Chinese
Carl Uses a combination of Chinese and English
David Conducts English classes in English supplemented
with Chinese, and considers using English as the
medium of instruction as an ultimate goal of his
teaching
Beliefs about the use and role of the Anne • Speaking English-only was not necessarily the best
L1 in L2 teaching and learning way to teach English and native English-speaking
teachers were not always the best
• Using Chinese was consistent with her students’
current English proficiency level, and very
beneficial in helping them understand the structures
of difficult sentences and texts
• Speaking Chinese could help to build her students’
confidence and interest in English learning
• Using English-only in class to prepare the students
for English tests was ‘unrealistic’
Betty • Students usually needed to rely on a translation
process in their minds when speaking English
• The L1 was an indispensable tool for L2 learning
• Gradually Chinese should be used less and less in
English classes
• A reasonable university requirement should not
completely exclude the L1
• Chinese should be used only when necessary
• As long as students kept listening to English and
never gave up, they would gradually understand
• In some cases, using Chinese could achieve a better
result
Carl • Using a certain amount of Chinese did not have a
negative influence on English education
• Using Chinese was much clearer and more
time-efficient
• Using Chinese could enhance students’
understanding of a difficult point
David Using Chinese could make explanations much clearer
Beliefs about when to use L2-only Anne • When students had high English proficiency and a
large vocabulary
• When they were highly motivated and disciplined
• When they had no pressure to pass English tests
• When the university created a good English
environment
Betty None
Carl When the students already had a solid foundation in
English
David When the students had raised their listening and
speaking abilities
(continued)
172 6 Interviews

Beliefs about when to use the L1 Anne • Teaching grammar
• Giving practical examples relevant to students’ life
Betty • Explaining
• Translating or analyzing a difficult sentence
• Attracting students’ attention
• Ensuring students’ understanding
• Emphasizing important points
Carl • Checking students’ homework,
• Explaining difficult lesson content
• Saving time
David • Explaining some complicated concepts or sentences
in the reading-and-writing course
• Presenting related background on some topics in the
Factors influencing language Anne • The students’ English proficiency
choices • Her own teaching experience
• The difficulty of lesson content
• English exams
• Less influenced by ‘common belief’
• The course type
Betty • The students’ English proficiency
• Teacher role
• Her awareness of her own L1 use
• The students’ responses to her language use
• ‘Common belief’
• The course type
Carl • Teacher role
• The students’ English proficiency
• University requirements and ‘common belief’
• His own English ability
• Time limitations
David • The students’ English proficiency
• The students’ responses to his language use
• ‘Common belief’
• The course type
The identified factors that influenced the teachers’ language use included
immediate classroom factors, such as the difficulty of lesson content, time limita-
tions, the teachers’ own awareness, and the students’ responses to their language
use, and relatively static factors, such as the students’ English proficiency, the
course type, ‘common belief’ and the teachers’ English ability. Among them, the
students’ English proficiency and the difficulty of lesson content seemed to be two
major factors that had great impact on all four teachers’ language choices. However,
although the teachers claimed that the lower the English proficiency level of their
students, the more Chinese they used, there were no obvious effects of proficiency
level observed in the classroom data (see Sect. 5.3). Betty and David were also
6.3 Conclusion 173
influenced by their students’ responses, that is, whether the students could accept
their language choices. Only Carl acknowledged that his language use was affected
by his own English ability. Betty was the only teacher who specifically mentioned
her awareness in quantitative terms of her own language use. All these factors,
together with the factors the teachers reported during the stimulated recall (see
Chap. 7), will be discussed further in Chap. 8 (Sect. 8.2.8).
Chapter 7
Stimulated Recall
7.1 Introduction
As mentioned in Chap. 4, the use of stimulated recall in this study mainly aimed to
gain insight into the teachers’ perceptions of and reasons for their own use of
English and Chinese.
In this chapter, I will first present several typical episodes from each teacher in
both the reading-and-writing lessons and the listening-and-speaking lessons; all
these episodes were replayed in audio form to the teachers in the stimulated recall
session. I will sometimes offer my own analysis of the factors affecting their
choices, but also, and more centrally, quote or summarize the teachers’ own
comments on the replayed episodes.
This chapter will offer some answers to research question 4 and examine some
parts of research questions 5 and 8, complementing the analysis in Chaps. 5 and 6.
reasons for what they did in a specific lesson? What are their perceptions of
and reasons for what they normally do?
their language use? What differences are there between the observer’s per-
ceptions and these teachers’ own perceptions?
8. (…) What else [other than the university policy] seems to influence them?

176 7 Stimulated Recall
7.2 Results
I will now discuss the four teachers in turn, analyze their perceptions of and reasons
for their language use in different areas, and summarize the identifiable factors
influencing them.
7.2.1 Anne
7.2.1.1 The Reading-and-Writing Course
a. Vocabulary review
Before starting a new lesson, Anne sometimes helped the students to review the
knowledge they had learned in the previous lesson, as in the following example:
Episode 1
T: 最好不要看书。看能回忆的起来吧? T: You’d better not look at the textbook Can
‘Negative, negative’ 什么意思啊? 否定的, you try to bring it to your mind? What does
消极的, 是不是啊? 好, 那么‘ignore’ 呢? 忽 ‘Negative, Negative’ mean? Expressing
视, 是不是啊? 忽视, 不理睬。还有这 denial, pessimistic, right? Ok, so what about
个‘behaviour’. 行为, 是不是啊? 那么看一 ‘ignore’? Disregard, right? Disregard,
下啊! 还有什么? ‘Region’ 呢? ‘Region, refuse to take notice of. And this ‘behaviour’.
region’, 面积, 地区, 地域, 是不是啊? Action, right? Then, think about it! What
‘Flourish’ 呢? ‘Flourish, flourish’. 什么? 繁 else? What about ‘region’? ‘Region,
茂, 繁盛, 是不是啊? 兴旺, 发达。 ‘Thrive’ region’, area, division, zone, right? What
呢? ‘Thrive, thrive’. about ‘flourish’? ‘Flourish, flourish’. What?
Flourish, prosperity, right? Thrive, boom.
What about ‘thrive’? ‘Thrive, thrive’.
As the transcript shows, except for the English target items themselves, Anne
used Chinese-only to ask questions to elicit the students’ responses and to provide
their meanings. She explained that since her students’ vocabulary was very limited,
she only required them to remember these words by their Chinese meanings rather
than English paraphrases.
b. Text analysis
When dealing with text analysis, Anne sometimes focused on the analysis of the
structures of certain long or complicated sentences in order to help the students to
better understand the overall meaning of these sentences. The following example
illustrates how she analyzed the structure of a long sentence in the text.
‘What you have been looking for, my friend, is the chance to throw yourself into
the world of University Societies, and discover the huge range of activities which
thrive in a city like Oxford.’
7.2 Results 177
Episode 2
T: ‘Activity’, 活动, 对不对? 好, 那么给你一 T: ‘Activity’, activity, right? Ok, so give you
个机会去发现各种各样的活动, 对不对? 那 a chance to find various kinds of activities,
么这个句子还是没有完, 原因在哪里呢? right? So this sentence does not finish yet.
‘Which thrive in a society in a city like What’s the reason? ‘Which thrive in a
Oxford’ 这个呢修饰什么呢? ‘Activities’ 的, society in a city like Oxford’, what does this
是不是? 有一个定语从句来修饰 ‘activities’ modify? ‘Activities’, right? There is an
的, 对不对? 那么这个活动。注意哈! attributive clause to modify ‘activities’,
‘Which’ 和 ‘thrive’ 连在一块儿了。所以说 right? So this activity. Pay attention!
我们说一些定语从句, 定语从句有先行词 ‘Which’ and ‘thrive’ are connected. So we
引导的时候, 这个先行词除了连接前后两 say some attributive clauses, attributive
个句子它还会充当一定的成分, 是不是啊? clauses which have antecedents, the
在这里‘which’ 它充当了什么成分呢? 问一 antecedents not only connect two sentences,
下。主语, 谓语, 宾语? 主语。对。 but also serve as a certain element, right?
Here what element does ‘which’ serve as? I
want to ask. Subject, predicate, object?
Subject. Right.
As shown in the above episode, while all the English language she used came
directly from the original sentence, she used Chinese-only to explain the structure
of this sentence. In the stimulated recall, Anne explained her rationale for using
Chinese to deliver this kind of knowledge: ‘There was no need to use English,
because my aim was to cultivate their abilities in understanding long sentences.
What I hoped they would do here was not to learn something in speaking’.
Furthermore, although here Anne mentioned some relevant grammar knowledge
such as ‘attributive clauses’, she said she seldom explained English grammar
systematically to the students since the focus of her text explanation was on ana-
lyzing the sentence structures, especially the ‘backbone’ of a sentence.
The following is an episode from an observed lesson when Anne was asking the
students’ opinions about the structure of a difficult sentence in the text.
Episode 3
T: 是不是特别难, 觉得这个? 看的懂吗? 我 T: Do you think this is very difficult? Can you
先问你这个这个整个一大块儿这个, 它是 understand? First I want to ask you this this,
一个句子还是两个句子? 它是一个句子还 the whole part, this, it is one sentence or two
是两个句子? 你看, 一点点的分析啊。 sentences. Is it one sentence or two
M: 一个。 sentences? Look, analyze it little by little.
T: 什么? 几个? 两个句子, 是不是? 我问的 M: One.
是简单句啊。两个句子。那么两个句子的 T: What? How many? Two sentences, right? I
话它们之间的关系是并列的关系呢还是? mean simple sentences. Two sentences. Then
as to the two sentences, what’s the
relationship between them, coordinate or?
In this episode, she asked a few questions in Chinese-only to elicit the students’
opinions about the structure of the sentence, and a student also gave his answer in
Chinese. In the stimulated recall, she mentioned that she expected this, and when
asked whether she normally used entirely Chinese to communicate with the
students in the reading-and-writing course, she replied: ‘Basically yes, because my

objective in teaching the reading-and-writing lessons was to prepare them for the
examination and improve their reading abilities’. She further explained: ‘I paid
much attention to reading, because most of English the students could gain access
to in a non-English speaking environment was mainly from reading. After
improving their reading abilities, they can still go on to learn other things’.
c. Additional teaching
In the next example, Anne was showing how to write a curriculum vitae. The text
was a passage about university societies and clubs, in which it was mentioned that a
CV was supposed to secure students a highly paid job. Although CV writing
seemed not directly related to the main topic of the text, she still explained it in
detail, taking the students’ own experience as an example.
Episode 4
T: 简历一般怎么写呢? 好, 你前面的个人 T: How to write a CV in a general way? Ok,
信息, 名字, 生日, 出生年月日。然后你的 first, your personal information, name,
地址, 联系方式。一个heading. 底下的话 birthday, date of birth. And then your address
一般都是 education background, 教育背景, and contact details. A heading. What follows
是不是啊? 按照倒叙来的, 现在是2008年到 is generally the education background,
两千, 可能是四年之后啊, 两千, 2012 年到 education background, right? And it should
2008 年, 你在南昌大学学习, 是不是啊? be written in reverse order. Now is 2008, to
2008 年到什么啊? 200-, 05 年, 你在哪个高 200-, probably 4 years later, 200-, 2012–
中学习, 是不是啊? 这是你的education 2008, you are studying in Nanchang
background 吧? 然后的话, 就是一些, 作为 University, right? 2008 to what? 200-, 05,
你大学生的话, 一般没有work experience which high school you are studying at, right?
吧? 是不是啊? 没有work experience, 那这 These are your education background?
一篇就是空白吧? Then, that is, some, as university students,
you normally don’t have work experience,
right? No work experience, so this section is
blank, right?
As can be seen, she employed Chinese as the main medium of instruction to

explain how to write a CV, but she also used several English words and expres-
sions, such as ‘heading’, ‘education background’, and ‘work experience’. In the
stimulated recall, she was asked whether she had said these words in English
intentionally, and she gave an affirmative answer without hesitation. Moreover, she
offered a reason for using these English words: ‘“heading”, “work experience” and
“education background” is conventionalized language, and these words must be
used in a CV [English CV], so I want to impart [these words] to them’.
d. Joke
In the observed lessons, Anne sometimes made jokes to make her lesson interesting.
Episodes 5 and 6 provide such examples.
7.2 Results 179
Episode 5
T: 你的那个工作经验空白, 证书空白, 其它 T: Your work experience is blank, certificate
经验空白。你还有什么呢, 你的人生除了 is blank, and other experiences are blank.
一片空白之外? What else do you have in your life except a
LL: [Laughing] blank?
LL: [Laughing]
In this episode, she can be seen to have used exclusively Chinese to make fun of
her students. During the stimulated recall, she said that she had not planned and did
not make a conscious decision to use Chinese for this purpose. When asked whether
she had tried making jokes in English in class, she answered ‘no’ immediately, but
the next episode provides a counter-example.
Episode 6
T: 清楚了吧? 这篇文章? T: Clear? This article?
M: 好, 清楚了! [He speaks very loudly while M: Ok, Clear! [He speaks very loudly while
other students offer no response] other students offer no response]
T: [Laughing] 我可以ignore your response. T: [Laughing] I can ignore your response.
好, 其他同学一样的。这个要分析一下, 好 Ok, the other students are the same. Analyze
吧? this, ok?
As shown above, she first used exclusively Chinese to check the students’
comprehension. However, when responding to a misbehaving student, she switched
from Chinese to English in the verb phrase. In the stimulated recall, she explained
that her use of ‘ignore your response’ was a way to be humorous, and that she had
said it in English because the students had just learned the word ‘ignore’. In her
opinion, some students in this class could probably understand the word ‘ignore’,
since they had recalled this word at the beginning of this lesson.
7.2.1.2 The Listening-and-Speaking Course
a. Checking students’ homework

The next example occurred when Anne was nominating some students to recite a
model dialogue in the textbook in order to check whether they had done the
homework.
Episode 7
T: 好啦, 坐下来啊! 李婷和郭成, 李婷和郭 T: Ok, sit down! Li Ting and Guo Cheng, Li
成, 你们背诵 model 1, 好吧? 李婷, 郭成, Ting and Guo Cheng, you recite model 1,
model 1. 那么, 郭成的话先开始。 ‘Nancy, ok? Li Ting, Guo Cheng, model 1. Then, Guo
what are you planning to do?’ 大点声音啊, Cheng starts first! ‘Nancy, what are you
大点声音, 好吗? planning to do?’ Speak louder, speak louder,
ok?
(continued)
(continued)
F1: [She recites in a very low voice and F1: [She recites in a very low voice and
sometimes looks at the text on her textbook] sometimes looks at the text on her textbook]
T: 不许看书啊! T: Don’t look at the book!
F2: [She recites in a very low voice] F2: [She recites in a very low voice]
F1: [She does not remember what to say] F1: [She does not remember what to say]
T: ‘Would you like to read’ [Anne gives T: ‘Would you like to read’ [Anne gives
prompt] prompt]
F1: [She continues reciting, but looks at the F1: [She continues reciting, but looks at the
textbook when she cannot remember what to textbook when she cannot remember what to
say] say]
T: 看书了啊! T: You have looked at the book!
F1: [She finishes reciting] F1: [She finishes reciting]
T: 不熟悉, 不熟悉。好多是边看边读的, T: Not familiar, not familiar. You read many
是不是啊? 平时要去背啊! 要读啊! 知道 words from the book, right? Recite often!
吗? Ok? Read! Got it? Ok?
Here we see that Anne first employed Chinese as the main medium to nominate
two students in class to recite the model in the textbook. The English language she
used during this process was the classroom routine vocabulary ‘model 1’ and the
sentences read directly from the model. During the two students’ recitation, she
reacted to their behaviour in Chinese-only. After they finished, she also used
Chinese to give her comments on their performances, and to advise them to practise
often.
In the stimulated recall, Anne emphasized the importance of ‘emotional com-
munication’ with the students. She explained the rationale for her use of Chinese in
this episode as follows: ‘This kind of communication had nothing to do with
teaching knowledge. It was just an emotional communication. There was absolutely
no need to use the kind of words like “recite” [in English] to tell them. Instead,
using Chinese in a friendly way to communicate with them could better express my
concerns about these students, and it was possible that they would be more willing
to follow what I said. They could feel my emotions when I spoke Chinese, how-
ever, they could not feel my concerns about them when I spoke English’.
b. Listening exercises
Listening exercises were a significant part of Anne’s teaching in the observed
listening-and-speaking lessons. When dealing with these exercises, she usually put
great emphasis on explaining the general meaning of the audio content. Episodes 8
and 9 show how she dealt with listening exercises in the textbook.
Episode 8
T: Ok, so, what does the wo-, what does the T: Ok, so, what does the wo-, what does the
man worry more? 对, 他担心的是什么啊? man worry more? Ok, what does the man
The doctor’s feelings, 是不是啊? 因为他很 worry? The doctor’s feelings, right?
久没去看这个医生啦, 是不是啊? He has Because he has not been to see the doctor for
not been to see him recently. 这个医生会很 a long time, right? He has not been to see
(continued)
7.2 Results 181
(continued)
生气。所以的话呢, 他应该是很担忧这个 him recently. The doctor would be angry. So
doctor’s feelings, uh, doctor’s feelings, 医生 he should be very worried about the doctor’s
的感受, 而不是担心自己的什么? Health, feelings, uh, doctor’s feelings, doctor’s
对不对? 不是担心自己的身体健康。所以 feelings, instead of his own what? Health,
这个女士问, the woman asked which is, right? Instead of worrying about his own
which is more important? Your health or the health. So this woman asked, the woman
doctor’s feelings? 是不是啊? 如果你想确保 asked which is, which is more important?
一切都正常的话, if you want to make sure Your health or the doctor’s feelings?
everything is all right with you, you’d better Right? If you want to make sure everything is
go. You’d better go to see your doc- doctor all right with you, if you want to make sure
have a check-up, right? everything is all right with you, you’d
better go. You’d better go to see your doc-
doctor have a check-up, right?
In that episode, after listening to the tape, she translated some of the information
on the tape into Chinese, to suggest the answer to the question—‘what does the man
worry about?’. When asked why she had translated the information into Chinese,
she explained whether to translate mainly depended on the students’ response: ‘…
before I understood them, I chose not to translate some information. But later, after
class some of the students came to ask me about the information I did not translate.
I realized those were very simple words. So I thought it was still necessary to
explain them’.
Episode 9
T: 可是现在的话你看看你自己啊, 是不是 T: But now you look at yourself, right?
啊? 胖的不成样啦, 是不是啊? 你看看 ‘you Abnormally fat, right? You see ‘you are
are quite over-’, 好, 你看这里! ‘You are quite over-’, ok, look at here! ‘You are quite
quite over-, you are becoming quite over-, you are becoming quite overweight’,
overweight’, 对不对? ‘You are becoming right? ‘You are becoming quite
quite overweight.’ 你现在都已经胖成这样 overweight.’ Now you are becoming so fat,
了, 超重了。好, 那么他说: ‘I know it’s bad. overweight. Ok, then he said: ‘I know it’s
I know it’s bad’. 我知道它不好。可是可是 bad. I know it’s bad’. I know it’s not good.
他有他的理由, 是不是啊? ‘I really like But he has his reasons, right? ‘I really like
watching TV’. That is the point. 对不对? 我 watching TV’. That is the point. Right? I
真的很喜欢看电影, 电视。那么底下的话 really like watching movies and TV. Then let
这个空我看看你们填的到吧。这个空可 me see whether you can fill in the following
能有点难啊, 是不是? 但他, he believes it’s blank. This blank is probably a bit difficult,
more important to what? 对, 很好啊。为什 right? But he, he believes it’s more
么提到 ‘enjoy’ 呢? 他讲啊: ‘可是我认为年 important to what? Right, very good. Why
轻年轻的时候就应该好好享受生命的, 是 does he mention ‘enjoy’? He said: ‘But I
不是啊? 年轻的时候就应该, 不应该亏待自 think I should enjoy life while I am young,
己啦, 是不是啊? 该怎样就怎样, 对不对?’ young, right? I should, should not treat
所以他说: ‘After all, 毕竟, 是不是啊? After myself unfairly while I am young, right? Do
all, we should enjoy ourselves enjoy whatever I like, right?’ So he said: ‘After all,
ourselves while we are young while we are after all, right? After all, we should enjoy
young’. ‘While’ 是表示当什么什么的时候, ourselves enjoy ourselves while we are
是不是啊? young while we are young’. ‘While’ means
during the time, right?
In this episode, while dealing with the listening exercises, Anne retold the story
which the students had just listened to in her own words. In doing so, she used
mainly Chinese, apart from the English sentence that appeared on the tape or in the
textbook.
During the stimulated recall, she explained the rationale for her use of Chinese
for storytelling: ‘Using Chinese could offer a vivid and interesting description of
some stiff English. I think using Chinese could make the language [English] more
vivid and closer to us. First of all, [by using Chinese], they must feel that the
distance between them and the language [English] was narrowed’.
When asked whether English could be used to offer a vivid and interesting
description, she replied without hesitation: ‘It would be very difficult, very difficult,
really very difficult’. She further explained that she probably lacked the ability to
use English in an interesting and humorous way because her mother tongue is not
English.
Apart from narrowing the distance between the students and the L2, she said that
using Chinese could also make the L2 more memorable: ‘Suppose here I only told
them: “He is overweight. He is too fat” [in English], the students were very likely to
forget what it meant. However, if I used Chinese to tell them vividly how fat he
was, they should remember what I said about the fat guy after class. And they
probably could try to remember the word “overweight” [in English]. This is a kind
of a memory association technique’.
In addition, asked why she used Chinese to discuss the difficulty of the blank
with the word ‘enjoy’, she again explained that this belonged to ‘emotional com-
munication’, in which she wanted to assure the students that there was no need to
worry if they could not fill in this blank correctly. She further said she chose to use
Chinese to convey emotion between herself and these students because they were
unable to understand her emotions if she spoke English.
c. Information on exams
In the observed listening-and-speaking lessons, Anne sometimes related the lis-
tening tasks in the textbook to target exams. The following was an example when
she was comparing the difficulty of the listening tasks in the textbook and those in
CET-3.
Episode 10
T: 接下来的task 2 的话呢有一点难度了 T: The following task 2 is a little bit difficult.
哈。象这个难度的话, 前面的这个short Take the difficulty for example, the preceding
dialogue 跟那个三级里面听力。三级里面 short dialogue and the listening exercises in
有15个听力嘛。前面的话它的5个是 short CET-3. There are 15 listening exercises in
dialogue, short dialogue, 跟这个类似, 明白 CET-3. The first five are short dialogue,
吧? 但它是 multiple choices. 那么难度的话, short dialogue, similar to these [the
可能我们课本里面的话还稍微稍微难一点 exercises in the textbook], understand? But
点。知道吧? 就是这个程度。这是三级的 they are multiple choices. Then, as for the
哈, 这个程度。那么后面的这种 passage difficulty, probably the dialogues in our
啊, 就会, 我们课本上就更难一点啊, 明白 textbook were slightly more difficult.
(continued)
7.2 Results 183
(continued)
吗? 所以你要, 我们这本书里面的听力你慢 Understand? It’s just the same difficulty. This
慢去听。能够提高你的听力的话, 那么到 is [the difficulty of] CET-3, the same
时候做三级的时候你会发现还比较容易, difficulty. Then the following passage is, the
这个听力题… passages in our textbook are more difficult.
Understand? So you should listen to the
listening tasks in our textbook step by step. If
you can improve your listening, you will find
it will be easy to do CET-3, the listening
exercises…
As the transcript shows, apart from several classroom routine vocabulary items
such as ‘task 2’, ‘short dialogue’ and ‘multiple choices’, she used Chinese entirely
in this episode.
In the stimulated recall, Anne mentioned that CET-3 was a very important test
for the students and that preparing them for it was one of the main objectives of the
course. She also said that her purpose in mentioning the information related to the
test was to reassure the students there would be no problem for them to pass the test
if they could manage well in class, and thus to encourage them to be more positive
in class.
When asked whether she normally delivered the information related to CET-3 in
Chinese, she immediately provided an affirmative answer, and added: ‘Giving this
kind of information was just similar to parents advising and urging children to be
careful on their way to examination hall, to come back home on time, or to go to
bed at a certain time…it involved very important information. I hoped to deliver
this information to them accurately and to make every student understand it’. It can
be seen that for her, using Chinese ensured every student understood what she said.
d. Fixed expressions
When dealing with the listening tasks in class, Anne not only clarified the general
meaning of the audio content, but also explained fixed expressions. In the next
episode, she exemplified the usage of the structure—‘would…be all right’ in some
specific situations.
Episode 11
T: 好, 这句话我要求你们把它记下来作为 T: Ok, I want you to remember it as the first
第一个句子。第一个句子。Would 9:30 be sentence. The first sentence. ‘Would 9:30 be
all right? 因为的话你们经常会跟别人约会, all right?’ Because you often have dates with
是不是啊? 约会的时候你就会讲到时间。 somebody else, right? So you often mention
比如说, 今天下午怎么样? 是不是啊? 那你 time. For example, would this afternoon be
就会说 ‘Would this afternoon be all right?’. all right? Right? So you can say: ‘Would
是不是啊? 明天上午怎么样? 你就会说 this afternoon be all right?’ Right? Would
‘Would tomorrow morning be all right?’. 是 tomorrow morning be all right? You can say:
不是啊? 今天晚上可以吗? Would this ‘Would tomorrow morning be all right?’
evening be all right? 是不是啊? 然后再具体 Right? Would this evening be all right?
一点就会到时间[点], 是不是啊? Would ten Would this evening be all right? Right?
(continued)
(continued)
o’clock be all right? 对不对? 好, 这句话就 Then, to be more specific, we may talk about
非常的实用啦。那么你跟别人去预约的时 time points, right? Would ten o’clock be all
候, 不仅仅是打电话预约啦, 有时候就是跟 right? Right? Ok, this sentence is very useful.
朋友一块出去的话, 你跟一个外国朋友约 If you make appointment with somebody else,
好了到那个什么迪欧哪个地方, 是不是啊? not only over the phone, sometimes you go
约好时间, 啊, 商量时间的时候就可以用这 out with friends, for example, you have a date
句话啦! Would ten o’clock be all right? 那么 with a foreign friend in Di’ou or somewhere
除了‘all right’, 更简单的是‘ok’, 是不是啊? else, right? When making appointment, uh,
Would 9:30 be ok? Would 9:30 be fine? discussing the time, you can use this sentence
—Would ten o’clock be all right? Then,
apart from ‘all right’, a simpler word is ‘ok’,
right? Would 9:30 be ok? Would 9:30 be
fine?
Here, Anne provided several example situations to show the usage of the
structure—‘would…be all right’ to the students. In doing so, she used English to
give example sentences but Chinese to describe the situations. She first explained in
the stimulated recall that the purpose for giving these examples was to help the
students understand that this structure was very practical. Then she also explained
the reason for her use of Chinese. She said: ‘Chinese could highlight the practicality
[of the English structure]’.
e. Translation
In the following example, in order to clarify the meaning of the sentence in a model
dialogue—‘I spend most of the night awake’, Anne translated it into Chinese.
Episode 12
T: 那么后面这个作为第十三个句子。晚 T: Then the following is the thirteenth
上啊, 大部分时间都睡不着, 是不是? 翻来 sentence. Most of the night sleepless, right?
覆去。晚上的话大部分都睡不着, 是不是? Stir now and again. Most of the night
就这么一句话。花了晚上的大部分时间 sleepless, right? Just this sentence. Spend
醒着的, 是不是啊? 醒着的, 花了大部分时 most of the night keeping awake, right?
间醒着的。你当然不说你是花了大部分 Awake, spend most of the time keeping
时间醒着的, 吃饱了没事儿啊, 是不是啊? awake. Of course you will not spend most of
那么你就可以理解为: 我什么呢? 晚上大部 the night keeping yourself awake, unless you
分时间都睡不着, 失眠, 是不是啊? 晚上失 have nothing to do but eat, right? So you can
眠的很厉害。你都可以这么说, 是不是啊? understand it in this way: I what? Most of the
所以 ‘I spend most of the night awake’, 对 night awake, sleepless, right? Have serious
吧? trouble sleeping at night. You can say this,
right? So ‘I spend most of the night awake’,
right?
In the stimulated recall, she said translating this sentence could reflect the dif-
ferences between English and Chinese in their way of expression. She pointed out
many students probably translated the sentence literally and thus understood it
superficially. In her opinion, the students would have translated the sentence ‘I
7.2 Results 185
spend most of the night awake’ into ‘I spend most of the night keeping myself
awake’ in Chinese instead of ‘I spend most of the night sleepless’.
As Anne suggested, she believed that a good translation could enable the stu-
dents to gain a deeper and more accurate understanding of English, and could also
remind them that English learning could not be done well mechanically.
She also said that seeking the right Chinese translation for this sentence could
highlight the differences between English and Chinese in their way of expression,
which was a significant point in her teaching. In her opinion, many students were
accustomed to thinking in Chinese when doing translation, however, sometimes an
example, such as the sentence discussed in this episode, could remind them that
they needed to change their way of thinking and expressing themselves.
7.2.1.3 Summary and Preliminary Analysis
The following main themes seem to emerge in Anne’s classroom behaviour and
comments: her teaching objectives; the students’ English abilities; the students’
responses to her language use; her own English ability; and her beliefs about the
advantages of Chinese use.
In the observed reading-and-writing lessons, Anne can be seen to use Chinese as
the medium of instruction. She explained the rationale for her use of Chinese as
follows: the students’ vocabulary was limited; her teaching objectives had nothing
to do with improving the students’ listening and speaking abilities, for instance,
improving their abilities to analyze the structures of long sentences, and preparing
them for examination. In her opinion, reading ability had priority over other abil-
ities in English learning, and therefore, there was no need to use English if the
medium served the purpose of improving the students’ reading abilities.
Furthermore, although most of her English use in this course was quoted directly
from the teaching materials, she also used some other English words or phrases
when she thought the students could understand, or when she wanted them to grasp
these words or phrases.
In the observed listening-and-speaking lessons, she seemed to use Chinese
predominantly. A major factor that influenced her language use was the students’
responses. If the students had difficulty in understanding, she would translate even a
very simple English word. She seemed to be also affected by her own English
competence, since she acknowledged that she lacked the ability to make jokes in
English. Moreover, Anne used Chinese in this course because she believed this had
many advantages. For instance, for her, Chinese was more vivid and impressive;
using Chinese could help every student understand important information; Chinese
was close to the students’ real life and thus using it for assistance could highlight
the practicality of the target language; only when she spoke Chinese were the
students able to feel her emotions; good translation could enable them to achieve an
in-depth understanding.
7.2.2 Betty
a. Vocabulary
Vocabulary explanation was a crucial part of Betty’s reading-and-writing lessons.
She normally spent one lesson exclusively in going through the target vocabulary
list of each unit word by word and explained related synonyms, antonyms, mor-
phological changes and fixed expressions, since in her opinion vocabulary was the
greatest problem for these new university students.
In addition to the vocabulary list of each unit, she also spent considerable time
on certain key words and expressions appearing in the text. The following episode
provides an example.
Episode 1
T: Now before we continue with paragraph 7, T: Now before we continue with paragraph
now I’d like to discuss with you some usage 7, now I’d like to discuss with you some
of key words. The first one. Paragraph 4. usage of key words. The first one.
‘Pry’, ok? ‘Pry’. The last line of paragraph 4. Paragraph 4. ‘Pry’, ok? ‘Pry’. The last line
Have you found that? 第四段的最后一 of paragraph 4. Have you found that? The
行。‘Pry’. Well, it means pull something last line of paragraph 4 ‘Pry’. Well, it
open or away from, make inquiry, or be nosy. means pull something open or away from,
Do you understand ‘nosy’? This is your nose make inquiry, or be nosy. Do you
[Betty pointed her own nose]. ‘Be nosy’, in understand ‘nosy’? This is your nose [Betty
Chinese, 好管闲事, 刺探, 打探, ok? Now for pointed her own nose]. ‘Be nosy’, in
example, the first sentence, I don’t want them Chinese, inquisitive, snoopy, prying, ok?
to pry into my affair. ‘Pry into’, ok, pry into Now for example, the first sentence, I don’t
my affair. Well, actually we can make similar want them to pry into my affair. ‘Pry into’,
sentences. For example, I don’t want them to ok, pry into my affair. Well, actually we
pry into my secrets, right? I don’t want them can make similar sentences. For example,
to pry into my, right? Age, salary, privacy I don’t want them to pry into my secrets,
and etc., right? Ok, all kind of privacy. right? I don’t want them to pry into my,
right? Age, salary, privacy and etc., right?
Ok, all kind of privacy.
As shown above, Betty focused on explaining the word ‘pry’. She first used
English to remind the students of the position of the word in the text and then she
repeated it again in Chinese. In the stimulated recall, when asked why she used
Chinese for repetition, she replied: ‘Because because there were always some
scatterbrained students, I just wanted to catch their attention’.
Furthermore, when explaining the meaning of ‘pry’ to the students, it can be
seen that Betty first used English synonyms to paraphrase it, such as ‘be nosy’, and
then translated ‘nosy’ into Chinese. In the stimulated recall, she mentioned that she
normally used both Chinese and English to deal with vocabulary. As for why she
used Chinese for translation in vocabulary teaching, she said: ‘Maybe I’m afraid
that they can’t understand. I don’t know whether my worry is superfluous or not.
7.2 Results 187
I am worried that they gain nothing if they can’t understand. I always hope that they
can gain something in a class’.
In the next episode, Betty explained the meaning of another word, ‘premise’,
which appeared in paragraph 5 of the text.
Episode 2
T: Ac-, Actually ‘premise’ has another T: Ac-, Actually ‘premise’ has another
meaning—前提, 假设。 Is that right? And I meaning—premiss, assumption. Is that
will show you some example. right? And I will show you some example.
In this episode, Betty used Chinese equivalents ‘前提’ and ‘假设’ to explain the
second meaning of the word ‘premise’. In the stimulated recall, Betty said that at
that moment, she had not even thought of using English to explain the meaning of
this word, nor about whether the students could understand English explanations or
not. Instead, she had felt using the mother tongue to explain this word was very
natural: ‘I just wanted to say the Chinese meaning…just wanted to use Chinese to
say the meaning, what the word meant’.
It seems obvious that she was unable to provide a specific reason for why she
translated the target word into Chinese in this situation. Possibly in order to defend
her use of Chinese here, she went on to explain that it really did not matter which
language she used for vocabulary explanation because both the Chinese and
English meanings of new vocabulary were listed in the textbook. That is to say, in
her opinion, whether she used the L1 or L2 had little influence on the students’
understanding of word meanings. This view seemed to be in partial conflict with her
use of Chinese as a tool for ensuring the students’ understanding of vocabulary, as
seen in episode 1.
b. Text analysis
When dealing with text analysis, Betty normally attached great importance to
explaining the meaning of each sentence in the text. The following episode is such
an example.
Episode 3
T: In paragraph 6, the author talks about T: In paragraph 6, the author talks about
advertisement, right? A recent public-service advertisement, right? A recent
advertisement by a large insurance company, public-service advertisement by a large
一家大保险公司最近做的公益广告, 是不 insurance company, a recent public-service
是? 这则公益广告指出来什么呢? Yes, it is advertisement by a large insurance company,
the, it is the insurance companies that pay for right? What does the public-service
stolen goods. 好, 这是一个强调句。Is that advertisement say? Yes, it is the, it is the
right? ‘It is that’, ok, 我们可以把这个结构 insurance companies that pay for stolen
划出来。广告指出, 是的, 由保险公司赔偿 goods. Ok, this is an emphatic pattern. Is
人们被偷盗的物品。But, ok, 接下来有两 that right? ‘It is that’, ok, we can underline
句话, 有两个问题。 ‘But who is going to this structure. The advertisement points out
pay for what the new atmosphere, what the that, yes, it is the insurance companies that
(continued)
(continued)
new atmosphere of distrust and fear is doing pay for stolen goods. ‘But’, ok, next there are
to our way of life?’ 但是谁来对, 谁来赔偿 two sentences, there are two problems. ‘But
互不信任, 担心害怕这种新氛围对我们的 who is going to pay for what the new
生活方式所造成的影响呢? atmosphere, what the new atmosphere of
distrust and fear is doing to our way of
life?’ But who, who is going to pay for what
the new atmosphere of distrust and fear is
doing to our way of life?
In this episode, Betty translated a long English sentence in the text into Chinese
little by little. In the stimulated recall, she said she normally chose to translate such
difficult and complicated sentences into Chinese. Her technique was to divide a
long sentence into several small parts and explain them one by one, and finally
explain the whole sentence again. As she suggested, Betty thought using Chinese in
this way could enhance the students’ understanding.
In addition to explaining the general meaning of the sentences in the text, Betty
also elaborated on some important grammatical structures in the text. The following
episode provides an example.
Episode 4
T: ‘We trust no one.’ 第18段的第一句话我 T: ‘We trust no one.’ The first sentence of
们注意到这是一个否定句。它的否定是 paragraph 18. We noticed this is a negative
在什么部分? 宾语, 对不对? 好的, 最常见 sentence. Where is the negative part of it?
的否定句是否定谓语。这一点问题也没 Object, right? Ok, the most common negative
有。但是我们知道英语当中的否定句, 它 sentence is to negate the predicate. There is
其实是很多样的。有否定主语的, 有否定 no problem at all. But we know negative
谓语的, 也有否定宾语的。课文当中这句 sentences in English language are very
话 ‘we trust no one’, 就象我们说的‘不要浪 varied. Some of them negate the subject,
费时间’。我们当然可以说 ‘Don’t waste some negate the predicate, and some negate
time’. But normally people will say ‘let’s the object. The sentence in the text—‘we
waste no time’. Right? I have no idea. Right? trust no one’ is just like what we say ‘Don’t
I have no idea. I don’t have any idea. Right? waste time’. Of course we can say ‘Don’t
否定主语的。 No one is in. No one is at waste time’. But normally people will say
home. I called. No one is at home, right? 否 ‘let’s waste no time’. Right? I have no idea.
定主语, 否定谓语, 否定宾语, 这都可以 Right? I have no idea. I don’t have any
用。 We trust no one. We don’t trust anyone. idea. Right? Negative subject. No one is in.
我们不再信任任何人。 No one is at home. I called. No one is at
home, right? Negative subject, negative
predicate and negative object, can be all
used. We trust no one. We don’t trust
anyone. We trust no one anymore.
Betty explained her behaviour in this episode during the stimulated recall.
According to her, she was helping the students quickly review a grammar point
which they had learned before, rather than teaching them a new grammatical
structure. She further explained her rationale for using Chinese here: ‘You must
have noticed my speaking speed was very fast in class. I was always worried that I
7.2 Results 189
couldn’t finish (the textbook). And the truth was not just that I was worried about it.
Actually the time was very limited. Chinese was a short cut. The mother tongue was
a short cut’. When asked whether she normally used Chinese to explain grammar in
her classes, Betty replied that she did not notice which language she used for this
purpose.
c. Communication with students
The next example shows an exchange between Betty and her students, when she
asked about the meaning of a word, rather than explaining it directly.
Episode 5
T: ‘Without entertain much.’ Do you know T: ‘Without entertain much.’ Do you know
the meaning of ‘entertain’? the meaning of ‘entertain’?
LL: 娱乐。 LL: Amuse.
T: 娱乐。Yes, exactly. But it has another T: Amuse. Yes, exactly. But it has another
meaning. meaning.
As the transcript shows, Betty employed English to ask the students about the
meaning of ‘entertain’, and the students immediately provided its Chinese equiv-
alent. The interesting point in this episode is that she not only repeated the students’
answer—‘娱乐’, but also seemed happy to accept it. In the stimulated recall, Betty
acknowledged that she was expecting the students to provide answers in Chinese at
that moment and that she felt quite satisfied with the Chinese equivalent they
provided.
It should be mentioned here that Betty clearly expressed her negative attitude
towards the students’ use of Chinese in the post-observation interview: ‘I don’t
allow them to use Chinese. [Laughing] When they need to say something, they
must answer questions, or express their opinions. So they must use English’.
However, after listening to this episode, she thought her perception that she did not
allow the students to use Chinese in class was incorrect. Thus, she reinterpreted
how she reacted to the students’ use of Chinese and pointed out that while she did
not allow the students to use Chinese to explain their point of view or under-
standing, she actually accepted that they used Chinese to explain the meaning of a
word or phrase. However, Betty thought that she should expect the students to use
English to paraphrase a target word or phrase rather than simply translate it into
Chinese, and ‘promised’ to change.
a. Information on exams
In the observed lessons, Betty sometimes needed to give the students detailed
information on exams. The following is an episode when she was giving infor-
mation on the final exam.
Episode 6
T: 趁下午听说课的时间, 我向你们做一个 T: In the listening-and-speaking lessons this
说明。期末考试的注意事项, 这个是非常 afternoon, I will give you some advice. The
重要的, ok? 确实是期末考试很快就要来 guide to the final examination is very
了。还有一个来月的时间吧。啊! 请同学 important, ok? Actually the final exam is
们把它记在你们的笔记本上, 而不是随意 coming. Just around one month left. Ah!
的用一张纸记下来, ok? 并且我希望同学们 Please write it down in your notebook,
在期末考试, 在来参加考试之前, 把今天讲 instead of carelessly using a piece of paper,
的这些内容再看一遍。因为是我们大学 ok? Moreover, I hope you run through what I
里面同学们进行的第一场英语考试, 所以 said today before the final exam, before
呢有些事项一定要对同学们做一个提示。 taking the exam. Since this is your first
第一, 请大家记住, 考试的时候一定要带铅 English exam in the university, I must give
笔和橡皮. 一定要带铅笔和橡皮。原因大 you directions about some matters. First,
家都知道, 对不对? 因为要涂答题卡, 带好 please remember to bring a pencil and
铅笔和橡皮…… rubber while you take the exam, bring a
pencil and rubber. You know the reason,
right? Bring a pencil and rubber, because
you need to deal with answer sheet…
In the stimulated recall, Betty said that in this episode she was announcing the
information about the final examination according to the requirements of the
department. She explained that she always used Chinese rather than English to
deliver this kind of information: ‘This was something beyond classroom teaching, a
communication beyond knowledge exchange between the students and me, a
communication beyond language learning. So the language had to be Chinese. It
was just like communications after class and actually had nothing to do with
classroom teaching and lesson content’.
b. Vocabulary
Although she did not place great emphasis on explaining vocabulary in the
observed listening-and-speaking lessons, she sometimes went through the words
and expressions in the language tips in the textbook, in order to help the students
achieve better understanding. The next is an episode in which she was trying to
explain what a ‘fashion show’ was.
Episode 7
T: Do you know what is a ‘fashion show’? 时 T: Do you know what is a ‘fashion show’?
装秀。Page 78. Please turn to page 78. Here Fashion show. Page 78. Please turn to page
we can find a definition of ‘fashion show’. 78. Here we can find a definition of
Have you found that? Language and culture ‘fashion show’. Have you found that?
tips. Have you found that? ‘Fashion show’, Language and culture tips. Have you
fashion houses hold shows to present their found that? ‘Fashion show’, fashion houses
latest creations. Attractive models in the hold shows to present their latest creations.
world appear from behind a door and walk Attractive models in the world appear
down a long raised runway. That is called from behind a door and walk down a long
runway. In Chinese, we say, T台。That is, raised runway. That is called runway. In
that is called runway. Chinese, we say, T platform. That is, that is
called runway.
7.2 Results 191
As shown above, Betty used Chinese to explain the meaning of ‘fashion show’
and ‘runway’. In the stimulated recall, Betty said that here she was trying to lead the
students to use English to paraphrase and that Chinese was used only for the
purpose of strengthening their memory. She added that compared to the read-
ing-and-writing lessons, she used less Chinese to explain vocabulary in the
listening-and-speaking lessons.
In fact, in her opinion, there was no need to translate the phrase ‘fashion show’,
since everybody knew what it meant. However, because ‘fashion’ was just the topic
of the unit, she translated it into Chinese in order to highlight it.
c. Listening exercises
In the observed listening-and-speaking lessons, Betty normally explained some key
information to the students after listening to a task, for the purpose of helping them
to understand the overall meaning of the task and find out the answers to the related
questions. The following is an example.
Episode 8
T: We are going to check answers, ok? Who’s T: We are going to check answers, ok?
contribution is the mini skirt? A lady called Who’s contribution is the mini skirt? A
Mary Quant. Is that right? Mary Quant, who lady called Mary Quant. Is that right?
was a famous fashion designer in the 1960s. Mary Quant, who was a famous fashion
二十世纪六十年代一位非常著名的服装设 designer in the 1960s. A famous fashion
计师Mary Quant 女士。 designer in the 1960s—Ms Mary Quant.
FV: Mary Quant was a very famous fashion FV: Mary Quant was a very famous
designer in the 1960s. Her main contribution fashion designer in the 1960s. Her main
to fashion history was the mini skirt. contribution to fashion history was the
T: Ok, question 1. What was the main mini skirt.
contribution of Mary Quant. This is really T: Ok, question 1. What was the main
very easy one. Right? Number one, we contribution of Mary Quant. This is really
choose, B is the best answer. ‘The mini skirt very easy one. Right? Number one, we
was Mary Quant’s main contribution.’ 她的 choose, B is the best answer. ‘The mini
主要的贡献就是mini skirt. skirt was Mary Quant’s main
contribution.’ Her main contribution was
the mini skirt.
As shown above, she translated the information about the fashion designer
—‘Mary Quant’ into Chinese. In the stimulated recall, she explained that her use of
Chinese to introduce ‘Mary Quant’ was mainly based on her previous experience
with another group of students. Since that group could not understand it and treated
‘Mary Quant’ as new words they did not know, she employed Chinese to point out
‘Mary Quant’ was just the name of a person.
As noted above, Betty presented her main reasons for using Chinese in the
reading-and-writing lessons as follows: to help the distracted students focus their
attention; to ease her concerns that the students could not understand; to enhance
the students’ understanding of difficult sentences; and to save time in class. Thus we
can say that Betty’s language use in this course was influenced by the students’
mood, her worry about the students’ abilities to understand, the difficulty of lesson
content, and time limitations.
In the listening-and-speaking lessons, Betty’s decision-making regarding the
medium of instruction was clearly connected to specific beliefs. For example, she
used Chinese to explain vocabulary since she believed that using Chinese could
strengthen the students’ memory; she used Chinese to announce information on
exams because of her belief that communication not related to lesson content must
be done in Chinese. Her experience with other groups of students was another
factor affecting her choices in this course.
7.2.3 Carl
a. Vocabulary exercises
The observed reading-and-writing lessons taught by Carl were very different from
those taught by the other three teachers, since his lessons were not directly centred
on the textbook, but mainly focused on the handout exercises he designed on the
basis of the textbook. Furthermore, since vocabulary exercises accounted for a
considerable proportion of these handouts, it seems particularly important to ana-
lyze Carl’s language use during the process of dealing with vocabulary exercises.
Episode 1
T: And the fifth sentence. ‘She made a T: And the fifth sentence. ‘She made a
gesture, which he chose to interpret as an gesture, which he chose to interpret as an
invitation.’ 她做了一个手势。那么, 这个手 invitation.’ She made a gesture. So, this
势, 那个女的做了一个手势, 那个男的愿意 gesture, the woman made a gesture and the
把这个手势理解为邀请。So this is also man was willing to consider it as an
‘understand’. He chose to understand this invitation. So this is also ‘understand’. He
gesture as a kind of invitation. Now the chose to understand this gesture as a kind
following one. ‘This dream can be interpreted of invitation. Now the following one. ‘This
in several different ways.’ Here ‘interpret’ dream can be interpreted in several
will have another meaning. It means explain, different ways.’ Here ‘interpret’ will have
means give or provide the meaning of, another meaning. It means explain, means
explain, or give or provide the meaning of. So give or provide the meaning of, explain, or
this dream can be explained in several give or provide the meaning of. So this
different ways. We can give or we can dream can be explained in several different
provide several meanings, uh, for this dream. ways. We can give or we can provide
We can give or provide several meanings for several meanings, uh, for this dream. We
(continued)
7.2 Results 193
(continued)
this dream. The seventh one. ‘How do you can give or provide several meanings for
interpret refusal to see us?’ So also explain. this dream. The seventh one. ‘How do you
You refused to see us. How do you explain? interpret refusal to see us?’ So also explain.
你如何解释你不想见我? 是吧? That means You refused to see us. How do you
actually you have no reason to refuse us. 事 explain? How can you explain you don’t
实上你没有理由不见我。Now the want to see me? Right? That means actually
following one. ‘No one in the tour group you have no reason to refuse us. Actually
spoke Spanish so we had to ask the guide to you have no reason to refuse to see me. Now
interpret.’ You know, usually you are very the following one. ‘No one in the tour
familiar with this word ‘translate’. You know group spoke Spanish so we had to ask the
‘translate’ usually refers to literally, literally, guide to interpret.’ You know, usually you
书面的翻译。 So ‘interpret’ means translate are very familiar with this word
what is said in one language into another ‘translate’. You know ‘translate’ usually
language. So this is usually spoken or oral. 口 refers to literally, literally, written
头的翻译。So here it means translate what is translation. So ‘interpret’ means translate
said in one language into another language, what is said in one language into another
ok? language. So this is usually spoken or oral.
Oral translation. So here it means translate
what is said in one language into another
language, ok?
In this episode, Carl explained four sentences containing the key word ‘inter-
pret’. When explaining the first one, Carl first translated it directly into Chinese, and
then he paraphrased the meaning of ‘interpret’ and the whole sentence by using the
English word ‘understand’. When dealing with the second sentence, he used only
English. To be specific, he first paraphrased ‘interpret’ by using the English word
‘explain’, and then he paraphrased the whole sentence. As for the third sentence,
Carl also used English first for paraphrasing the meaning of ‘interpret’ and the
whole sentence, but after that, he added the Chinese translation. However, for the
fourth sentence, he only focused on explaining the meaning of the word ‘interpret’,
rather than the whole sentence. He first mentioned the English word ‘translate’ and
used it to explain the word ‘interpret’. After that, he provided the Chinese trans-
lation of ‘interpret’, and finally he emphasized its English meaning again.
It is clear that Carl explained the four sentences in different ways. In the stim-
ulated recall, he explained his language use when dealing with the last sentence.
According to him, he had first used English for explanation and had then used
Chinese for supplementary support, when he felt the students could not understand
very well. Moreover, Carl pointed out that he had emphasized the English para-
phrase again at the end of his explanation, since his ultimate purpose was to make
the students understand and learn the word from its English definition.
In response to my question why he had directly used Chinese to translate some
sentences, such as the first one, he replied that when he wanted the students to
understand the meaning of an interesting or difficult sentence, the best method in his
opinion was to get the students to tell him what it meant in Chinese. However
sometimes, as he indicated, he translated the sentence directly into Chinese because
of time pressure or other reasons. Carl further explained that his objectives in
providing Chinese translation fell into two categories: firstly, for clarifying mean-
ing; secondly, for simply varying his teaching strategies.
Additionally, Carl described how he made decisions in terms of language use
when explaining these sentences. He said: ‘I would ponder whether they could
understand me if I used only English, whether I could clearly explain a sentence, a
sentence rather than a word by using English-only, and how long I would spend on
it, or whether I told them the Chinese meaning of the sentence straight away.
I would ponder over it and then make a choice. I would consider not only the time,
but also the difficulty of the sentence. [If it’s difficult,] I would directly use Chinese
to tell them, which would save me the trouble of explaining in English. Because
using English for explanation, if I used English for explanation every time I met a
difficult sentence, it would be very hard to teach this course’.
Although Carl intended to encourage the students to understand English through
English instead of Chinese, and on occasion tried to paraphrase an English sentence
again at the end of his explanation, he also noticed that sometimes he probably
omitted the final English paraphrase. In his opinion, whether to use English para-
phrase again largely depended on whether he was ‘in good form’ in class, that is,
whether he was in a good mood or felt tired and lazy. So the reason why he
sometimes did not use English for paraphrase was not that he could not do it, but
that he could not be bothered to do it. However, Carl admitted that he felt it was
more difficult to use English to convey meaning. From his perspective, the diffi-
culties mainly involved the longer time and greater effort required to explain dif-
ficult points. In addition, he thought the students could not always understand him
immediately if he used English. These were also the reasons he mentioned for using
Chinese for explanation.
In the following episode, Carl was again dealing with vocabulary exercises. He
focused on the word ‘crawl’ and compared it to another word ‘climb’.
Episode 2
T: ‘The baby crawled across the floor.’ T: ‘The baby crawled across the floor.’
What’s the meaning of ‘crawl’? How, how, What’s the meaning of ‘crawl’? How, how,
uh, to describe this, this action ‘crawl’? You uh, to describe this, this action ‘crawl’?
know you have before learned ‘climb’, yeah? You know you have before learned ‘climb’,
我们以前学过一个词叫 ‘climb’, 爬。 yeah? We have learned a word ‘climb’,
‘Crawl’ 也是爬。So, now listen carefully! I climb. ‘Crawl’ also means grabble. So, now
think you know how to climb. ‘Crawl’ means listen carefully! I think you know how to
move along on your hands and knees. ‘Move climb. ‘Crawl’ means move along on your
along’ 是往前走啊。然后怎么走法呢? ‘On hands and knees. ‘Move along’ means move
your hands and knees’, 是吧? 支撑在你的手 forward. And Then how to move? ‘On your
和膝盖上那样爬吧? With your body close hands and knees’, right? Move on your
to floor, move along. 首先你要往前走, 运 hands and knees, right? With your body
动。Move along/on. 然后你靠什么来支撑 close to floor, move along. At first, you need
呢? On your hands, on your knees. 然后是不 to move forward, move. Move along/on.
是离地面很远呢? 不是。 So with your Then what are you supported by? On your
body close to floor. hands, on your knees. Then are you far
away from the ground? No. So with your
body close to floor.
7.2 Results 195
As we can see, Carl used a mix of English and Chinese. When explaining the
word meanings, he first pointed out that the two words ‘climb’ and ‘crawl’ shared
the same translation ‘爬’ in Chinese. After that, he used English to paraphrase the
word ‘crawl’. Then he divided his English paraphrase into several small parts, and
used mainly Chinese to explain them one by one.
According to Carl, he had two objectives in using Chinese in this episode. One
was to facilitate the students’ understanding, and the other was just to make the
explanation more interesting. Regarding the second objective, he said: ‘I thought
the students could not feel the vividness of the English I used. But Chinese was
different. Chinese is the students’ mother tongue. The students would be interested
if I used a few vivid Chinese words. So the atmosphere would be different, and they
could understand more easily’.
Furthermore, he claimed using English-only to explain a word like ‘crawl’
would make the students feel very bored. In contrast, he said: ‘using Chinese to ask
them how far they were from the floor and whether they needed to put their hands
on the floor would make the explanation more visual, which I thought had
advantages in helping them to memorize’. Additionally, Carl emphasized again that
his main objective in using Chinese in this episode was to make his explanation
more visual and vivid, and then to create a pleasant atmosphere, instead of simply
explaining the meaning of this word.
b. Additional teaching
In the observed lessons, Carl sometimes offered information beyond the lesson
content. For example, in episode 3, he was discussing with the students various
kinds of eggs, while referring to a sentence in the handouts—‘American consumers
prefer white eggs; conversely, British buyers like brown eggs’.
Episode 3
T: 你们在市场上看过哪种颜色的鸡蛋啊? T: What colour eggs have you seen in the
看过什么颜色的鸡蛋啊? 红色, 粉红色, 对 market? What colour eggs have you seen?
不对? 我们市场上一般是三种蛋吧? 白的, Red, pink, right? There are normally three
叫白皮鸡蛋。或者叫红皮鸡蛋。还有一种 kinds of eggs in the market, right? White, we
是绿的。 call it white egg. Or we call it brown egg.
LL: 绿的啊? And another kind is green.
T: 鸡蛋也有绿的嘛! LL: Green?
LL: [In discussion] T: There are green eggs!
T: 你们有没有见过一种蛋叫宝贝蛋? LL: [In discussion]
LL: 没有。 T: Have you seen another kind of egg called
T: 以前专门有种宝贝蛋。那种宝贝蛋我 precious egg?
们叫营养蛋。你要想母鸡下什么蛋, 就要 LL: No.
看它吃什么, 懂了吗? 呃, 鸡。你们看过那 T: Previously there used to be a special kind
个‘闯关东’吗? of precious egg. And we call it nutrition egg.
LL: 没有。 If you want to know what kind of egg a hen
M: 看过 [in a very loud voice]. laid, you need to see what she eat,
(continued)
(continued)
T: 他们做的鸡为什么那么好吃呢? M: 因为 understand? Uh, chicken. Have you seen that
吃了那个调料。 ‘Chuang Guan Dong’?
T: 鸡的饲料里加调料了。 LL: No.
M: I have seen it [in a very loud voice].
T: Why was the chicken they cooked so
delicious?
M: Because the chicken ate the ingredient.
T: The feed for the chicken was added an
ingredient.
In adding what he considered relevant knowledge, Carl introduced details, such

as pink eggs, white eggs, green eggs, and precious eggs. Carl also explained why
there were many different kinds of egg. He delivered this part of his lesson entirely
in Chinese.
In the stimulated recall, Carl made clear that he did not necessarily advocate
using English to provide this kind of information. In his opinion, he could not get
the students involved in the discussion if using English, since they might not be
able to answer in English.
Moreover, Carl thought using Chinese to communicate could make the students
feel closer to him. Conversely, using English would make them feel a sense of
distance. In his opinion, if he used English to ask a question, the students would
think they were expected to speak English as well. However, if the students could
not provide an answer in English, they would very likely to lapse into silence,
which as Carl suggested, did not accord with his intention of creating a positive
atmosphere.
In addition, Carl thought that the most important point was whether the students
could understand the idea he was trying to explain rather than which language he
used for this discussion, and therefore, it was no use employing English if the
students could not grasp his point.
c. Information on exams
In episode 4, Carl was announcing information on exams in class. Here he used
Chinese almost entirely, except for the routine vocabulary ‘topic’.
Episode 4
T: 好, 呃, 这个口语考试发给大家之后呢, T: Ok, uh, after getting this [material for]
大家一定要认真准备。那么口语考试是17 oral examination, everybody must prepare
周, 18周。那么考试是在听力课上考。听 seriously for it. So, the oral exam will be in
力课会拿出两周的时间考。那么上次我们 the week 17 and week 18. And then the exam
也已经说了这次考试的内容。朗读课 will be held in the listening lessons. We will
文。会朗读就可以了。到时候我会叫你 spend 2 weeks’ listening lessons on the exam.
读出来。那么回答与课文有关的问题。 Then, last time we already talked about the
等下个礼拜拿到了你就知道是什么东西。 exam content. Reading the text. If you can
都很简单。第三个, topic。 10 个。啊, 应 read, that’s ok. At that time, I will ask you to
read aloud. Then, answer the questions
(continued)
7.2 Results 197
(continued)
该也不会很难。到时候你照着要求做就 related to the text. You will know what it is
行了。 after you get it next week. They are all quite
simple. The third one, topic. Ten [topics]. Uh,
they shouldn’t be very difficult. You just need
to follow the requirements.
Like Anne and Betty, Carl said he did not use English when referring to
information related to examinations. In his opinion, this kind of information was so
important that the students would panic if they could not understand. Moreover, he
further mentioned that on the basis of his experience, he could not make sure every
student understood if using English to talk about the arrangements for examina-
tions. In fact, according to him, not every student understood even if he used
Chinese. For instance, he provided an example: ‘I said three times, in Chinese, I did
not use English, in Chinese, which building and which room the class should take
examination in. After a while, somebody still asked me again: “Teacher, where we
should attend the exam?”’. Therefore, Carl said in this case, it would be a disaster if
he used English to tell them such important details. He went on to say that even
though the students would not blame him, he would feel guilty if they did not catch
the information.
d. Text analysis
In the next episode, Carl was analyzing the text structure according to the main idea
of each part given in the textbook. In addition, he was also trying to lead the
students to identify the sentences or paragraphs which were related to the main idea.
Episode 5
T: 第一部分。‘Description of the author’s T: The first part. ‘Description of the
virtual life.’ 描述了作者的虚拟生活。 So author’s virtual life.’ Description of the
that’s paragraph 2, paragraph 3. For example, author’s virtual life. So that’s paragraph 2,
in paragraph 2, the author says ‘for the last paragraph 3. For example, in paragraph 2,
three years’, right? And in paragraph 3, ‘if I the author says ‘for the last three years’,
desired, I could stay inside for weeks without right? And in paragraph 3, ‘if I desired,
wanting anything’. So these two paragraphs I could stay inside for weeks without
give a description of the authors’ virtual life. wanting anything’. So these two
Now the second one. ‘How she feels about it paragraphs give a description of the
after staying on the net?’ ‘Staying on the net’, authors’ virtual life. Now the second one.
上网。 That means her feeling. 那么第二部 ‘How she feels about it after staying on the
分描述的是她在网上呆了一段时间之后她 net?’ ‘Staying on the net’, surfing online.
的感觉。 Of course this section starts from That means her feeling. So the second part
paragraph 4, then until paragraph 10. 那么她 describes her feeling after staying on the net
有很多感觉, 是吧? 比如说, 第四段, for a while. Of course this section starts
sentence 2. 啊, 我们一块儿来找找看。‘I from paragraph 4, then until paragraph
start to feel as though I’ve become one with 10. So she has many feelings, right? For
my machines, taking data in, spitting them example, paragraph 4, sentence 2. Uh, we
back out, just another link in the Net.’ can find it together. ‘I start to feel as though
I’ve become one with my machines, taking
data in, spitting them back out, just
another link in the Net.’
As shown above, Carl interwove some Chinese in this part of the lesson. In
addition to using Chinese to translate the main idea of each part, he used it to point
out the position of relevant paragraphs and sentences. In the stimulated recall, he said
his main reason was that the students needed longer to respond to his English
instructions. He specifically explained his rationale for saying ‘paragraph four’ in
Chinese: ‘If, for example, uh, for example, I said ‘the second sentence of paragraph
4’ [in English], the students needed to spend some time in responding to it. At first,
they needed to think which paragraph was paragraph 4, right? And then which
sentence was the second sentence’. In other words, Carl thought the students needed
to translate the English into Chinese first in their mind and then started to look for it,
so he used Chinese to point out the exact place of the sentence in this episode, since
his intention was to lead the students to locate the information quickly.
Moreover, he mentioned his previous experience when dealing with students at
lower proficiency level (grade C): ‘When teaching students at grade C, I hated to
use English. It was true. It was true. They behaved like this. For example, if I said
“the last line of this paragraph” [in English], [they would ask me]: “teacher, where
is it?”. But if I said “the last sentence of this paragraph” in Chinese, they could find
it right away. Since they needed to understand the English and then translate it into
Chinese and then start to look for it, it might be a very long process. If I said to
them in Chinese “the last sentence of this paragraph”, they could start to look for it
right away. They did not need the understanding and analyzing process’.
These comments seem to indicate that for Carl, ‘achieving the lesson’ is more
important than teaching and learning. Additionally, although Carl thought using
Chinese could save time in class, he also admitted that, in a sense, using Chinese in
this way was not good since the students should understand the English.
Nevertheless, from his perspective, the problem was that sometimes he did not have
enough time to wait for the students’ response, in order to keep the lesson moving
forward.
a. Vocabulary
In the next episode, Carl discussed two words before moving on to a dialogue, and
he used Chinese to remind the students of the two words—‘auction’ and ‘bid’ and
provide their meanings.
Episode 6
T: Now the following one is ‘online T: Now the following one is ‘online
shopping’. Uh, this dialogue is quite long, shopping’. Uh, this dialogue is quite long,
quite long. Uh, remember this word, quite long. Uh, remember this word,
‘auction’. 大家记得我们曾经见过这个词 ‘auction’. Does everybody remember we
吧? 网上的的这种交易, 买卖, 是吧? have seen this word before? Transaction,
‘Auction’, ok. ‘Bid’, 出价, 还记得吧? Ok. deal online, right? ‘Auction’, ok. ‘Bid’, offer
a price. Do you still remember? Ok.
7.2 Results 199
According to Carl, the students had seen these two words before, since they had
been shown a video about online shopping. He indicated his aim in this episode was
just to remind the students of the two words they had seen.
In the stimulated recall, he was asked whether he usually used Chinese for such a
purpose and he replied: ‘Yes, I usually used Chinese to give them this kind of
reminder. I did not use English, because I thought using Chinese probably, as I said,
could give them more [he forgot what to say]. What did I say just now? That is, [the
students were] more sensitive [to Chinese]’.
Unlike the other three teachers, Carl focused only on listening instead of speaking
in the observed listening-and-speaking lessons. Thus, explaining listening exercises
was a more significant part of his teaching in this course. The following episode is
an example of how he did this, and it occurred when he was explaining the answer
to the question—‘What does the man say about ebay?’.
Episode 7
T: For example, ebay, right? Ebay, you know, T: For example, ebay, right? Ebay, you
is an auction site first. 首先它是一个拍卖场 know, is an auction site first. At first, it is an
所, 是吧? Auction site. And people will put auction site, right? Auction site. And people
stuff up for sale. ‘Stuff’, you know, here will put stuff up for sale. ‘Stuff’, you know,
means things, yeah? Uh, people will put up here means things, yeah? Uh, people will
stuff for sale, or people will put stuff up for put up stuff for sale, or people will put stuff
sale. And other people will log in. Yeah? At up for sale. And other people will log in.
first, you should log in and then you will bid Yeah? At first, you should log in and then
for it. You will bid for it. 就是出价。 And you will bid for it. You will bid for it. That
then the highest bid, yeah, gets the item by is, offer a price. And then the highest bid,
‘the, by a certain deadline. 那么你出价出的 yeah, gets the item by the, by a certain
最高, 那么就能买到这个商品。当然这个 deadline. Well then, if you offer the highest
它也是有期限的, 是吧? By a certain bid, you will get the goods. Of course there is
deadline. a time limit on it, right? By a certain
deadline.
Carl first explained the concept of ‘ebay’ in English and then translated the
explanation into Chinese. Then, when it came to dealing with the word ‘bid’, he
directly offered its Chinese translation. After that, he further explained how to win a
bid. In doing so, he again employed English first and then translated it into Chinese.
In the stimulated recall, he explained his rationale for this: ‘Many Chinese
students do not know the concept of online shopping. Thus sometimes they could
not understand if I did not use Chinese. For instance, many students do not even
know ebay. This situation is different from foreign countries, since foreigners are
very familiar with online shopping. Many people do not know, especially those
from the countryside. They have not touched a computer before, so they do not
know what online shopping is. They do not know it at all. Actually many students
have not heard of ebay before. The reason why I translated it into Chinese was that I
wanted to tell them what ebay was. Many students really do not know. If I used
English to tell them, I’m not saying they could not understand the English, but they
might still not know what it was. This had something to do with background
knowledge’.
Moreover, as to the word ‘bid’, Carl explained that his aim in using its Chinese
translation was to remind the students of it since they had learned it before. He
thought that the students could not provide its corresponding Chinese equivalent,
even if they were offered its English definition. For technical terms, Carl argued that
it was better to tell the students their Chinese translations straight away.
Now we have another example illustrating Carl’s language use when dealing
with listening activities.
Episode 8
T: Have you noticed this phrase, ‘he is in T: Have you noticed this phrase, ‘he is in
disguise’. Ok, 就是他化了妆的。 disguise’. Ok, that is, he wears make-up.
MV: At the party, he meets Juliet. He is in MV: At the party, he meets Juliet. He is in
love at first sight. And they spend that night love at first sight. And they spend that
dancing and talking. night dancing and talking.
T: ‘He is in love at first sight.’ 就是一见钟情 T: ‘He is in love at first sight.’ That is, love
啊。 at the first look.
We see that, while playing the tape, Carl stopped to translate the two expressions
‘in disguise’ and ‘fall in love at first sight’ into Chinese. In the stimulated recall, he
explained that, in his view, the students could not understand these expressions after
listening to the tape. Furthermore, regarding the phrase ‘fall in love at first sight’,
Carl gave another reason for translating it: the students might be interested to know
this kind of popular expression. Additionally, he said using English to explain the
phrase ‘in disguise’ involved more effort than using Chinese, although it would also
work.
In the reading-and-speaking lessons, on the basis of Carl’s comments on episodes

1–8, his main stated reasons for using Chinese can be listed as follows: he was
under time pressure; he was not ‘in good form’ in class; he felt the students could
not understand; explaining a difficult sentence in Chinese could save him the
trouble of explaining in English; it was hard to involve the students in the dis-
cussion if he used English. Carl reported that when choosing the language for
explaining a certain sentence, he took the following factors into consideration: the
difficulty of the sentence; time; the students’ abilities to understand it; and his own
ability to explain it in English.
In addition to the above, he expressed a number of beliefs about using Chinese
in this particular course, for instance, using Chinese could facilitate the students’
understanding; using Chinese could help the students to memorize; using Chinese
could make his explanation more interesting and vivid; using Chinese could help
7.2 Results 201
create a pleasant atmosphere; important information must be announced in Chinese,

in order to make every student understand; using Chinese to communicate could
make the students feel closer to him; the students took more time in responding to
English instructions.
In the listening-and-speaking lessons, he also used Chinese when he felt the
students had difficulty in understanding. Furthermore, he believed that the students
were not able to know the exact meaning of an English technical term even if they
were offered its English definitions and that the students might be interested to
know the Chinese translation of a popular English expression. He also thought that
the students were more sensitive to Chinese and that Chinese should be used if the
students lacked background knowledge. Moreover, he used Chinese to explain a
phrase, sometimes because it was easier for him. Therefore, it seems that the
students’ English abilities, the students’ interest, their background knowledge and
his state of mind had an impact on his language choices in this course.
7.2.4 David
a. Directions
David often gave the students directions for activities in class. In our first episode,
he was giving directions to the students for an English vocabulary activity—reading
the vocabulary out loud.
Episode 1
T: I suppose that you are very familiar with T: I suppose that you are very familiar
these new words. So later I will ask some of with these new words. So later I will ask
you to lead the reading of these new words some of you to lead the reading of these
and expressions, ok? 我叫几个人起来带读 new words and expressions, ok? I will ask
一下啊。So, you know, yes, because, 刚刚 several students to lead the reading. So, you
没有听到你们大声的朗读, 说明你们一定 know, yes, because, just now I didn’t hear
是完全掌握了这些单词, 对不对? So, uh, 叫 you read aloud, you must completely master
起来的, every, everyone five words and these words, right? So, uh, nominated,
expressions, ok? Five words. 每个人读五个 every, everyone five words and
啊。看看你们有没有课后去查。Ok, so expressions, ok? Five words. Everybody
first, first lucky dog. How about Wu Quan? read five words. I’d like to see whether you
Wu Quan here? Yes? Read loudly, be a man, looked them up after class. Ok, so first, first
ok? First five words. Read loudly and lucky dog. How about Wu Quan? Wu
everybody read after him, ok? Quan here? Yes? Read loudly, be a man,
ok? First five words. Read loudly and
everybody read after him, ok?
At the beginning, David said he normally taught new words when it came to
every new unit, but that he did not spend much time explaining the detailed
meaning of each word, since the students had already been required to preview the
words and looked up their meanings in the dictionary. Therefore, in his opinion, the
main task in class was to get the students familiar with the pronunciation of the
words and to enhance their mastery of the words by looking up and memorizing
word meanings while reading.
Generally speaking, David used a mix of English and Chinese in this episode,
and Chinese mainly for repetition after giving directions in English to the students
for the read-aloud activity. In the stimulated recall, David explained his reason for
using Chinese for repetition: ‘They are just first-year university students. If I used
only English to deal with it, it would be hard to carry out; it would be hard to realize
[this activity]. Because they had just entered the university from high school, I
thought it would better to use English as the main medium and use Chinese for
assistance. I worried that they couldn’t understand what I meant, considering they
were just first-year students and used to listening to the teacher speaking Chinese
[in English classes] in high school. They must be unaccustomed to listening to
English suddenly, so I thought using Chinese for repetition could help them
understand better’.
b. Lead-in
According to David, a characteristic of his teaching in reading-and-writing lessons
was to lead a class discussion of the topic of a new unit before starting to teach it.
He thought he should lead the students to think and discuss a topic more often,
since learning English was not only a question of analyzing sentences, text and
some specific grammar points. The next episode was from one of the observed
lessons when David was leading the students to think about and discuss the topic of
a new unit—‘American dream’.
Episode 2
T: Have you ever read the autobiographies of T: Have you ever read the autobiographies
Franklin? 富兰克林的自传啊。Or have you of Franklin? Franklin’s autobiographies. Or
ever read, you know, the autobiographies of have you ever read, you know, the
any American? 某一个啊, 美国人。 autobiographies of any American? A
M: 姚明。 certain, uh, American.
T: 姚明? M: Yao Ming.
M: 姚明的美国梦。 T: Yao Ming?
T: 姚明是美国人吗? M: Yao Ming’s American Dream.
M: 他有他有美国梦嘛! T: Is Yao Ming an American?
T: 啊, 美国梦, 美国梦。可以说啊。姚明可 M: He has, he has American dream.
以说正在做一个美国梦。已经成功了啊。 T: Uh, American dream, American dream.
Successful, yes? American dream, yes? So You can say that. You can say Yao Ming is
how do you define? My question is: How do having an American dream. And he is
you define American dream? 美国梦, 怎样定 already successful. Successful, yes?
义? Define? 跑到美国去做梦就叫美国梦? American dream, yes? So how do you
How do you define American dream, you define? My question is: How do you define
know? 怎样定义呢? 相信你也看过很多 American dream? How do you define
famous people and famous Americans, 一些 American dream? Define? Going to America
(continued)
7.2 Results 203
(continued)
伟大的美国人的这些自传, 对不对? to have a dream is called American dream?
Autobiographies. 或者是电影, 或者是了解 How do you define American dream, you
他的一些事迹, you know? 可以说这些人都 know? How do you define it? I believe you
是为了实现自己的美国梦而来到美国的, have also seen lots of famous people and
you know? 然后通过自己的努力, 对不对? famous Americans, some autobiographies of
Hardworking. 最终实现了自己的梦想。So some great Americans, right?
how do you define American dream? Autobiographies. Or movies, or their deeds,
you know? We can say these people went to
America for the purpose of realizing their
dreams, you know? Then they work hard,
right? Hardworking. Finally they realized
their own dreams. So how do you define
American dream?
At the beginning of this episode, David employed English to ask the students
two questions related to the topic—‘American dream’—and after each question, he
used Chinese to repeat them partially. Then after a student voluntarily responded to
his question in Chinese, David also used Chinese-only to interact with him. He
reverted to English to ask more direct questions about the definition of ‘American
dream’, again switching to Chinese to repeat his questions either fully or partially.
Finally, when no students in class responded to his questions, David spoke mostly
in Chinese to give prompts, but occasionally used English as well.
In the stimulated recall, when David was asked why he used Chinese-only to
interact with the student, he replied: ‘It was not my intention to use Chinese to
respond [to him]. It was probably unconscious’. However, he also said: ‘Probably
because he used Chinese, I thought he maybe had difficulty in expressing the
concept. Although he probably had the concept—“Yao Ming”—in his mind, it was
hard for him to use English to express how “Yao Ming” pursued and realized his
American dream’. David thought that, in this case, using Chinese would enable him
to communicate with the student more conveniently, whereas using English would
probably cause misunderstandings.
Moreover, as for his use of Chinese as the main medium to give prompts about
‘American dream’, David commented: ‘This was because I took the students’
understanding [abilities] into consideration. First-year students. So in my class, you
could see I used a combination of English and Chinese in lots of places’. In short,
David’s general objective in using Chinese was to facilitate the students’ under-
standing of what he said.
c. Chat
The next example occurred at the beginning of one of the observed lessons when
David was chatting with the students.
Episode 3
T: It’s a good day, isn’t it? Fine day. I wish T: It’s a good day, isn’t it? Fine day. I wish
that we can go out have classes. But that’s that we can go out have classes. But that’s
impossible, yeah? So I wish that there was, impossible, yeah? So I wish that there was,
there were an earthquake. Earthquake? there were an earthquake. Earthquake?
LL: 地震。 LL: Earthquake.
T: Do you still remember the earthquake in T: Do you still remember the earthquake in
2005? Yes, 2006? 好想再发一次地震啊, 对 2005? Yes, 2006? I’d like to have another
不对? earthquake, right?
LL: 啊! LL: Ah! [Surprise].
T: 我们都可以出去晒太阳。还记得是零几 T: All of us can go out and sit in the sun. Do
年? 零六年吧? ……11 月 26 号啊, 好象 you remember which year it was? The year of
是。对, 我记得还是星期六, 当时我还在上 06? …26th November, I guess it was. Right, I
课。就在这栋楼。在那个语音室里面。然 remember it was a Saturday, and I was giving
后就感觉楼上有很多人集体在跺脚, 有人 a lesson at that time. It was just in this
在跺脚, 突然很快的一阵。没反应过来, 我 building. In that language lab. Then I felt lots
就继续上课。结果这些学生说收到短信说 of people upstairs stamped the ground in
地震, 地震。然后我还不信。我还以为他 unison. There were people stamping on the
们想唬我啊。突然老妈打个电话过来说: ground, suddenly and quickly. I went on
‘地震啊, 你们那边有没有感觉啊?’ 我说: giving the lesson before I knew what
‘地震啊? 不会吧?’ 第一个冲出去。 happened. As a result, those students told me
LL: [Laughing] they got a message saying it was an
earthquake, earthquake. Then I still did not
believe them. I still thought they probably
were trying to fool me. Suddenly my mom
called me and said: ‘It was an earthquake.
Did you feel anything there?’ I said:
‘Earthquake? Are you kidding me?’ And then
I rushed out first.
LL: [Laughing]
As we can see, David started to chat with the students in English, and then he
switched almost completely into Chinese, to tell the students a story about an
earthquake happening around two years before, which had nothing to do with the
lesson content. In the stimulated recall, David explained his rationale for telling this
story: ‘The last lesson was just over. When they came back to class again, the
students were distracted and were paying attention elsewhere. So I told them this
story in the hope of making them concentrate again, so that I could continue my
teaching. Meanwhile, this was also an interaction between the students and me, so
that they could put focus on me again’. Moreover, David added: ‘I used to chat with
them deliberately almost every time before class, because I thought it would be
abrupt to begin the lesson straight away. And some students could not concentrate
very quickly’.
In addition, David said his original intention in telling this story was to make the
students feel amused and relaxed. However, from his perspective, it was very hard
to achieve this kind of effect in English: ‘If using English, for one thing I probably
could not express in a way that the students could understand, for another they
might be unaccustomed to English story-telling’.
7.2 Results 205
The next example is a further episode in which David was trying to chat with the
students at the beginning of a lesson. However, the difference here is that David
mostly spoke English and used Chinese-only occasionally, for clarification.
Episode 4
T: So are you getting used to your new T: So are you getting used to your new
college life? A new identity. ‘New identity’? college life? A new identity. ‘New
新的身份, 对不对? So, you know, you have identity’? New identity, right? So, you
been college students, and yes, for how many know, you have been college students, and
weeks? Four weeks? Am I right? So, you yes, for how many weeks? Four weeks?
know, I mean have you been, you know, Am I right? So, you know, I mean have
sticking to your, you know, first year’s plan you been, you know, sticking to your, you
or freshman freshman’s plan. ‘Plan’? know, first year’s plan or freshman
M: 计划。 freshman’s plan. ‘Plan’?
T: 计划, yes. Since, you know, during the M: Plan.
first week I have asked you, everyone of you T: Plan, yes. Since, you know, during the
to write up one plan for the first year in first week I have asked you, everyone of
college, yeah? So have you been sticking to you to write up one plan for the first year
this plan? ‘Stick to’? in college, yeah? So have you been sticking
LL: 坚持。 to this plan? ‘Stick to’?
T: Yes. Have you been reading? Reading LL: Insist.
something? T: Yes. Have you been reading? Reading
something?
In this episode, when David mentioned some English words, such as ‘new
identity’, ‘plan’ and ‘stick to’, he used a rising tone to repeat them again in English
and then provided their Chinese translations if the students made no response.
In the stimulated recall, David first explained his main reason for using repetition
and a rising tone: ‘I just wanted to check whether they had understood the meaning
of the point’. For example, he used a rising tone to repeat the word ‘identity’, since
it was a brand new word for these students.
However, David believed the students knew the word ‘plan’, since they had been
asked to write a plan in the first class of the semester. He said that his intention in
using a rising tone to repeat the word ‘plan’ was to stimulate the students to recall
their personal plans designed in the first class.
When asked what kind of reaction he expected from the students by using
English in a rising tone, David replied: ‘I hoped that they could tell me the Chinese
meanings [of those words]’. Therefore, as shown above, he translated the phrase
‘new identity’ into Chinese, since the students did not provide its meaning, as
expected.
d. Text analysis
The next episode occurred when David was analyzing the text of unit 4, which was
about the American dream of a person named Tony from a farm in Italy. In the
episode, David was focusing on analyzing Tony’s broken English.
Episode 5
T: 夏去秋来, 秋天到了。发生什么事情呢? T: Summer passed into fall. Fall is coming.
Snow pretty soon, yeah? 你可以注意一下这 What happened? ‘Snow pretty soon’, yeah?
个Tony 的 broken English, 它是不符合语法 You can pay attention to this Tony’s broken
规则的。‘Snow pretty soon’? 象我们中文 English, which is not a grammatical
样的, 雪, 快要下雪了, 对不对? Snow pretty sentence. ‘Snow pretty soon’? Like our
soon? Tony told me one evening when winter Chinese language, snow, it will snow soon,
come. 这句话有什么错误啊? 看你们的语 right? ‘Snow pretty soon’? ‘Tony told me
法有没有过关啊。When winter, 什么啊? one evening when winter come.’ What’s
Comes, comes. 第三人称单数, 对不对? wrong with this sentence? Let’s check
whether your grammar knowledge is
adequate. ‘When winter’, what? Comes,
comes. The single form of the third person,
right?
In this extract, David used Chinese almost exclusively, apart from some English
read directly from the text. Regarding his language use in this episode, David said:
‘You might find lots of mixed Chinese-English explanations. Normally I explained
the text like this. The traditional way I used to explain a text was just reading
through a sentence and then giving its Chinese meaning’. David believed that the
students could understand this kind of explanation more easily.
Moreover, as David used Chinese to analyze grammar in this episode—for
example, he mentioned ‘grammar rules’ and ‘the single form of the third person’ in
Chinese—in the stimulated recall, he was asked whether he preferred to use
Chinese to explain grammar points. In response, he not only declared his preference
for using Chinese to deal with grammar, but also explained his reasoning: ‘Some
students probably had difficulty in understanding the grammar points the teacher
talked about [in English], because all grammar explanations had been made to them
in Chinese before [in high school] and they did not know how to use English to
express the specific terms of some grammar points’. Additionally, David claimed
that using Chinese for grammar explanation was clearer, and more time-efficient.
a. Checking students’ homework

In the following example, David was trying to check whether the students had done
their homework after class—reciting the first two paragraphs of the text. According
to David, practicing reciting was a very important part of English learning, since the
Episode 6
T: Last week I have asked some students, you T: Last week I have asked some students,
know, to recite the first two paragraphs of you know, to recite the first two
unit 3, you know. So I think that you are paragraphs of unit 3, you know. So I think
(continued)
7.2 Results 207
(continued)
ready. So can you come here and yes, try to that you are ready. So can you come here
recite the first two paragraph, first two and yes, try to recite the first two
paragraphs of unit 3, text A of unit 3, yes, paragraph, first two paragraphs of unit 3,
‘public attitude toward science’? So who text A of unit 3, yes, public attitude toward
would like to be the first one? 上次因为, 呃, science? So who would like to be the first
没有人, 可能没有人准备好啊, 然后我有给 one? Last time because, uh, there is nobody,
你们一周的时间来背诵这个第三单元text probably nobody prepared well for it, then I
A 的头两段。So take off your headphones! gave you another week to recite the first two
把耳机摘下来。Is anyone ready? 准备好了 paragraphs of the text A of unit 3. So take
就上来试一试。Anyone? It doesn’t matter. off your headphones! Take off your
It doesn’t matter. headphones! Is anyone ready? Just come to
have a try if you are ready. Anyone? It
doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter.
students could develop a feel for words and oral fluency in the language during the
process of reciting.
As this episode shows, David first made use of English to ask the students to
recite the text, but none of the students responded. Then he used mainly Chinese to
explain that they were expected to be well-prepared for this assignment, and also
encourage them to have a try, for instance, ‘准备好了就上来试一试’.
From David’s perspective, the reason why the students did not react to his question
in English was probably that they were very nervous, rather than because they could
not understand the instruction. Actually David said he confirmed his guess by talking
to the students after class. In addition, he explained his rationale for using Chinese to
encourage the students: ‘…very intimately. Using Chinese was just like chatting with
friends. Using English probably could not achieve this effect, since they were nervous
already and would become more nervous if I used English for expression’.
When doing listening exercises, David normally went through the questions one by
one. For each question, he focused on explaining both the question itself and also
the key information relevant to it. The next example illustrates David’s explanation
of the answer to a question in listening exercises.
Episode 7
T: Next one. ‘How does the speaker feel T: Next one. ‘How does the speaker feel
about his ability in his studies?’ Does he feel about his ability in his studies?’ Does he
so good, so confident? Yes? How does he feel feel so good, so confident? Yes? How does
about his ability in his studies? 学习的这个 he feel about his ability in his studies? The
能力, 他自己自我感觉是怎么样的? 什么样 ability in studies. How does he feel about it?
的感觉? Have you got that? No? You find What kind of feelings? What kind of feelings?
it’s very difficult? Yap? 很难吗? Maybe, you Have you got that? No? You find it’s very
know, because this kind of questions, yes, difficult? Yap? Very difficult? Maybe, you
require you to listen for details. 要你来听这 know, because this kind of questions, yes,
个细节。 So if you didn’t pay attention to require you to listen for details. Require you
details, you can’t answer it. 你是答不出来 to listen to details. So if you didn’t pay
的。 Ok, maybe I will, yes, try to ask you to attention to details, you can’t answer it.
(continued)
(continued)
listen again. This time try to get the answers, You can’t answer it. Ok, maybe I will, yes,
ok? So all the questions. 我们再来听一遍 try to ask you to listen again. This time try
啊。 to get the answers, ok? So all the questions.
We listen to them again.
We can see that after listening to the passage, David first repeated the English
question in the exercise, but the students did not respond. Then he used English to
ask the question another way, to give the students a prompt, and after that he
repeated the question again, but the students still gave no response. He then
translated the question into Chinese, but the students still kept silent. So finally
David started to ask the students about their feelings towards this question and
explain the characteristics of the question. To do this, he also used English first and
then used Chinese for repetition.
In the stimulated recall, asked why he used Chinese to repeat the question about
the listening passage, David said: ‘Because I got silent reactions from the students
when asking for their feedback, I thought they probably did not understand. They
did not respond could demonstrate that they did not understand. So I thought
probably, for one thing, they did not understand the listening passage; for another,
they did not understand the question itself. Thus I repeated the question [in
Chinese] in order to let them try to recall the similar information they had listened
to’.
As we have seen, one regular feature of David’s language use was that he always
spoke English first and then repeated in Chinese. His use of English was for routine
communication in class, while using Chinese for repetition belonged to ‘private’
communication between the students and him, in which they put aside the textbook
for a moment. Moreover, David said he was probably not conscious of his use of
Chinese in those moments, since he just focused on engaging the students to
respond.
c. Directions
In the following example, David was giving directions for doing the speaking task—
retelling a story. During this process, he interwove Chinese into his English.
Episode 8
T: So next I will ask some of you to retell a T: So next I will ask some of you to retell a
story which you are familiar with. 你所熟悉 story which you are familiar with. A story
的一个故事。故事, you know? And you you are familiar with. Story, you know? And
retell it in English, in English, ok? In English. you retell it in English, in English, ok? In
And, yes, then I will ask another student to, English. And, yes, then I will ask another
yes, guess, to guess what is the story you are student to, yes, guess, to guess what is the
telling? What is the story you are telling, ok? story you are telling? What is the story you
So of course you have to involve your are telling, ok? So of course you have to
retelling with some details. 你要在你的这个 involve your retelling with some details. In
复述当中添加一些, you know, details, 细 your story, you need to add some, you know,
(continued)
7.2 Results 209
(continued)
节, 对不对? For example, some, yes, stuff, details, details, right? For example, some,
some stuff which everybody is very familiar yes, stuff, some stuff which everybody is
with. 每个人都比较熟悉的, 某件东西, 对 very familiar with. Some stuff which
不对? 某件事情。这样别人才能猜的到。 everybody is very familiar with, right?
所以很简单。只要你能够基本上能够比较 Something. In this way, other people can get
完整的复述下来, 别人肯定能够猜得到你 it. So it’s quite simple. If you can basically
在讲什么, 对不对? 或者是如果你遇到比较 retell a fairly complete story, other people
难的情节啊, 或者如果你遇到比较难的情 can definitely get what you are talking about,
节啊, 或者难的, difficult points, you can try right? Or if you meet a complicated plot, or
to express in some simple sentences. 用一些 difficult, difficult points, you can try to
简单的句子来复述啊, 对不对? 你可能你知 express in some simple sentences. Use some
道这个意思, 但是你讲的比较难。比如说 simple sentences to retell story, right?
难的单词, 别人可能不知道, 你也要想得到 Perhaps you know the meaning, but you
啊。你可以用一些简单的词来, you know, speak it in a quite difficult way. For example,
express, express it, 表达, 表达它。同时呢, some difficult words other people may not
也是一样的, 你自己在讲英语的同时, you know. You should think about them. You can
know, 如果你觉得某一个点, 如果你觉得很 use some simple words, you know, express,
难表达, 你可以试着用一些比较 simple, express it, express, express it. At the same
simpler, 更简单的一些sentences to express time, also, when you speak English, you
yourself. 不一定就是你非要想出那个单词 know, if you feel a certain point, if you feel
那个词组来, 对不对? it’s difficult to express it, you can try using
some quite simple, simpler, some simpler
sentences to express yourself. You do not
necessarily think of that word or that phrase,
right?
In that episode, David used Chinese not only to repeat but also to elaborate on
almost every important point he made in English. For example, he required the
students to repeat a familiar story, add details, and try to use simple English. In the
stimulated recall, David claimed that using Chinese would make his directions for
this speaking task more detailed, so that the students could understand exactly how
to do the task.
d. Speaking activities
In the same lesson, after David explained what he wanted, several nominated
students started to retell their story. The following example is an episode when one
of the students was retelling her story.
Episode 9
F: Rabbit always make jokes on tortoise. F: Rabbit always make jokes on tortoise.
T: Yes. Tortoise, tortoise. T: Yes. Tortoise, tortoise.
F: At last, tortoise is very angry. So a F: At last, tortoise is very angry. So a
compete between tortoise and rabbit begins. compete between tortoise and rabbit
At first, the rabbit runs very quickly. And, begins. At first, the rabbit runs very
runs very quickly. So rabbit, the rabbit can’t quickly. And, runs very quickly. So rabbit,
see the tortoise after a few minutes. It seems it the rabbit can’t see the tortoise after a few
seems the tortoise is so slow. So he have a minutes. It seems it seems the tortoise is so
(continued)
(continued)
rest on the way. Time goes by, after the rabbit slow. So he have a rest on the way. Time
wake up. He found he found the tortoise has goes by, after the rabbit wake up. He
stand the, the the the found he found the tortoise has stand the,
T: Stand the the the the
F: Stand the ‘终点线’怎么说? T: Stand the
T: Yes. Fi-, final, final line. F: Stand the How to say ‘the finishing line’?
F: Final line. T: Yes. Fi-, final, final line.
F: Final line.
Before listening to this episode, David explained he tried to encourage the

students to use English-only to do this task. When asked about his attitude towards
the students’ use of Chinese in speaking tasks, David answered: ‘I tried to require
them to use English. Sometimes I emphasized they should try to use English, but
sometimes I accepted [their use of Chinese]. Because I thought they must have
some difficulties, must have some difficulties, so they spoke Chinese’.
In this episode, the student did not know how to express ‘final line’ in English,
so she asked David in Chinese: ‘终点线怎么说?’. David seemed to accept her
question and then provided an English expression—‘final line’. Discussing this
point in the stimulated recall, David said: ‘Of course I should accept the student’s
use of Chinese at that time. Because she couldn’t express herself, I would help her
express some difficult words and finish her retelling successfully’. Surprisingly,
however, he further said: ‘I did not [psychologically] accept it. But if she couldn’t
express herself, I had no choice but to try to help her…my requirement was using
English for retelling. But the real situation was always like this’.
David’s comments on his language use in the observed reading-and-writing lessons

clearly indicate that his language choices were affected by the students’ language
use, their difficulties in understanding English, their adaptability to use English as
the classroom language and their background knowledge. His own English ability
was another factor, since he felt that in some cases he could not explain clearly in
English.
David’s beliefs regarding L1 and L2 use also influenced his language use in this
course. For instance, he believed employing Chinese had the following advantages:
it could allow the students to communicate with him more easily; it could make the
students feel amused and relaxed; it could facilitate the students’ understanding; and
using Chinese for grammar explanation was clearer and more time-efficient.
In the listening-and-speaking lessons, the students’ English abilities also had an
impact on David’s language use, since he mentioned he used Chinese when he felt
the students could not understand. Moreover, his language use was affected by his
specific beliefs about using Chinese: it made his directions more detailed; it made
7.2 Results 211
communication with the students more intimate; and it could help the students to
relax when they were nervous. Perhaps the most interesting point influencing him
was that David saw the functions of English and Chinese as completely different
when used for communicating with the students: while English was the normal
language for teaching and learning activities in class, Chinese could be used for
‘private’ communications, in which they could either exchange feelings about the
teaching content or even go beyond the teaching materials and teaching itself. Thus
in the episodes we have analyzed in this section, it can be seen that David used
Chinese when asking about the students’ feelings towards the listening task.
7.3 Conclusion
This chapter has mainly explored the four teachers’ own perceptions of and reasons
for their language use in the several typical episodes from their observed lessons.
Table 7.1 summarizes the areas in which they used the L1, their reasons for L1 use
as well as the relevant influencing factors that emerged in their comments in the two
types of courses: the reading-and-writing (RW) course and the
listening-and-speaking (LS) course.
We can see that all these teachers were affected by the students’ English abilities.
They also based their use of Chinese on their beliefs about the positive role of the
L1 in L2 teaching and learning, although each of them might believe using the L1
had different advantages. For instance, Anne, Betty and Carl believed that using
Chinese could ensure all the students understood, and thus important information
must be delivered in Chinese; Carl and David thought that using Chinese could help
reduce social distance between them and their students. Anne linked her language
use to her teaching aims. Anne, Carl and David acknowledged that their insufficient
abilities to use English for a particular purpose also contributed to their use of
Chinese. Betty and Carl said they normally used Chinese when dealing with dif-
ficult sentences and when they were under time pressure. Carl’s language use also
depended on his own state of mind, that is, he chose to use Chinese when feeling
tired or lazy. For Betty and David, an important factor affecting their language
choices was the students’ perceived mood in a particular lesson, that is, whether
they were distracted or nervous. Carl and David appeared to be especially con-
cerned about other student variables, such as their language use, their background
knowledge, their interest and their adaptability to shifts in the medium of instruc-
tion. Some major factors identified here will be explored further in the conclusion
chapter.
The teachers’ own perceptions of their language use were not always consistent
with my perceptions. For example, one of the episodes in this chapter showed that
Anne also used English to make jokes in class, but she claimed that she used only
Chinese for this purpose. Another example showed that Betty accepted her students’
use of Chinese, although she claimed that she did not allow them to use the L1.
Table 7.1 Summary of the four teachers’ L1-related behaviours and reasons for L1 use
Areas of L1 use Anne RW course • Vocabulary review
• Text analysis
• Additional teaching
• Joke
LS course • Checking students’ homework
• Listening exercises
• Information on exams
• Fixed expressions
• Translation
Betty RW course • Vocabulary
• Text analysis
• Communication with students
LS course • Information on exams
• Vocabulary
Carl RW course • Vocabulary exercises
• Additional teaching
• Information on exams
• Text analysis
LS course • Vocabulary
David RW course • Directions
• Lead-in
• Chat
• Text analysis
LS course • Checking students’ homework
• Directions
• Speaking activities
Reasons for L1 use Anne RW course • The students’ vocabulary was limited.
• Her aim was not to cultivate the students’ abilities in listening and
speaking
LS course • The students had difficulty in understanding.
• She lacked the ability to make jokes in English.
• Chinese was more vivid and impressive.
• Using Chinese could help every student understand important
information.
• Chinese was close to the students’ real life and thus using it for
assistance could highlight the practicality of the target language.
• Only when she spoke Chinese were the students able to feel her
emotions
• Good translation could enable them to achieve an in-depth
understanding
Betty RW course • She wanted to catch the students’ attention.
• She worried that the students could not understand the target
vocabulary
• Using Chinese could enhance the students’ understanding of
difficult sentences.
• The time was very limited
LS course • A communication beyond language teaching should be conducted
in Chinese
• Chinese was used to strengthen the students’ memory
• On the basis of her teaching experience, she felt that the students
were probably not able to understand
(continued)
7.3 Conclusion 213

Carl RW course • He felt the students could not understand
• There was a time limit
• He felt it was more difficult to use English to convey meaning
• Using Chinese to explain a difficult sentence could save him the
trouble of explaining in English
• Using Chinese could facilitate the students’ understanding
• Using Chinese could render his explanations more interesting and
vivid
• Using Chinese could help the students to memorize
• Using Chinese could help create a pleasant atmosphere
• He could not get the students involved in the discussion if using
English
• Using Chinese to communicate could make the students feel closer
to him
• He could make sure every student understood important
information if using Chinese
• The students needed longer to respond to his English instructions
• He was not ‘in good form’ in class
LS course • The students were more sensitive to Chinese.
• Sometimes the students could not understand if he did not use
Chinese
• The students lacked relevant background knowledge
• The students were not able to understand what an English
technical term meant exactly, even if they were offered its English
definitions
• The students might be interested to know the Chinese translation
of an English popular expression
• Using English to explain a phrase involved more effort than using
Chinese
David RW • He worried that the students could not understand
course • He felt he could not explain clearly in English
• Using Chinese could help the students understand better
• Using Chinese would enable him to communicate with the
students more easily, whereas using English would probably
cause misunderstandings
• The students used Chinese
• The students did not know English grammatical terms
• The students were not accustomed to English instruction
• Using Chinese for grammar explanation was clearer and more
time-efficient
• Using Chinese could make the students feel amused and relaxed
LS course • Using Chinese could help the students to relax when they were
nervous
• He felt the students did not understand
• His use of English was for routine communication in class, while
using Chinese for repetition belonged to ‘private’ communication
between the students and him, in which they put aside the
textbook for a moment
• Using Chinese could make his directions more detailed
• Using Chinese could make communication with the students more
intimate
(continued)

Factors influencing Anne RW course • Teaching objectives
language choices • The students’ English abilities
LS course • Teaching objectives
• The students’ English abilities
• Her own English ability
• Specific beliefs regarding L1 and L2 use
Betty RW course • The students’ mood
LS course • Her teaching experience
Carl RW course • The students’ English abilities
• His own state of mind
LS course • The students’ English abilities
• The students’ background knowledge
• The students’ interest
• His own state of mind
David RW course • The students’ English abilities
• The students’ background knowledge
• The students’ language use
• The students’ adaptability to English use
LS course • The students’ English abilities
• The students’ mood
Moreover, in spite of the four teachers’ beliefs about the need to use more Chinese
with low English proficiency students, the quantitative analysis of classroom data
showed that their L1 use did not decrease with advancing proficiency levels: in the
reading-and-writing course, Carl, teaching the students at intermediate level, used
more Chinese than David who was teaching the students at high beginners level,
and in the listening-and-speaking course, Betty who was teaching the students at
advanced level used more Chinese than Carl and David (see Sect. 5.3). All of this
suggests, unsurprisingly, that the teachers had limited knowledge of their own L1
use. This is quite normal in teaching and many other social situations, and it has
long been recognized that systematic coding may be one way to raise awareness.
For example, Fanselow (1987:4) claimed:
Without coding, based on a set of operationally defined labels that are part of an overall
concept, each of us is more likely to see and describe events through our own preconceived
notions…After viewing the same class, I have heard contradictory comments from different
observers: The teacher had rapport; the teacher was condescending; there was too much
7.3 Conclusion 215
silence; there was too much noise; the material was too easy; the material was too difficult;
the students were involved; the students were uninterested. Such discussions are analogous
to one in the Japanese movie Rashomon, where four people give contradictory and
equivocal accounts of an event they have all witnessed.
I will return in Chap. 8 to possible ways to address this issue.

Part III
Conclusions
This section summarizes the findings presented in the previous three chapters,
discusses their implications and provides recommendations for future research.
Chapter 8
Discussion and Conclusions
8.1 Introduction
This chapter will provide an overview of the findings of this study. I will review the
main themes of the study, discuss the four teachers’ behaviours, beliefs and per-
ceptions related to L1 and L2 use, and examine the major factors that might have
influenced their language choices. I will also explore possible implications of these
findings for L2 teaching and teacher education, reflect on the methods used in the
present study, and suggest possible directions for future research.
8.2 Overview of the Major Findings of the Study
This section will reproduce the eight research questions addressed by the study, and
will summarize and discuss the relevant findings.
8.2.1 The Quantity of L1 and L2 Use by the Teachers
advanced?
This question was dealt with in Chap. 5 (see Sect. 5.3 ‘Global analysis
[quantitative]’). This section examined the distribution of the L1 and L2 in each
of the four teachers’ talk in the observed reading-and-writing lessons and
listening-and-speaking lessons. In doing so, the teachers’ utterances were coded

220 8 Discussion and Conclusions
using a modified version of Duff and Polio’s system, and the time spent on their L1
and L2 use was quantified. Firstly, the results show that all four teachers used a
substantial amount of Chinese in their classes. It is, however, important to note that,
in some sense, the statistics might overestimate the amount of English used by these
teachers because a large proportion of their English use was quoted directly from
the teaching materials, rather than their ‘own voice’. Secondly, although Anne, who
taught the students at the lowest proficiency level, used the greatest quantity of
Chinese in both the reading-and-writing lessons and the listening-and-speaking
lessons, the overall statistics show that the amount of L1 and L2 use by these
teachers was not systematically related to their students’ proficiency level. Thirdly,
the teachers’ language use seemed to be influenced by the type and objectives of the
courses since all of them used more English in their listening-and-speaking lessons.
For instance, Carl spent more than 80 % of time speaking English in the
listening-and-speaking course but only 42 % in the reading-and-writing course.
However, in each type of course, a wide variation was found in the amount of L1
and L2 use by the teachers across the observed lessons. This implies that, in
addition to the course type and objectives, there were many other factors that
influenced the quantity of teacher’s language use, including immediate classroom
factors. For example, the teachers spent a long time giving information related to
examinations or their lesson plans in a specific lesson, and they preferred to use
Chinese for this function.
8.2.2 The Grammatical Patterns of the Teachers’ Language

Use
2. What grammatical patterns exist in these teachers’ use of the two languages
in their classrooms?
This question was addressed in Chap. 5 (see Sect. 5.2 ‘Analysis of the teachers’
code-switching’). In this section, in order to explore the grammatical patterns of the
teachers’ language use, their code-switches were analyzed at the syntactic level
using AS units. All four teachers in the study were found to switch very often at
unit boundaries, but rarely at clause boundaries. Many of their switches also
occurred within units: for instance, all of them switched within noun phrases.
Although their switches within noun phrases were of different types, these teachers
had the ‘Chinese determiner + English noun’ pattern in common. As well as in
noun phrases, Anne switched within verb phrases and adjective phrases, Betty
switched within verb phrases, and Carl switched within prepositional phrases.
Another important finding was that in most of their mixed utterances, the matrix
language was Chinese. The word order and the system morphemes in these utter-
ances were from Chinese rather than English, which was consistent not only with
Myers-Scotton’s Matrix Language Frame model but also with the psycholinguistic
8.2 Overview of the Major Findings of the Study 221
view that speakers tend to use the language they are most proficient in as the matrix
language.
8.2.3 The Circumstances and Functions of Teachers’

L1 Use

This question was also addressed in Chap. 5 (see Sect. 5.2 ‘Analysis of the
teachers’ code-switching’ and Sect. 5.4 ‘Global analysis [qualitative]’). As men-
tioned at the beginning of Chap. 5, although two sections in this chapter investi-
gated the functions of these teachers’ L1 and L2 use, they were quite different in
many aspects.
Section 5.2 mainly examined the functions of the teachers’ language use at the
switch points by analyzing the half-hour audio-recorded data extracted from one of
the observed reading-and-writing lessons of each teacher. It not only identified the
functions of the teachers’ code-switching but also provided an analysis of the
frequency of their code-switching for each functional category. (Since it analyzed
the teachers’ code-switches as individual acts, it did not offer a description of the
circumstances in which the teachers switched.) The results showed that these
teachers switched in a fairly systematic way. They were very likely to switch into
Chinese for certain particular functions, for example, translation, advice on learn-
ing, grammar instruction, classroom management, joking, giving clues, emphasis,
reiteration, personalization, conclusion, justification and attracting students’ atten-
tion. Among these, all the teachers resorted to Chinese frequently for translation.
Section 5.4 explored the teachers’ language use by analysis of episodes selected
from several observed reading-and-writing lessons of each teacher. In doing so, it
provided the sequential context for their language use and described the specific
circumstances in which they used the L1, such as talking about lesson plans or
examinations, dealing with exercises, analyzing text, teaching vocabulary, checking
the students’ comprehension or retention, giving the students advice on learning,
telling anecdotes and assigning homework. Moreover, this section examined the
functions of the teachers’ L1 and L2 use in each utterance of these episodes, rather
than just at the switch points. The findings showed that the teachers resorted to the
use of Chinese for a variety of functions, which were to a large extent in accordance
with the results of the analysis of the teachers’ code-switching. These functions
mainly fell into the following categories: facilitating developing lesson content
(e.g., giving directions, giving information, attracting students’ attention, grammar
instruction, clarification, translation, asking questions and confession); supporting
students and carrying out classroom management (e.g., advice on learning, praising
or encouraging students, acceptance check, retention check, giving clues,
reiteration, classroom management); delivering information related to teaching

agenda or examinations (e.g., giving information about teaching plans or exami-
nations); and facilitating communication beyond language learning and teaching
(e.g., narration, complaining and joking).
As mentioned in Sect. 2.4, the literature suggests that researchers’ views on the
extent to which the L1 should be used in L2 classrooms vary widely. It is clear that
almost all the teachers observed in this study used the L1 to a very large extent,
which seemed not to be in correspondence with the views of some researchers, such
as Turnbull (2001b) and Harbord (1992), who have suggested a limited role for the
L1 in L2 classrooms, and warned of excessive use of the former. In these
researchers’ opinions, L2 use should be maximized, especially ‘in contexts in which
students spend only short periods of time in class on a daily basis, and when they
have little contact with the TL outside of class’ (Turnbull 2001b: 535).
8.2.4 The Teachers’ Perceptions of and Reasons for Their

Own Language Use
reasons for what they did in a specific lesson? What are their perceptions of
and reasons for what they normally do?
Chapter 7 addressed this question. In the stimulated recall, the teachers provided
reasons for their language use in the episodes selected from the observed
reading-and-writing lessons and listening-and-speaking lessons. One of the main
reasons for their L1 use was that they all believed using the L1 could facilitate L2
teaching and learning. For example, Anne thought that good translation could
deepen students’ understanding; Betty claimed that using Chinese could enhance
the students’ understanding of difficult sentences; Carl said that using Chinese
could make his explanations more interesting and vivid; and David argued that
using Chinese for grammar explanation was clearer and more time-saving.
Another important reason for their L1 use was the students’ L2 proficiency or
ability to understand the L2. All four teachers reported that they chose to use the L1
when they felt or worried that the students were having difficulty in understanding.
Of course, their judgments about whether the students could understand the L2
might not always accord with the students’ own feelings.
Furthermore, three of them resorted to the L1 in circumstances where they did
not feel sufficiently able to use the L2. For instance, Anne doubted her ability to
make jokes in English; David felt that sometimes he could not explain clearly
enough in English to make the students understand; and Carl mentioned that his
own English ability was a factor in deciding which language to use for explaining a
sentence.
Anne also thought that her language use was closely related to her aims of
teaching a specific course or doing a specific activity. That is, she preferred to use
the L1 when not aiming to improve the students’ speaking and listening abilities.
Additionally, these teachers reported that their language use depended on certain
immediate classroom factors, such as time limitations, the difficulty of lesson
content, the students’ language use and the teachers’ state of mind. All these
influencing factors will be discussed in greater detail in Sect. 8.2.8.
8.2.5 The Observer’s Perceptions of the Teachers’

Language Use

their language use? What differences are there between the observer’s per-
ceptions and these teachers’ own perceptions?
This question was partly addressed by analysis of the stimulated recall data.
There were several differences between my perceptions of the teachers’ language
use and some teachers’ own perceptions. For example, Anne thought she used
Chinese-only to make jokes in class, but the observed lessons showed that she also
made use of English for this purpose. Betty said firmly that she never allowed her
students to speak Chinese in class, but the data showed that she gladly accepted her
students’ answers in Chinese. They were not fully aware of their actual behaviour
until some episodes of the audio-recorded lessons were played back to them.
Differences were also found by comparing the results of quantitative analysis
and the interviews. For instance, Betty said that the upper limit for her use of
Chinese should be no more than 5 %. This figure was much lower than the average
amount of Chinese she actually used in the observed teaching (more than 20 %).
Also, Carl said that all EFL teachers at Nanchang University used between 5 and
30 % Chinese in their talk, which was mainly based on his intuition. However,
apart from Betty, all the teachers in this study, including Carl himself, used much
more than 30 % Chinese in the reading-and-writing course. This seems to suggest
that these teachers often misperceived, at least in quantitative terms, their use of L1
and L2.
However, my impression is that in some cases the teachers could better explain
their feelings and intentions when using a specific language. For example, after
checking whether the students had recited a model dialogue, Betty used Chinese to
advise them to practise often after class. She perceived her use of Chinese in this
particular circumstance not simply as giving advice on learning but as ‘emotional
communication’, since she hoped the students would feel her concern for them.
8.2.6 The Teachers’ Language Use Across Different Frames

of Classroom Discourse

This question was addressed in Chap. 5 (see Sect. 5.4 ‘Global analysis [quali-
tative]’). Based on my frame analysis of classroom discourse, the four teachers’ L1
and L2 use seemed quite different across different frames of a lesson. In the lesson
frame, they all used Chinese for translation and reiteration in order to assist in
developing the content presented in English, and all of them seemed to use it quite a
lot, not only as a last resort. In the intra-lesson frame which backs up the formal
lesson structure, these teachers made use of Chinese for learner-support and
classroom-support functions such as encouraging students and classroom man-
agement, although some of them used English for similar functions as well. Within
the inter-lesson frame, they showed a strong tendency to use Chinese as the main
medium when delivering information about their teaching plans or examinations to
the students for the purpose of ensuring the students’ understanding, although some
of them might also use English to varying degrees. In addition, unlike their
pre-structured discourse in the other frames, the teachers’ talk in the extra-lesson
frame seemed to be a form of ‘real’ talk, and they were very likely to use
Chinese-only to produce this particular kind of discourse, perhaps for the purpose
of reducing social distance and signaling shared cultural membership.
8.2.7 The Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Using

the L1 in L2 Education
This question was mainly tackled by analysis of the interviews. Chapter 6

provided a detailed description of the four teachers’ beliefs and attitudes regarding
L1 and L2 use.
Anne believed that using English-only was not always the best way to teach
English because it only worked when students had high proficiency, when they
were highly motivated and disciplined, and when they had no pressure to pass
examinations. In her opinion, using Chinese to facilitate English teaching was the
better choice for her because it could help low level students to understand and to
build their confidence and interest in learning English.
Betty believed that L2 learning needs to rely on the L1, for example, students
usually relied on a translation process in their minds to express what they wanted to
say in English. She also pointed out that the L1 could be used for explanation,
translation and attracting students’ attention in L2 teaching. Thus she argued that
requiring teachers to completely exclude the L1 from L2 classrooms was unrea-
sonable. Nevertheless, she felt guilty when realizing her overuse of Chinese. In her
opinion, it was better to use less than 5 % Chinese in her talk. Surprisingly and
perhaps contradictorily, though she claimed that Chinese played an indispensable
role in L2 learning, she expressed her preference for using English-only in English
classrooms and saw her use of Chinese as a compromise resulting from the stu-
dents’ insufficient ability to understand English.
According to Carl, using Chinese did not have a negative influence on English
learning even if it could not facilitate it, since students also used Chinese before and
after English classes. He believed that Chinese should be used when it would have
been time-consuming or difficult for students to understand English. He also
thought that there was no need to use English in class if his purpose was not
relevant to speaking and listening. He even made it clear that he would use more
Chinese in his teaching if there was not a ‘common understanding’ that English
lessons should be conducted in English.
David said that English classes should be conducted in English-only, but he also
accepted the view that the mixed medium of instruction should be used to teach
English to first-year university students, because he believed that these students
need time to acclimatise. For him, conducting English classes in English-only was
an ultimate goal for his teaching, but it could not be realized immediately. He also
believed that using Chinese had advantages for his current teaching, for example,
explaining complicated concepts or sentences more clearly.
Broadly speaking, then, Anne and Carl positively advocated the use of Chinese
in L2 teaching, whereas Betty and David perceived the use of Chinese as a
‘compromise’. In spite of this, they all believed that using Chinese could be ben-
eficial to their current English teaching, and none of them mentioned the negative
effects of the L1. In this sense, their beliefs concerning this issue to a large extent
accorded with their teaching practices. Furthermore, the teachers seemed to lack a
comprehensive view about the issue of L1 and L2 use as well as a knowledge base
to support their preferences. For example, although Betty and David said or implied
that they would ideally prefer to use English-only, they did not provide a theoretical
explanation of their preferences but actually demonstrated positive attitudes
towards using Chinese in English classrooms.
8.2.8 Factors Affecting the Teachers’ Language Choices
This question was addressed mainly on the basis of the analysis of the interview
and stimulated recall data. The results suggested that the teachers’ language choices
were influenced by both immediate classroom factors and relatively static factors,
such as the university policy and students’ L2 proficiency. These factors will be
discussed in the following sections.
8.2.8.1 The University Policy Regarding the Medium of Instruction
All four teachers said that there were no specific requirements relevant to the issue
of the medium of instruction at Nanchang University. However, Carl observed that
some teachers had been criticized by the head of the department for using more than
30 % of Chinese in their classes, and that a teacher even tried to avoid using
Chinese when observed. Although the proposed percentage (30 %) was probably
based on Carl’s intuition, it appeared that there was an unwritten rule requiring
teachers to use English as much as possible and that it might influence language
choices of many teachers. As far as the teachers observed here were concerned, it
seemed that only Betty used Chinese less than 30 % of the time in the
reading-and-writing course. But in the listening-and-speaking course, the Chinese
use of Betty, Carl and David was all less than 30 %.
Moreover, Anne, Carl and David mentioned that there was a ‘common belief’
among the teachers, the university authorities and the students that English classes
should be conducted in English. That ‘common belief’ seemed to exert more or less
influence on different teachers observed in the study. For example, Carl said that
this belief to some extent caused him to use less Chinese in English classes. David
agreed with this belief and considered using English-only as the goal of his
teaching. Betty said she required herself to speak English as much as possible
although she did not advocate excluding Chinese completely. However, compared
with Carl, David and Betty, Anne, who seemed to care more about her students’
feelings, seemed to be less influenced by this factor.
8.2.8.2 Teaching Objectives
The analysis of the classroom data and interviews showed that all the teachers’
language choices were influenced by the course type and the course objectives,
since they used less Chinese in the listening-and-speaking course, and they knew
they did this. As the names imply, the objectives of the two types of courses were
generally perceived as helping students to develop different language skills: the
reading-and-writing course aimed to develop reading and writing skills, while the
listening-and-speaking course aimed to develop listening and speaking skills. But in
practice, all the teachers placed emphasis on reading in the reading-and-writing
course, and Carl focused exclusively on listening in the listening-and-speaking
course.
Compared with the other three teachers, Anne was influenced more by her
teaching objectives. In the interviews, she mentioned that a major objective of her
English teaching was to prepare her students to pass the English examinations, and
she thought that Chinese had to be used in order to achieve this objective.
In the stimulated recall, Anne made it clear that her language choice was directly
related to her teaching objectives in the two courses. For her, the aim of the
reading-and-writing course was mainly to cultivate the students’ abilities to read
and to analyze the structure of long and difficult sentences, rather than their
speaking abilities. Thus she even thought that there was no need for her to use
English in this course.
It seems clear that Anne preferred to use Chinese as the medium of instruction
when focusing on teaching knowledge of English systematically, such as grammar
points, in the reading-and-writing course. According to Stern (1992: 286), using the
L1 in this circumstance might be beneficial:
The content of the language courses…may indicate a preference for either a crosslingual or
an intralingual strategy. …Thus, a syllabus of communicative activities is designed to be
offered intralingually, but the language syllabus, the cultural syllabus, and the general
language education syllabus might benefit from a partly crosslingual/cross-cultural
treatment.
However, it might be argued that she used too much L1 in this course, in which
English was taught as a subject, whereas Chinese was used for real communication.
In doing so, she seemed to ‘deprive the learners of valuable input in the L2’ (Ellis
1984: 133).
8.2.8.3 Students’ English Abilities
Students’ English abilities seemed to be a factor influencing the teachers’ actual

language use and their attitudes. These teachers reported in the interviews that they
used different amounts of Chinese when teaching groups of students at different
English proficiency levels. Anne, who had a positive attitude toward using Chinese
in English teaching, expressed the view that it was reasonable to use English-only
to teach students at high English proficiency level. David also mentioned that he
would reduce his use of Chinese as the students improved their English proficiency
gradually, although such change was not found in his observed lessons.
Although all the teachers thought their language use was closely related to the
students’ English abilities, the results of quantitative analysis showed that this
factor did not cause significant differences in the amount of Chinese they used. Like
Anne, Carl and David, Betty used a lot of Chinese in her classes although she
taught the students at advanced level. Thus it seemed that students’ English abilities
might not be a major influence on their use of Chinese.
Moreover, in accordance with Song and Andrews’ (2009) findings, the teachers’
language choice was affected by their perceptions of the students’ abilities to
comprehend the L2 at a particular moment in a lesson. All the teachers reported in
the stimulated recall that they resorted to the use of Chinese when the students had
difficulty in understanding their explanation in English or even when they felt or
worried that the students would not be able to understand if they used English for
explanation. In such circumstances, Chinese was seen as a useful tool to ensure the
students’ understanding.
In addition, the teachers’ perceptions of their students’ English abilities seemed
to be mainly based on their own teaching experiences and the students’ responses to
their language use. For example, Anne thought it was impossible for art students to
understand if only English was used, because even her previous students, whose
English proficiency level was much higher than that of art students, could not
understand. Furthermore, the teachers might overestimate or underestimate their
students’ abilities to understand the L2 in their teaching practices. For instance,
Anne mentioned that some of her students asked questions about very simple
vocabulary items she did not translate in class. Betty also mentioned that some of
her students requested her to increase or reduce her use of Chinese. It was obvious
from the data that these teachers had been adjusting their perceptions of the stu-
dents’ English abilities and their language use to the students’ responses.
8.2.8.4 Teachers’ Beliefs Regarding L1 Use
As discussed in Sect. 8.2.7, all the teachers agreed that the L1 could be used in their
current teaching, and they seemed to believe that Chinese played a positive role in
their current teaching.
However, these perceptions might not reflect the whole picture of their beliefs
regarding Chinese use. In the stimulated recall, the four teachers also described their
specific beliefs concerning this issue. For instance, in Anne’s view, Chinese was
more ‘vivid’ and ‘impressive’; using Chinese could make every student understand;
using Chinese could enable students feel her emotions; good translation could
deepen students’ understanding; Chinese was closer to students’ real life and thus
using it in English teaching could reflect the usefulness of English. Betty believed
that using Chinese to explain difficult sentences could enhance students’ under-
standing, strengthen their memory and save time. According to Carl, important
information must be announced in Chinese because it could make all students
understand; using Chinese to communicate with students could make them feel
closer to the teacher; students were more ‘sensitive’ to Chinese. Moreover, Carl
suggested that there was a connection between the L1 and the L2 in students’
minds, and that they relied on a translation process when processing information in
English. Thus, in his opinion, using Chinese was a more efficient way to teach
English. David thought that using Chinese could allow students to communicate
with him more easily; help students relax; facilitate their understanding; and make
his communication with the students more ‘intimate’. David also believed that
Chinese should be used for personal communications, in which they could
exchange feelings about lesson content or even go beyond language teaching.
As analysis of the stimulated recall data shows, there were many situations in
which the teachers chose to use Chinese due to these positive beliefs regarding its
use. Thus it seems that, although these beliefs derived mainly from the teachers’
intuitions and teaching experience rather than any explicit theories, they were the
most significant factor in their use of Chinese in their teaching.
8.2.8.5 Teachers’ English Abilities
Since all four teachers are non-native English speakers, their L2 use might be
constrained by their own English abilities. Carl acknowledged that he might con-
sider his own ability to give explanations in English before dealing with a sentence.
Anne also acknowledged that she lacked the ability to make jokes in English.
However, my impression is that in this study the teachers’ English abilities were not
a major factor that caused them to use Chinese in the observed lessons, and that as
the stimulated recall suggested, the circumstances in which they resorted to Chinese
for this reason were rare.
8.2.8.6 Teachers’ Role
Teachers’ perceptions of the role they played in English classes appeared to affect
their language choices in different ways. Anne and David did not link their lan-
guage use to this factor, although they agreed they played different roles in the two
types of courses. In contrast, Betty and Carl identified their perceptions of their role
in class as an influence on their language choices. In the interviews, Betty said the
amount of her Chinese use depended on the role she played in class. She used more
Chinese when perceiving herself as an instructor rather than as an organiser or
participant. Carl preferred to use English when playing the role of lecturer.
However, if it was difficult or time-consuming for the students to understand
English explanations, he would use Chinese. When playing the role of organizer,
Carl would also resort to Chinese if the students could not understand his directions
in English. However, when acting as a supervisor, he preferred to use Chinese.
8.2.8.7 Immediate Classroom Factors
In addition to the factors mentioned above, the teachers’ language use was inevi-
tably influenced by classroom variables, such as functions of utterances, students’
language use, students’ perceived mood, students’ background knowledge, stu-
dents’ responses to their language use, the difficulty of lesson content, time limi-
tations, teachers’ awareness of their own L1 use, and teachers’ state of mind at a
particular moment in a lesson.
It was found that all the teachers preferred to switch into Chinese for some
specific functions, such as translation (see Sect. 8.2.3). They were more likely to
resort to Chinese for purposes irrelevant to teaching lesson content, such as giving
information about teaching plans or examinations, giving advice on learning,
checking students’ homework, and making jokes. These teachers also mentioned
that they preferred to use Chinese when dealing with difficult points of lesson
content. When interacting with the students, David was likely to respond in Chinese
if the students spoke Chinese. Carl chose to use Chinese if the students lacked
background knowledge of a certain topic. Betty and Carl used Chinese for the
purpose of finishing prescribed teaching tasks within a limited time period. Betty
and David employed Chinese when they felt the students were distracted or ner-
vous, and they were also influenced by the students’ responses to their language
choices. Betty would intentionally reduce her use of Chinese if realizing she was
using ‘too much’ Chinese. Carl acknowledged that he would use Chinese when he
was not ‘in good form’, that is, when he felt tired, lazy or was not in a good mood.
Betty also acknowledged that sometimes she resorted to Chinese simply because it
was natural to use the most familiar language. These factors were intertwined with
one another and together led to the teachers’ different L1-related behaviours across
the observed lessons.
8.3 Implications for L2 Teaching and Teacher Training
The descriptions of the four teachers’ actual language use and beliefs in this study
may suggest that the feasibility of the widely accepted L2-only policy needs to be
reconsidered. Comments from two of the teachers, Betty and Carl, indicate that
there should be a limitation to the quantity of EFL teachers’ L1 use. As Edstrom
(2006: 289) pointed out, the appropriate amount of L1 use by teachers cannot be
universally defined as a fixed percentage because L1 use is a subjective issue. I feel
that it would be more beneficial for teachers to investigate their current teaching
contexts, such as teaching objectives and students’ English abilities, and to set a
reasonable upper limit for their own L1 use, since ‘make maximum use of the L2’
seems rather vague, even for experienced teachers.
Furthermore, in my opinion, all four teachers observed in this study used too much
L1 in the two types of courses: more than 29 % of the time in reading-and-writing
course and more than 15 % of the time in listening-and-speaking course. I feel that
many Chinese EFL teachers need to increase their English use, in order to maximize
L2 input for their students.
In order to make EFL teachers aware of their own L1 use and limit their L1 use, I
suggest that they should frequently observe their own language use by listening to
audiotapes or watching videotapes of their own lessons. Moreover, as Macaro
(2005: 81) suggested, ‘to advocate complete freedom to “codeswitch at will” is not
acceptable’. Thus, teachers should reflect on their actual language use and try to
minimize their switches to Chinese for no clear reason or for personal reasons,
including lack of English ability to explain clearly, tiredness and ‘laziness’.
8.3 Implications for L2 Teaching and Teacher Training 231
In addition, EFL teachers at Nanchang University normally do not receive

professional training regarding the issue of L1 and L2 use. The present study
suggests that the teachers lacked relevant knowledge about using L1 in L2 edu-
cation. Although Betty and David claimed that they preferred to use English-only in
their teaching, they appeared to simply follow the so-called ‘common belief’ that
English classes should of course be conducted in English, thus revealing defi-
ciencies in their underlying knowledge base. All the teachers’ knowledge about this
issue was focused on the benefits of using the L1, which was mainly based on their
intuitions and teaching experiences. They had little knowledge about the negative
effects of the L1 and paid no attention to the danger of excessive use of the L1.
Thus it is important to give teachers training related to this issue and to encourage
them to read relevant literature. In doing so, teachers may be able to gradually
develop a comprehensive view about this issue, and then be able to critically
examine the ‘common belief’ and other people’s attitudes. Teacher training should
also play an important role in raising teachers’ awareness of the advantages of
switching or not switching into the L1, and of when it is more effective or
appropriate to resort to the L1, so that teachers can use the L1 in a principled way in
their teaching practices.
At the same time, researchers and in-service trainers must be careful not to
assume that they always ‘know better’ than teachers, and must show respect for the
extensive ‘craft knowledge’ which many teachers already have. Any changes must
be made by a process of collaborative exploration, with teachers and trainers
learning from each other, and any changed practices should be such that teachers
can maintain reasonably comfortably throughout their working lives.
8.4 Reflection on Methods
The present study is limited in several ways. Firstly, the period of the data col-
lection was relatively short. Although each teacher took part in one interview and
one stimulated recall session after classroom observation, my understanding of their
beliefs regarding the issue of the medium of instruction and their decision-making
processes was limited. Furthermore, it was difficult to observe changes in the
teachers’ language use and their beliefs within the short period of the data col-
lection. Therefore, a longer period of engagement in the research context might
have been more productive.
Secondly, the teachers were observed once every two weeks in this study, but
they normally spent two weeks on each unit of teaching. Thus, although the data
collection lasted five weeks, the classroom observation did not involve a complete
unit of lessons from each teacher. In retrospect, I feel that observation across a
whole unit may have given a more accurate picture of their language use.
Thirdly, since I tried to follow the teachers’ way of thinking, the stimulated
recall was not always particularly focused on the teachers’ language use, but
sometimes focused on general description of what they did and what they usually
do in their lessons. In spite of this, the stimulated recall still elicited useful com-
ments on the teachers’ language choices. Additionally, because the teachers did not
have time for the stimulated recall immediately after the classroom observation, it
was delayed until one week later. As part of the recall aspect could perhaps have
been lost after the time gap, I feel that stimulated recall may have generated more
useful data if it could have been conducted as promptly as possible after the
classroom observation.
Another issue is whether video-recorded data should be used in the stimulated
recall. In the process of this study, I decided to use audio-recorded episodes to elicit
the teachers’ perceptions. Although video recordings of the observed lessons might
have been more informative, I did not use them because the teachers said they
would feel embarrassed when watching themselves on video.
In conclusion, if I could start this study over again, I would probably carry out a
longer-term study and observe the teachers throughout a complete unit of their
teaching. I would also conduct the stimulated recall immediately after recording the
lessons, using the video recordings, if the conditions permitted.
8.5 Recommendations for Future Research
Considering that the teachers in the present study used the L1 for a variety of
functions, it appears that more comparative studies are needed to investigate the
appropriateness and effectiveness of using the L1 or L2 for a particular function or
in a particular circumstance and to establish possible principles for teachers’ L1 and
L2 use in L2 classrooms. In doing so, students’ reactions and perceptions of
teachers’ code-switching probably also need to be considered.
What factors affect L2 teachers’ language choices may also be worthy of further
exploration. Future research needs to not only identify these factors by examining
teachers’ decision-making processes but also explore how the factors shape novice
teachers’ beliefs, attitudes and behaviours regarding L1 and L2 use during a certain
period of practice.
To sum up, ongoing research attempting to investigate and understand teachers’
L1-related beliefs and behaviours as well as the factors that motivate their language
choice appears to be of great value to L2 teachers’ professional development and L2
teaching, especially in establishing a pedagogically principled approach to L1 and
L2 use. I hope that the present study has made a small contribution to this field.
Appendices (Introductory Note)
Appendix A is sample analysis of code-switching instances. Appendix B is sample

pre- and post-observation interview. It was not felt necessary to include extended
transcripts of lessons, nor of stimulated recall interviews, as the extracts in the main
text were felt to give an adequate picture. This material is, however, available in
audio form if required.

EFL Classrooms, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-1911-1
Appendix A
Sample Analysis of Code-Switching
Instances (Carl)
Lesson 3 (1:13—31:13)
2:17–2:18
(Classroom routine vocabulary, noun phrase)
第三个呢给了大家十个/topic.
2:19–2:24
那么其实这些/topic呢, 给的时候肯定不是特别, 不是那么清楚。
Then, actually these given topic must be not particularly, not that clear.
2:42–2:46
不然的话, 谈一个/topic, 你谈了两句话就谈完了, 是不是?
Otherwise, when talking about one topic, you can just say a few words and
finish it, right?
4:22–4:29
三十分钟的听力, 那么至少是十个/short conversation, 两篇/long dialogue, 两
篇/short passage.
Thirty minutes’ listening, then at least ten short conversation, two long dia-
logue, and two short passage.
5:08–5:11
(Quotation, noun phrase)
大家看到我们这个/‘Unit 3 Father knows better’.
Have a look at our this ‘Unit 3 Father knows better’.
8:11–8:20
(1. translation, unit; 2. clarification, unit)
‘Radar’. /我们都知道 ‘雷达’, 是吧?/We use ra—radar to locate submarine ship,
to locate submarine ship.

236 Appendix A: Sample Analysis of Code-Switching Instances (Carl)
‘Radar’. We all know ‘radar’, right? We use ra—radar to locate submarine

ship, to locate submarine ship.
9:23–9:44
(Translation, unit)
So if you address a letter, an envelope or a package, that means you write on it
the name and the address of the person you are sending it to. Ok, that’s the first
sentence./所以说这句话应该翻成:这封信是寄给我的, 因为上面是我的名字和
地址。
So if you address a letter, an envelope or a package, that means you write on
it the name and the address of the person you are sending it to. Ok, that’s the
first sentence. So this sentence should be translated as: the letter was sent to me,
because it has my name and address on it.
11:14–11:16
(translation, unit)
Do you know the meaning of ‘awkward’?/尴尬。
Do you know the meaning of ‘awkward’?/Embarrassed.
12:56–13:00
(Transition, adverb)
So you at first, yeah, think about a situation, then form your own opinion, your
own i-, idea./那么the second sentence is ‘it was worth the trouble, I figure’.
So you at first, yeah, think about a situation, then form your own opinion,
your own i-, idea. Then the second sentence is ‘it was worth the trouble, I
figure’.
13:01–13:11
(Reiteration, unit)
So whether should I do it? Whether should I do it? Does it deserve doing?/我应
不应该干这件事呢?这件事值不值得我做呢?
So whether should I do it? Whether should I do it? Does it deserve doing?
Whether should I do it? Does it deserve doing?
13:27–13:35
(1. asking questions, unit; 2. quotation, unit)
Following one, ‘management and workers’ / 什么? /‘Act in unison to compete
with foreign business’.
Following one, ‘management and workers’/What?/‘Act in unison to compete
with foreign business’.
13:36–13:40
(Quotation, noun)
那么大家知道, /‘management’ 指的是管理方, 资方。
So you know, ‘management’ refers to management, investor.
13:41–13:47
(Translation, noun)
Workers, usually we also say labourers,/劳, 劳者, 劳动者, 劳方。
Workers, usually we also say labourers, la-, labourer, labourer, labour.
13:55–14:00
(Translation, noun phrase)
Appendix A: Sample Analysis of Code-Switching Instances (Carl) 237
Here business means companies,/外国的企业, 公司。

Here business means companies, foreign enterprises, companies.
14:21–14:26
So that’s the meaning of ‘in unison’. / Na me following one is ‘her doctor has
assured us that she’ll be fine’.
So that’s the meaning of ‘in unison’. Then following one is ‘her doctor has
assured us that she’ll be fine’.
14:58–14:59
(Asking questions, pronoun)
‘You’, it is /什么?
‘You’, it is what?
16:48–17:09
(1. translation, unit; 2. quotation, prepositional phrase; 3. translation, unit; 4.
Quotation, noun phrase)
A win on Saturday will assure them of promotion to Division one./就是星期六
的胜利将确保他们升到/Division one./升到这个第一个台, 叫做 / Division one.
A win on Saturday will assure them of promotion to Division one. That is, a
win on Saturday will assure them of promotion to Division one. Promotion to the,
the first division, called Division one.
17:52–18:10
(1. translation, unit; 2. reinforcement, unit)
So in this example, ‘assure’ means make something certain to happen or make
something certain to be achieved./确保某件事一定发生, 或者说确保某件事一定
能够实现。/Achieve.
So in this example, ‘assure’ means make something certain to happen or
make something certain to be achieved. Make something certain to happen or
make something certain to be achieved. Achieve.
18:48–18:50
(Quotation, verb)
所以我们讲, /‘assure’ 既可以翻译成什么呢?
So we say, what can ‘assure’ be translated into?
19:00–19:03
(1.quotation, noun phrase; 2. translation, noun phrase+tag)
比如说, 这个/ ‘dealer’,/商人, 是不是?
19:28–19:39
(1. translation, unit; 2. acceptance check, tag)
So you know that means, uh, lose colour, or lose brightness./这叫褪色,/right?
So you know that means, uh, lose colour, or lose brightness. This is called
fade, right?
19:42–19:55
(Translation, unit)
The sunlight gradually fades./阳光渐渐地暗淡了, 也就是慢慢快变黑了, 对不
对?
The sunlight gradually fades. The sunlight gradually fades, that is to say, it is
getting dark, right?
21:30–21:41
(1. translation, unit; 2. reinforcement, unit)
So here it means generally, in general./总的来说我还是喜欢她的, 虽然她有很
多的不足之处, 是吧?缺点。/ So it means in general or generally.
So here it means generally, in general. Generally speaking, I like her, although
she has many faults, right? Shortcomings. So it means in general or generally.
So it means in general or generally./那么in the following sentence…
So it means in general or generally. Then in the following sentence…
21:42–21:56
(Translation, unit)
那么in the following sentence—‘cut down your overall amount of ex
extracurricular activities and spend more time on your study’./大家要把更多的时
间花在学习上, 而不是要花在课外活动上。
Then in the following sentence—‘cut down your overall amount of ex
extracurricular activities and spend more time on your study’. You should
spend more time on your study instead of extracurricular activities.
21:57–22:03
(1. reiteration, unit; 2. reinforcement, unit)
So here ‘overall’ is used as an adjective. /首先它是个形容词。/An adverb,
right?
So here ‘overall’ is used as an adjective. At first, it is an adjective. An adverb,
right?
22:46–23:03
(1. reiteration, unit; 2. clarification, unit; 3. reiteration, unit; 4. reinforcement,
unit)
Usually you will say, you will use ‘products’./大家可能认为应该用这个词。/
But you know ‘product’ is usually used to refer to industrial goods, ok?/它通常指
的是这个工业产品。/‘Products’, ‘products’.
Usually you will say, you will use ‘products’. You probably think we should
use this word. But you know ‘product’ is usually used to refer to industrial
goods, ok? It usually refers to the industrial goods. ‘Products’, ‘products’
23:04–23:12
(Translation, unit)
‘Produce’. / 它指的是农产品。
‘Produce’. It refers to agricultural goods.
23:18–23:28
(1. translation, verb phrase; 2. reinforcement, unit)
‘Trade something for something’, / 用农产品去换工业产品。/ ‘Trade’, ‘trade
something for something’.
‘Trade something for something’, trade farm produce for manufactured
products. ‘Trade’, ‘trade something for something’.
23:59–24:22
Appendix A: Sample Analysis of Code-Switching Instances (Carl) 239
(Reiteration, unit)
So you delay to tell somebody what they are eager to know. I’m eager to know,
right? But you just won’t tell me. You delay to tell me what I want to know, or what
I’m eager to know./我这里呢, 急得要死想知道, 你那里半天不说。
So you delay to tell somebody what they are eager to know. I’m eager to
know, right? But you just won’t tell me. You delay to tell me what I want to
know, or what I’m eager to know. As to me, I'm desperate to know, but you don't
tell me for quite a while.
26:46–26:54
(1.grammar instruction, unit; 2. quotation, unit)
Or ‘the opera will be broadcast simultaneously’. /这个地方它用作副词修饰谓
语/ ‘On television and radio’.
Or ‘the opera will be broadcast simultaneously’. Here it is used as an adverb
to modify the predicate. ‘On television and radio’.
27:20–27:29
(Quotation, verb phrase)
大家可能最多想到 /‘get on with’ 是什么意思?
What’s the meaning of ‘get on with’ that you can think of most frequently?
(Quotation, verb phrase)
‘Get on with’ / 是什么意思?
What does ‘get on with’ mean?
(Quotation, verb phrase + tag)
我们学过 / ‘get along with’, right?
We’ve learned ‘get along with’, right?
27:30–27:43
(Translation, unit)
We are getting along with each other very well. /我们相处的很好。
We are getting along with each other very well. We are getting along with
each other very well.
(Giving examples, clause)
那你可不可以说/ ‘we are getting on with each other very well’?
So can you say ‘we are getting on with each other very well’?
27:50–28:06
(Translation, unit)
It seems a pity to be indoors on such a glorious day. So here ‘glorious’ means
lovely, fine, good, or wonderful, right?/这么好的一天呆在家里多可惜啊!
It seems a pity to be indoors on such a glorious day. So here ‘glorious’
means lovely, fine, good, or wonderful, right? It is a pity to stay at home on such
a wonderful day.
28:07–28:18
(Asking questions, unit)
‘Vivid memory flood, came flooding back of the glorious, romantic sophomore
year.’/这说明你的二年级过的怎么样啊?过得很不错的, 精彩的。
‘Vivid memory flood, came flooding back of the glorious, romantic sopho-
more year.’ What does it say about your sophomore year? Very good, wonderful.
28:19–28:30
(1. quotation, unit; 2.translation, verb phrase)
啊, 你的很精彩的, 很浪漫的大学二年级的生活怎么样啊?/ ‘Came flooding
back’,/象潮水一般涌回来。
Ah, how was your very wonderful, very romantic sophomore year? ‘Came
flooding back’, came back like a flood.
28:31—28:33
(Quotation, unit)
涌回到哪里呢? / ‘Memory’来, 是吧?
Where did it flood back? Into ‘memory’, right?
28:34—28:40
(Quotation, adjective)
‘Vivid’ /表示清晰, 清晰, 生动地出现在脑海。
‘Vivid’ means clearly, clearly, vividly come to mind.
28:41—28:45
(Clarification, verb phrase)
So here ‘glorious’ /就是wonderful, wonderful.
So here ‘glorious’ just means wonderful, wonderful.
29:27–29:56
(1.translation, unit; 2. reinforcement, unit)
So‘at any rate’, that means whatever may happen, whatever may happen, or in
any state./不管怎么说, 你总算幸免于难。不管怎么说你总是干掉一部分, 总比
不干好, 是不是?比什么都没开始做好。/Anyway, at any rate, anyway, anyway,
ah, whatever may happen or in any state.
So‘at any rate’, that means whatever may happen, whatever may happen,
or in any state. At any rate, you survived the accident. At any rate, you have done
one part of the job, which is better than doing nothing, right?Better than doing
nothing. Anyway, at any rate, anyway, anyway, ah, whatever may happen or in
any state.
Appendix B
Sample Pre- and Post-Observation
Interview (Anne)
Pre-observation interview: T—Anne Y—Yi

Y: Hi, today I’m honoured to ask you for the general information about the class
I’m going to observe. Can you talk about these students? For example, what is
their major and what is their proficiency level?
T: These students mainly majored in music, vocal music. And they do not have
a good grounding in English. Because these matriculated students had quite low
scores in the national college entrance examination, their overall level of English
is relatively bad.
Y: You said these students’ English scores in the national college entrance
examination were quite low. Can you talk about it in detail?
T: Some of them almost have not learned any English in high school before
entering the university, but they entered the university. Thus, in terms of their
scores, some of them got 30. The full mark is 150. Some of them got 30 or 40.
However, there are also some good students. Not many. For example, some got
a little bit more than 100. Not many. Generally speaking, there are about 2 or 3
students of this kind in every 40 or 50 students. So, most of the students in this
class got 50 or 60. So these students’ overall level of English is relatively
relatively bad, and they are not interested in English and feel there is no need for
art students to learn English.
Y: That is to say, there are some good students who got a bit more than 100.
T: Yes, but very few. They are precious, like phoenix feathers and unicorn
horns.
Y: How about most of them?
T: I think most of them probably got 60–70. Some of them only got 40.
Y: Then, all of the students in this class major in music, right?
T: Furthermore, we have the listening-and-speaking course and the
reading-and-writing course. Right. I have two listening-and-speaking classes:
one is music students and the other is students in drawing and painting. But
these two classes were combined into one in my reading-and-writing lessons.

242 Appendix B: Sample Pre- and Post-Observation Interview (Anne)
Y: So, how about those students having the first two lessons in the afternoon?
T: The first two lessons in the afternoon?
Y: Oh, no, I mean the last two lessons in the morning.
T: Those are music students.
Y: Music students, I see. That is to say, in the reading-and-writing course, the
two groups are integrated into one.
T: Yes, that’s true.
Y: Have art students been excluded from other students, when the university
divided students into different levels, A, B, C?
T: Yes. In fact, plus art students, now we have classes at four different profi-
ciency levels: A, B, C, and art students which are the worst.
Y: So the overall proficiency of art students is lower than class C.
T: Yes. Previously we just had three kinds of classes–A, B, C, and Class C was
art students. But now we have made a finer division–A, B, C, plus art students.
Y: Uh, then what do you think of these students?
T: These students have their own characteristics. First of all, some of them think
English is very important. But some feel that their English is very poor, and that
English seems not related to their own major. So, sometimes, also because the
university has a relaxed atmosphere, they become increasingly less interested in
English. This may result in a vicious circle.
Y: You’ve already got along with these students for a while. Do you think they
are cooperative?
T: Most of them are cooperative.
Y: How about their enthusiasm?
T: Uh, the students are active in the listening-and-speaking lessons. Then,
drawing and painting, the students majoring in drawing and painting are very
passive in the reading-and-writing lessons.
Y: Are they self-disciplined and hardworking?
T: Very difficult, very difficult, so it is very necessary for me to act like a ‘bao
mu’ to emphasize the importance [of learning English] again and again. If you
don’t do that, they will become lazy immediately and become much less
interested immediately. Compared to other students, they are much worse on
this point. First of all, their English are much poorer, and they have no
awareness to value English, so you have to emphasize how important English
learning is.
Y: According to your impression, currently what are these students’ main
problems?
T: The main problem, for some of the students, I think, for most of the students,
their English is very poor, and their grammar is very weak, so that they have
great difficulty in doing comprehensive reading, especially, immediately, high
school, especially reading and writing. In respect of reading and writing, English
vocabulary taught in the university is much more difficult and complicated than
what they had learned in high school, so it is hard for them to keep up with the
class even if the teacher explains in detail.
Y: At present, in your opinion, what are their major needs to learn English?
Appendix B: Sample Pre- and Post-Observation Interview (Anne) 243
T: Mainly for passing the exams, to be honest. There are some students planning
their future, such as going abroad and communicating with foreign experts. But
these students are very few. They are actually very few. Although in order to
stimulate students’ interest and motivation, I often tell them that they will have
more opportunities to communicate with foreign experts, but actually most of
them are not willing to think about the distant future.
Y: This semester, what improvements do you expect of these students?
T: For my part, I expect that they can improve their vocabulary and reading
comprehension. I don’t think oral English can be improved a lot in a short
period, but I hope they can make some improvements in listening. Reading and
listening are my major foci.
Y: What kinds of materials do you currently use?
T: In the listening-and-speaking lessons, I use ‘New Horizon English’; in the
reading-and-writing lessons, I use ‘New Experiencing English’.
Y: Are these teaching materials prescribed by the university?
T: Yes.
Y: Apart from these, do you use other materials?
T: Seldom, very seldom.
Y: I know you have been teaching both the listening-and-speaking course and
the reading-and-writing course to these students. Can you tell me about your
objectives in teaching these two types of courses?
T: I feel that previously the exam failure rate for art students was very high.
Sometimes nearly 1/3 or 1/2 of a class failed English exams, which was a
serious obstacle for their future, their graduation and degree. So my basic
objective is to slightly reduce the exam failure rate. Moreover, another thing is
degree. Since degree is what they care about most, I hope to help more students
pass the CET-3 and then get their degree.
Y: Your objectives in teaching these two types of courses seem very clear–to
help them pass exams and get degree.
T: Uh, yes. Because this so-called ‘education for all-round development’ for
them is For one thing, their speaking English are very poor, thus many activities
cannot be carried out. Precisely. For another thing, the students have different
levels of English proficiency. This also makes organizing activities difficult.
Y: Do you think whether there is any difference in your objectives in teaching
these two types of courses?
T: You mean the reading-and-writing course and the listening-and-speaking
course? In the listening-and-speaking lessons, I think, on the one hand, I aim to
improve their listening abilities, for example, teaching them some listening
skills, like looking at screen first and previewing (before listening), and helping
them accumulate some situational vocabulary. On the other hand, an important
objective of my listening-and-speaking lessons is to introduce western culture
and something relevant to it, and to stimulate the students’ interest. Then, in the
reading-and-writing lessons, my objective is clear, that is, to help them under-
stand difficult and long sentences.
Y: Do you think whether the objectives that you mentioned just now or that you
hope to achieve are consistent with the current English teaching requirements,
for example, university requirements and and College English Curriculum
Requirements?
T: College English Curriculum Requirements may, how to say, College English
Curriculum Requirements may focus on developing all four language skills—
listening, speaking, reading and writing. But I think sometimes we need to take
students’ overall needs into consideration. Then, practising speaking actually
has many limitations, although I carry out many, for example, help them to
overcome some psychological obstacles, starting with reading aloud and imi-
tation. On this point, I have to say I‘m quite satisfied with the students in this
class, because at the very beginning, in my first lesson, most students couldn’t
take initiative to speak [English], but gradually they are able to overcome
obstacles and speak a little. However, if they want to make a free dialogue,
there’s a very long way, a very long very long way to go. As for the
reading-and-writing lessons, it is hard to say at present, because they have not
been tested yet although they did some quizzes.
Y: Can I ask how you feel about teaching these two types of courses?
T: I feel that these students can be taught well. This mainly depends on whether
you can read their minds. Of course, there is a gap between your, your, the
teacher’s ideal objectives and reality. So the most important point for dealing
with these students is definitely patience. Because they are like this, they have a
feature that they can be very cooperative if they like the teacher and they can be
very passive, even play hookey if not liking the teacher. So, this, let me think,
[laughing], my feeling is that I should spend more time to do something which
can interest them.
Y: Which type of course do you prefer to teach? Or, which kind of course do
you feel more confident to teach, the reading-and-writing lessons or the
listening-and-speaking lessons?
T: I think maybe my feelings [about teaching these two types of courses] are
different. In the listening-and-speaking lessons, I probably need to invest more
energy, since organizing this course need the students’ participation. Thus the
teacher needs to be more, more cautious.
In the reading-and-writing lessons, usually the teacher talks and students listen.
So preparing the lesson is enough. However, because of the need to present lots
of information, the teacher may consume more physical strength. Compared to
this, in the listening-and-speaking lessons, the teacher need to pay more atten-
tion to each teaching step and be more flexible.
Y: That is to say, you have no any preference, right?
T: Yes, I have no preference.
Y: Do you think whether there are some limitations on your teaching?
T: Limitations. What kind of limitations do you mean?
Y: For example, the limit on using some teaching methods or on exerting your
influence.
T: Yes, there are, there are.
Y: Can you give me some examples?

T: For example, you know, like, in the reading-and-writing lessons, I hope to
talk to some students individually and point out their weaknesses in analyzing
sentence structures. But it turns out to be impossible because there are more than
70 students in this class.
Y: How many people are there in this class?
T: Seventy-six in the reading-and-writing lessons. So it is impossible to point
out students’ problems one by one. But if teachers talk to the whole group, many
students probably cannot realize their own problems. Actually these problems
are very likely to be understood immediately even if the teacher just gives
simple explanations, but sometimes the teacher just cannot make it. Moreover,
in the reading-and-writing lessons, students normally get their input from
reading, and they seldom produce output, such as writing, because class size is
too big. These are big limitations on the reading-and-writing lessons. The
listening-and-speaking lessons have more limitations. Student participation is a
major one.
Y: Do you think the main limitation on your listening-and-speaking lessons is
the students’ lack of participation?
T: Yes. These students are not self-disciplined at all. Only when you keep
monitoring and reminding them, they can obey disciplines. If you organize an
activity, some students may practise actively; but some other students, espe-
cially the students who have a weak grounding in English and cannot open their
mouths [to speak English] will do something else, like whispering.
Y: Could you please tell me that how many years you have been teaching
English?
T: In fact, from my graduation to date, there have been nine years. During this
period, I spend two and half a year on my study, without teaching.
Y: Really? You’ve been teaching here for already nine years? It’s really hard to
tell.
T: It is true. This year will be the tenth year. Probably I still look young
[laughing].
Y: Thank you.
Post-observation interview: T—Anne Y—Yi
Y: Hello, I really appreciate that you gave me this opportunity to observe your
lessons. I have learned a lot from you.
T: You are welcome.
Y: After observation, I found that you used Chinese to help teach English to
your students. This interests me a lot. So, I’d like to ask you a few questions
T: Uh-hmm.
Y: Then, what’s your understanding about your role as an English teacher?
T: I think the role of an English teacher, uh [she does not know what to say].
Y: That is to say, do you think whether there are differences in your roles in the
listening-and-speaking lessons and in the reading-and-writing lessons?
T: Yes, there are some differences. For example, in the listening-and-speaking
lessons, I usually organize some activities, such as imitating, reciting and
reading aloud, to help them overcome their fears; but in the reading-and-writing
lessons…Did you say ’role’?
Y: Yes. In other words, as an English teacher, do you think you play the same
role in these two types of courses?
T: No, the role should be different. As for the role in the listening-and-speaking
lessons, it quite obvious that I can, for example, introduce my own life back-
ground, western cultures, and some interesting and funny stories, which can
stimulate their enthusiasm and help them overcome obstacles. That is to say,
I am not only an instructor, but also a coordinator to strengthen connections
among students. This feature is quite obvious in the listening-and-speaking
lessons. In the reading-and-speaking lessons, because there are not many
teacher-student interactions, the teachers may be just a transmitter of knowledge.
Y: Regarding the issue of using Chinese in English language teaching, have you
discussed it with other teachers?
T: I have, I have discussed with some teachers previously. Because our opinions
about this are different I have tried for a while. At that time, my students’
proficiency level was relatively higher. They were engineering students. I used
almost English-only in the process of my teaching, including explaining new
words and analyzing sentence structures. As a result, only top students were
interested (in my classes). Generally speaking, about 80 to 90% of my engi-
neering students could not keep up with me. Moreover, they would, they would
doze off if they could not understand. The listening-and-speaking lessons are
slightly better, since I don’t have to analyze vocabulary and sentence structures.
Using English-only in the listening-and-speaking lessons probably cannot make
them doze off too easy, because I need them to participate in some parts of my
teaching processes. However, in the reading-and-writing lessons, you can
imagine that, when analyzing a long sentence, if you use ‘subject’ for ‘主语’,
‘object’ for ‘宾语’, ‘clause’ for ‘从句’, students cannot understand at all.
Furthermore, if you just explain the sentence in general, it would be very hard to
improve their ability to analyze long and difficult sentences. In addition, if I use
English-only in the reading-and-writing lessons, it is very likely that students
cannot understand what I mean or even talk to each other, since their English are
very very poor.
Y: What you’ve said just now is your previous experience. You have tried to use
English-only to teach engineering students.
T: Yes, I have tried, but such circumstances did appear.
Y: Could those students concentrate on listening to English-only?
T: No, they couldn’t. Actually they couldn’t understand English-only. Thus,
firstly, they couldn’t obtain a deep understanding of a text. Furthermore, they
were likely to lose their interest gradually, since they felt English was very hard,
very difficult. This actually caused great pressure on them. Now the English
proficiency level of my current students is much lower than that of those
engineering students. Some students maybe mistakenly use ‘she’ to refer to
’farther’, and they probably don’t know subject-predicate consistency and plural
verb form, even when looking at a written sentence. So if the teacher just reads
an English sentence in class while facing more than 70 students, you can
imagine what situation it is. I, I noticed that within the first twenty minutes, the
students might listen to me very carefully, because they are keen to catch every
word I spoke. But after that, students looked tired and then gave up easily.
Y: Just now you mentioned your engineering students. I’d like to know what
proficiency level were they at.
T: Engineering students can get 90 in tests if the full mark is 120. They can get
at least 90.
Y: They must be much better than art students.
T: Yeah, they must be.
Y: Just now you mentioned you had discussed this issue with some other
teachers, you said that teachers’ opinions about this issue are different, right?
Can you tell me some more details?
T: Yes. Actually this is not only a problem always nagging me, but also an issue
many teachers have been considering. What method shall we use, using
English-only or both English and Chinese? According to my observation and
practice, I think I chose to use Chinese-aided English teaching. Then, some
students, for example, I have discussed this with one of my colleagues who
teach a class at advanced level, and I don’t think she needs to use Chinese
because her students have a large vocabulary and high awareness, and more
importantly, her students can persuade themselves to stick to listening even if
they can’t understand. However, these art students are different. They tend to fall
away once they cannot understand. So I think this an issue that needs to be
considered in China’s English education. I don’t think using English-only is a
very good way of teaching English since we need to take students’ actual
situation and objective limitations into consideration. Suppose there is a class in
which students’ proficiency levels are almost the same and it only includes 10 or
20 persons, you can try this method, since you have got enough time to help
students one by one and explain slowly slowly when they cannot understand.
However, things often get harder when you face so many students.
Y: After the discussion with some other teachers, do you think they also use
Chinese to different extents?
T: Yes, I think so.
Y: Have you ever observed their classes?
T: I seldom observe their classes. Because those were ‘open classes’, ‘open
classes’ are often given in English exclusively.
Y: Why are ‘open classes’ given in English-only?
T: I am also confused about it. Maybe this is a problem that needs to be
explored. Many people think that English classes should be conducted exclu-
sively in English. But I still think we should make decisions according to
students’ actual situation.
Y: What do you mean by ‘many people’?
T: Because it seems that teachers can’t show their competence if not speak
English-only.
Y: Is this a general belief?
T: Yes.
Y: Do English teachers have this kind of ideas?
T: Yes, I think many teachers have this kind of psychological tendencies.
Moreover, we always put emphasis on getting rid of ‘dumb English’, [which
also result in the use of English-only]. I do not mean that using English-only is
not good, but I think whether using English-only depends on the stages at which
students are and their actual situation.
Y: You mentioned that many people think teachers can’t show their competence
if not speak English-only in ‘open classes’. Do you think this belief affects many
teachers?
T: Yes, I think it does. And I also think English-only will, that is, I also think
that if the university has a very good monolingual English environment, you can
use this method to further improve and enhance students’ English.
Y: So you haven’t seen that other English teachers use Chinese in their classes.
T: I haven’t seen that, but I know they use Chinese because they said it when we
communicated with each other.
Y: Do you know whether they have different opinions about this issue?
T: Uh, we haven’t discussed how we perceive this issue.
Y: Does the university [Nanchang University] have any requirements on
teachers’ language use?
T: Uh, it would be true to say that the university doesn’t have special
requirements.
Y: Then, do you think that the university encourages using English-only or does
not express its attitude?
T: I think this [using English-only] is also unrealistic. Just now I have described
the situations in which English-only can be used. Suppose in some optional
English classes focusing on listening and speaking, we can use English-only,
when students choose it according to their interest. However, not only Nanchang
University but also all China’s universities face a problem that students have to
pass various kinds of English tests, such as final exams, CET-3 and CET-4. So if
we use English-only and students just have four English lessons every week, it
will be very hard to help them improve their reading and writing abilities; if
there is not any pressure from English tests and students just see English
learning as a hobby, using English-only probably can help them since tests and
grades don’t matter.
Y: Do you think whether using English-only is possible in this environment—
Nanchang University? Do you think it is possible to completely avoid using
Chinese?
T: Completely avoid. Yes, I think for some students it is possible, for example,
Class A and the top class.
Y: So you think it is possible to avoid using Chinese if teaching top students.
T: Yes, it is possible.
Y: Have you heard of ‘immersion class’, in which using the mother tongue is
not allowed and every student is forced to use the target language? What do you
think of this method?
T: I have ever thought about ‘immersion class’, but I don’t think this method is
feasible in Chinese environment. You can see many private schools using this
method. Actually successful examples [in private schools] are very few and
most students just can make a little progress. When many people blindly
advocate the concept of ‘immersion class’, we need to ask whether this method
can bring about good results. Many people even spent 10,000 or 20,000 RMB
joining immersion programmes taught by foreign teachers, but finally they also
complained about the results. Regarding ‘immersion class’, I think if the cur-
riculum can be combined closely with the after–class environment, we probably
can yield twice the result with half the effort; but if we only focus on the
curriculum and do not pay attention to after-class environment, it’s hard to
achieve ideal state.
Y: Sometimes you speak Chinese in class. Have you thought about your stu-
dents’ feelings when you are speaking Chinese in class?
T: My current students have positive attitudes towards this. Perhaps some rel-
atively good students hope to listen to more English, but there are also some
students who said to me: ‘although I have been learning English for a long time,
I found it was only your class that I could understand’. I felt this gave me
confidence. Because I, I, if I were interested only in exerting my English
competence, these students would lose their confidence in learning English. So I
would rather exchange the opportunity of showing off my own English com-
petence for their confidence, because too many students said to me at the very
beginning: ‘my English is very poor’, although they probably have learned
something for several times. So I feel it is difficult for a teacher like me to
understand how confident they are.
Y: Do the students ‘attitudes influence your behaviours?
T: Yes, yes. Because I think we should be patient with these students. Firstly,
when they were in high school, they were afraid to learn English. If we show our
high-level competence in English right after the students graduated from high
school, they will be easily scared away. After that, in the following two years,
they must feel that they can learn nothing at all. But if we can be more careful
and patient to analyze some sentences and to teach them some skills, they will
probably feel that at least they can understand a little bit. And then, in this way,
they will gradually get some confidence in themselves. Then, after that, when
they study indepently, study without the teacher, they will also be confident and
thus very likely to succeed.
Y: So, you are using this way to encourage them.
T: Yes. I’m keen to establish their confidence. This is very important.
Y: Then, Do you mind your students using Chinese to express themselves in
class?
T: I think it depends. That is to say, in the listening-and-speaking lessons, I want
to encourage them to speak more English. But in the reading-and-writing les-
sons, then, I only want them to be able to, to know how to distinguish these,
some grammatical rules. These students cannot learn English well, as I men-
tioned just now, mainly because of lack of grammatical knowledge. I know
some current theories exclude grammar teaching, but I think they are not sci-
entific, since we are not native speakers and we don’t have a monolingual
English environment. Then, grammar is also called ‘grammatical rule’. Rule is
just a kind of thing that can help learners find shortcuts. Suppose you did not
teach them a simple rule to show the structures of two sentences are the same,
they may need to learn twice or three times, and then may be able to accept it.
Y: Just now you mentioned several times how to teach grammar. Are you
focused on explaining grammar in the reading-and-writing lessons?
T: I said to my students: ‘You don’t have to understand all grammar books, but
you should be able to analyze the structures of sentence groups and to distin-
guish between primary and secondary sentences’. Then, I think that students
should understand some grammatical concepts and know how to divide sentence
groups. Moreover, even if they are not sure what clause a sentence is, they
should be able to keep related words together to avoid ambiguity rather than
separating them.
Y: In the process of teaching grammar, do you usually use Chinese to interact
with your students?
T: Basically yes, in the reading-and-writing lessons. I use Chinese when
showing how to divide sentence groups. I also use lots of ppt and markers,
colourful markers, to indicate sentence structures. In fact, sometimes I don’t tell
them what component an infinitive is in a sentence, but just point out that this is
an infinitive, and that this is a clause which should be marked with brackets. In
this way, I think they don’t feel grammar is very very difficult to learn, and I can
help them to understand some sentences.
Y: Just now you said you can accept students use Chinese in the
reading-and-writing lessons. How about the students’ use of Chinese in the
listening-and-speaking lessons? They may also have difficulty in expressing
themselves in the listening-and-speaking lessons.
T: If I feel they have difficulty expressing themselves, I will ask them some
simple questions first to give them clues. And if students could not answer some
questions, I think sometimes teachers also need to reflect on whether they chose
too difficult tasks for students. Thus, in the same class, sometimes I also give
students different tasks to do. For example, for those good students, I allow them
to exert themselves to create a dialogue after imitation; for those low proficiency
students, I let them start from ‘filling in blanks’. So, in this course, I classify
tasks according to the degree of difficulty and then assign suitable tasks to
different students. Although it is impossible to look after every student in class,
the teacher has to be sensitive when choosing students to do tasks. For example,
we should not choose low proficiency students to create dialogue, which may
greatly discourage their self-esteem.
Y: In the speaking-and-listening lessons, have you seen some students spoke
Chinese even when you encourage them to speak English?
T: Rarely. Sometimes, actually, in most cases, I ask volunteers to answer my
questions, since I think it is better to let students speak voluntarily. And even if
the nominated students don't know how to answer questions, they may just stand
there and keep silence, sometimes for a long time, instead of saying ‘no’, ‘yes’
or ‘sorry’. And they don’t speak Chinese, even a single word. At that moment, I
have to guess what’s on their minds and use disjunctive questions to elicit some
information.
Y: Just now you mentioned that you had taught students at different levels, and
that you had tried to use different amounts of Chinese to them.
T: Yes, I’ve tried.
Y: Then, what do you think now? Do you think Chinese-assisted English
teaching is efficient? I remember you mentioned your engineering students.
T: Yes. Now I think, there is a big improvement that English courses have been
divided into the listening-and-speaking lessons and the reading-and-writing
lessons. This is also the way I prefer, because the teaching objectives become
very clear. You can see the use of Chinese may be relatively less in the
listening-and-speaking lessons. Then, the reading-and-writing lessons aim to
improve students’ overall English abilities.
Y: Can you remember your own English teachers? Was there much difference in
their language use?
T: Not much difference. Most of them used English-only.
Y: Most of them used English-only. Do you mean few of them used Chinese?
T: There were some, for example, the teachers of extensive reading literature.
Y: They basically use English-only.
T: Yes.
Y: Next, some people think using more Chinese in class means providing less
English input, and they think the influence of Chinese may result in some errors.
But some other people may think using Chinese has more advantages than some
other teaching methods, such as using body languages. Can you tell me what do
you think of these different opinions?
T: I still think, just as I mentioned, I still think it mainly depends on students’
proficiency. For example, just now you asked about the situation in which I was
studying. You know all my classmates were English majors, and most of us got
more than 110 in the entrance exam (the full mark is 150). Actually we almost
don’t have any problems in reading and grammar, thus it is completely possible
for us to put focus on listening and speaking. However, these engineering
students and art students have not built a very solid foundation in English in
high school, so we have to use different amounts of English in different stages of
their learning.
Y: So, audiences matter when teaching English classes.
T: Yes, absolutely. You can imagine that…how to say… Of course, this is a not
very appropriate analogy, since we all live in a Chinese language environment.
But suppose you can’t write down any Chinese words, how can you write a
paper? Is that right? Or suppose you are a very eloquent person, but you don’t
know many words including punctuations, how can you improve your writing?
And how can you improve your reading? How can you pass exams? Perhaps it
depends on audiences, their needs and their objectives. To be specific, for what
purpose do they want to do this [learn English]? Does it for English
communication? For example, if they are white-collar workers learning spoken

English for applying a job or for doing their current jobs, we may need to
change a lot.
Y: If the audiences are students, for example, your engineering students and art
students, will you use different quantity of Chinese language to deal with them?
T: Yes, I will.
Y: In your opinion, what advantages does the use of Chinese bring to your
classes?
T: First of all, the main objective of my reading-and-writing lessons is to enable
my students to read and understand texts. In this aspect, I think Chinese is a very
good tool to help students understand the structure of a text, which is an
advantage. Another advantage is that using Chinese can help stimulate students’
interest in learning English. For example, when giving examples, we can give
some more practical examples which are relevant to their life and interest. Then
they may have interest to listen. If students have no interest to listen what we
said, they cannot be taught well even if we speak very beautiful English.
Actually, we have many examples to demonstrate that classes given by foreign
teachers are not always the best, and instead, many of their classes are not
successful or even have been complained about. It is really true. I have ever
worked for a training school. Usually, after one teaching session, Chinese
English teachers have seldom been complained about, but foreign teachers are
often asked to leave soon and replaced by others, because of their poor per-
formance. In fact, this is a phenomenon that we need to reflect on. Students want
to speak English well, which should be a goal for every teacher, a goal for both
students and the teacher. If teachers use English-only and their students’ English
is very poor, students will certainly feel boring. And students probably feel they
are wasting time if they cannot keep up with different activities. Right? So, these
problems are also need to be considered. Since the number of students is very
large, English teaching still needs a lot of reforms. But how to improve it needs
more reflection.
Y: Thanks.
Bibliography
Adamson, B. (1998). English in China: The junior secondary school curriculum 1949–1994.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Hong Kong.
Ahmad, B. H. (2009). Teachers’ code-switching in classroom instructions for low English
proficient learners. English Language Teaching, 2(2), 49–55.
Alfonzetti, G. (1998). The conversational dimension in code-switching between Italian and dialect
in Sicily. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity.
London: Routledge.
Allen, P., Frohlich, M., & Spada, N. (1984). The communicative orientation of language teaching:
An observation scheme. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and
Research.
Allwright, D. (1988). Observation in the language classroom. London, New York: Longman.
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to
classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Altrichter, H., Feildman, A., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2008). Teachers investigate their work: An
introduction to action research across the professions. London: Routledge.
Andrews, S. J. (2007). Researching and developing teacher language awareness. In J. Cummins &
C. Davison (Eds.), The international handbook of English language teaching (Vol. 2).
Norwell, MA: Springer.
Andrews, S. J. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in
the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 233–247.
Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (1987). Language contact and bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold.
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource? ELT Journal, 41
(4), 241–247.
Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company.
Auer, P. (1995). The pragmatics of code-switching: A sequential approach. In L. Milroy &
P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Auer, P. (1988). A conversational analytic approach to code-switching and transfer. In M. Heller
(Ed.), Code-switching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27
(1), 9–32.
Auerbach, E. (1994). The Author responds. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 157–161.
Auerbach, E. R. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in pedagogical
choices. In J. M. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Backus, A. (1996). Two in one, bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in The Netherlands.
Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

254 Bibliography
Bartels, N. (2005). Applied linguistics and language teacher education: What we know. In N.
Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language teacher education. New York: Springer.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.
Beach, S. A. (1994). Teacher’s theories and classroom practice: Beliefs, knowledge, or context?
Reading Psychology, 15(3), 189–196.
Beauvillain, C., & Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations of a
language-selective access. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 658–672.
Blanton, W. E., & Moorman, G. B. (1987). The effects of knowledge on the instructional behavior
of classroom reading teachers. Research Report No 7. Boone, NC: Appalachian State
University, Center on Excellence in Teacher Education.
Blatchford, C. H. (1983). Teaching in China: EFL teacher training. Asian Survey, XXIII(11), 1199–
1203.
Blatchford, P. (2003). A systematic observational study of teachers’ and pupils’ behaviour in large
and small classes. Learning and Instruction, 40(6), 569–595.
Block, D. (2000). Problematizing interview data: Voices in the mind's machine? TESOL
Quarterly, 34(4), 757–763.
Blom, J. P., & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: code switching in
Northern Norway. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The
ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bloom, B. (1954). The thought processes of students in discussion. In S. J. French (Ed.), Accent on
teaching: Experiments in general education. New York: Harper.
Bolonyai, A. (1998). In-between languages: Language shift/maintenance in childhood bilingual-
ism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 2, 21–43.
Bokamba, E. G. (1989). Are there syntactic constraints on code-mixing? World Englishes, 8(3),
277–292.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language
teacher think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.
Bowers, R. (1980). Verbal behaviour in the language teaching classroom. Unpublished PhD
Thesis, University of Reading.
Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching:
Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 470–501.
Brenner, M., Brown, J., & Canter, D. V. (1985). The research interview: Uses and approaches.
London: Academic Press.
Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language
learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 262–274.
Brooks, F. B., Donato, R., & McGlone, J. V. (1997). When are they going to say ‘it’ right?:
Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 523–541.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K.
McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, G. (1975). Microteaching: A programme of teaching skills. London: Harper and Row
Publishing Company.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In J. Richards &
J. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Cater, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Reviews of verbal behavior by B.F. Skinner. Language, 35, 26–58.
Bibliography 255
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1987). Teachers’ personal knowledge: What counts as
‘personal’ in studies of the personal. Curricullum Studies, 19(6), 487–500.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.
Clyne, M. G. (2003). Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages.
Cohen, A. (1987). Using verbal reports in research on language learning. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper
(Eds.), Introspection in second language research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London:
Routledge.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London:
Routledge.
Collingham, M. (1988). Making use of students' linguistic resources. In S. Nicholls & E.
Hoadley-Maidment (Eds.), Current issues in teaching English as a second language to adults.
London: Edward Arnold.
Corder, S. (1992). A role for the mother tongue. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language
transfer in language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty of the stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language
Research, 7(2), 103–117.
Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42(4), 557–591.
Cook, V. J. (1994). Timed grammaticality judgements of the head parameter in L2 learning. In G.
Bartelt (Ed.), The dynamics of language processes. Gunter Narr: Tubingen.
Cook, V. J. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33,
185–209.
Cook, V. J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57(3), 403–423.
Cook, V. J. (2002). Background to the L2 learner. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. J. (Ed.). (2002). Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. J. (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 user. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language
teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer.
Cook, V. J. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching (4th ed.). London: Arnold.
Corder, S. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cortazzi, M. (1990). Cultural and educational expectations in the language classroom. In B.
Harrison (Ed.), Culture and the language classroom. London: Macmillan Modern English.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. X. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H.
Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crespo, B., & Moskowich, I. (2006). Latin forms in vernacular scientific writing: Code-switching
or borrowing? In R. W. McConchie et al. (Eds.), 2005 Symposium on New Approaches in
English Historical Lexis (LEL-LEX). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Crookes, G. V., & Rulon, K. (1985). Incorporation of corrective feedback in native
speaker/non-native speaker conversation. Technical Report No. 3. Center for Second language
Classroom Research, Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii.
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Day, R. R. (1990). Teacher observation in second language teacher. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), The
language teaching matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deford, D. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading instruction.
Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 351–367.
De Groot, A. M. B. (2002). Lexical representation and lexical processing in the L2use. In V.
J. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 peer
revisions. The Modern language Journal, 84, 51–68.
256 Bibliography
Di Sciullo, A. M., Muysken, P., & Singh, R. (1986). Government and code-mixing. Journal of
Linguistics, 22, 1–24.
Dodson, C. J. (1972). Language teaching and the bilingual method. London: Pitman.
Donato, R., & Lantolf, J. P. (1990). The dialogic origins of L2 monitoring. Pragmatics and
Language Learning, 1, 83–97.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an
empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.
Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language
classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 72(2), 154–166.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1972). Goofing, an indicator of children’s second language strategies.
Language Learning, 22, 234–252.
Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-evaluation. The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 63(2), 275–292.
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development: A study of classroom interaction and
language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: World structure, collocation, word-class, and meaning.
In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy.
Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: relationships between academic task
structure and social participation structure in lessons. In L. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communication in
the classroom. London: Academic Press.
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1981). when is a context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of
social competence. In J. L. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in
educational settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.
Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1987). Verbal reports on thinking. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.),
Introspection in second language research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1987). From product to process—Introspective methods in second
language research. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language
research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38
(1), 47–65.
Fanselow, J. F. (1987). Breaking rules: Generating and exploring alternatives in language
teaching. New York: Longman.
Field, F. W. (2002). Linguistic borrowing in bilingual contexts. Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analysing teaching behaviour. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all
reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375.
Franklin, C. E. M. (1990). Teaching in the target language: Problems and prospects. Language
learning Journal, 2(1), 20–24.
Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of teaching
and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 27–45.
Freeman, D. (1996). Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers know. In K.
Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher
education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417.
Gafaranga, J. (2007). Code-switching as a conversational strategy. In P. Auer & W. Li (Eds.),
Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bibliography 257
Gafaranga, J. (2009). The conversation analytic model of code-switching. In B. Bullock (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner-Chloros, P. (1987). Code-switching in relation to language contact and convergence.
In G. Ludi (Ed.), Devenir bilingue—parler bilingue. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Gardener-Chloros, P. (1991). Language selection and switching in Strabourg. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1972). Remarks on ethnomethodology. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.),
Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29,
327–344.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Ge, L. (2007). An investigation on English/Chinese code-switching in BBS in Chinese Alumni's
Community. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Gearon, M. (1997). L’alternance entre l’anglais et le francais chez les professeurs de FLE en
Australie. In V. Castellotti & D. Moore (Eds.), Etudes de Linguistique Appliquee (Vol. 108,
pp. 467–474).
Gluth, E. (2002), Code-switching: Grammatical, pragmatic and psycholinguistic aspects. An
overview paper. [online] Available from http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/46886/code-
switching-grammatical-pragmatic-and-psycholinguistic-aspects-an, 01/06/2010.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behaviour. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay in the organization of experience. New York:
Harper and Row.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gold, R. (1958). Roles in sociological field observation. Social Forces, 36, 217–223.
Gourlay, L. (2003). Classroom discourse and participation in an English for Specific Purposes
context. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Gourlay, L. (2006). Framing the discourse practices of higher education: Academic literacies,
hidden cultures and the transition experience of postgraduate Chinese students. In A. Bunker &
I. Vardi (Eds.), Critical visions: Thinking, learning and researching in higher education:
Proceedings of the 2006 annual international conference of the higher education research and
development society of Australasia. HERSDA: Milperra.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3). New York City: Academic Press.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, London: Harvard University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1970). Verbal strategies and multilingual communication. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.),
Georgetown round table on language and linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guthrie, L. F. (1984). Contrasts in teachers’ language use in a Chinese-English bilingual
classroom. In J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem, & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL ‘83: The question
of control. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Guthrie, E. (1987). Six cases in classroom communication: A study of Teacher discourse in the
foreign language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf & A. Labarca (Eds.), Research in second language
learning: Focus on the classroom. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hamalri, H. (1997). Government and codeswitching: Explaining American Finnish. Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
258 Bibliography
Hancock, M. (1997). Behind classroom code switching: Layering and Language choice in L2
learner interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 217–235.
Hannan, A. (2006). Observation techniques. [online] Available from http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.
uk/resined/observation/obshome.htm, 10/10/2010.
Harbord, J. (1992). The use of mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal, 46, 350–355.
Heller, M. (1982). Negotiation of language choice in Montreal. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language
and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heller, M. (1988). Code-switching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoffmann, C. (1991). An introduction to bilingualism. London, New York: Longman.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1988). From structural to communicative. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
8, 14–29.
Hyltenstam, K. (1984). The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second
language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In R. Anderson (Ed.),
Second Languages. Newbury House: Rowley.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Jacobson, R. (1998). Conveying a broader message through bilingual discourse: An attempt at
contrastive codeswitching research. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Codeswitching worldwide. Berlin,
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jake, J. L., & Myers-Scotton, C. (1997). Codeswitching and compromise strategies: Implications
for lexical structure. International Journal of bilingualism, 1, 25–39.
James, C. (1996). A cross-linguistic approach to language awareness. Language Awareness, 5,
138–148.
Jiang, N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 617–637.
Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second
language. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 416–432.
Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy
instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(1), 83–108.
Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of pre-service English as
second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 439–452.
Johnson, R. K. (1983). Bilingual switching strategies: A study of the modes of teacher-talk in
bilingual secondary school classrooms in Hong Kong. Language Learning and
Communication, 2(3), 249–350.
Joshi, A. (1985). Processing of sentences with intrasentential code switching. In D. R. Dowty, L.
Kattunen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational
and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamwangamalu, N. M. (1992). ‘Mixers’ and ‘mixing’: English across cultures. World Englishes,
11(2), 173–181.
Kamwangamalu, N. M. (1994). SiSwati-English code switching: The matrix language principle
and linguistic constraints. South African Journal of African Languages, 14(2), 70–77.
Kamwangamalu, N. M., & Lee, C. L. (1991). Chinese-English code-mixing: A case of matrix
language assignment. World Englishes, 10(3), 247–261.
Kelly, L. G. (1969). 25 centuries of language teaching: an inquiry into the science, art, and
development of language teaching. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House Publishers.
Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 16, 441–461.
Kim, S. H. O. K., & Elder, C. (2005). Language choices and pedagogic functions in the foreing
language classrooms: A cross-linguistic functional analysis of teacher talk. Language Teaching
Research, 9(4), 355–380.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Bibliography 259
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kroll, J. F. (1993). Accessing conceptual representations for words in a seond language. In R.
Schreuder & B. Welten (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon. John Benjamins: Amesterdam.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming:
Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of
Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.
Kupferberg, I. (1999). The cognitive turn of contrastive analysis: Empirical evidence. Language
Awareness, 8(3), 210–222.
Kupferberg, I., & Olshtain, E. (1996). Explicit contrastive instruction facilitates the acquisition of
difficult L2 forms. Language Awareness, 5(3), 149–165.
Labov, W. (1971). The notion of ‘system’ in Creole languages. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization
and creolization of languages. Cambridge: Cambirdge University Press.
Lado, R. (1957). Language across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33,
79–96.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory
and second Language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. London: Longman.
Legarreta, D. (1977). Language choice in bilingual classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 1, 9–16.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Li, W. (1998). The ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions in the analysis of conversational code-switching.
In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London:
Routledge.
Li, W. (1999). Lemma congruence checking as an organizing principle in intrasentential
codeswitching. Paper presented at the Second International Symposium on Bilingualism, April,
1999. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Li, W. (2002). ‘What do you want me to say?’ On the Conversation Analysis approach to bilingual
interaction. Language in Society, 31, 159–180.
Lin, A. M. Y. (1990). Teaching in two tongues: language alternation in foreign language
classrooms. Research Report, 3. City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Lin, A. M. Y. (1996). Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination, resistance and
code-switching in Hong Kong schools. Linguistics and Education, 8(1), 49–84.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2008). Code-switching in the classroom: Research paradigms and approaches. In K.
A. King and N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Research
methods in language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 10). Berlin: Springer.
Liu, D., Ahn, G. S., Baek, K. S., & Han, N. O. (2004). Sounth 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.
Littlewood, W. (1991). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge:
Litz, D. R. A. (2005). Textbook evaluation and ELT management: A South Korean case study.
Asian EFL Journal. [online] Available from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Litz_thesis.pdf,
18/03/2010.
Locastro, V. (1987). Aizuchi: A Japanese conversational routine. In L. E. Smith (Ed.), Discourse
across cultures. New York: Prentice Hall.
Lozanov, G. (1978). Suggestology and outlines of suggestopedy. New York: Gordon and Breach.
Macaro, E. (2000). Issues in target language teaching. In K. Field (Ed.), Issues in modern foreign
languages teaching. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
260 Bibliography
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms:

Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 531–548.
Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy.
In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to
the profession. New York: Springer.
Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring
‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and
foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. London:
L. Erlbaum Associates.
MacSwan, J. (1999). A minimalist approach to intrasentential code switching. New York: Garland
Publishing.
MacSwan, J. (2000). The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from
intrasentential code switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(1), 37–54.
Malamah-Thomas, A. (1987). Classroom interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin-Jones, M. (1995). Code-switching in the classroom: two decades of research. In L. Milroy
& P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin-Jones, M. (2000). Bilingual classroom interaction: A review of recent research. Language
Teaching, 33(1), 1–9.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
Mason, J. (2004). Semistructured interview. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. E. Bryman, & T. F. Liao
(Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McClure, E. (2001). Oral and written Assyrian-English code-switching. In R. Jacobson (Ed.),
Code-switching worldwide II. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
McClure, E., & McClure, M. (1988). Macro- and micro-sociolinguistic dimensions of
code-switching in Vingard (Romania). In M. Heller (Ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological
and sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
McCormick, K. (1995). Code-switching, code-mixing and convergence in Cape Town. In R.
Mesthrie (Ed.), Language and social history: Studies in South Africa sociolinguistics. David
Philips: Cape Town.
Milk, R. (1981). An analysis of the functional allocation of Spanish and English in a bilingual
classroom. California Association for Bilingual Education: Research Journal, 2(2), 11–26.
Milroy, L., & Li, W. (1995). A social network approach to code-switching: The example of a
bilingual community in Britain. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Milroy, L., & Muysken, P. (1995). Introduction: Code-switching and bilingualism research. In L.
Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on
code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education, China. (2007). College English curriculum requirements. Shanghai:
Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Mitchell, R. (1988). Communicative language teaching in practice. London: CILT.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. London: Arnold.
Mitchell, R., Parkinson, B., & Johnstone, R. (1981). The foreign language classroom: An
observational study. Stirling Educational Monographs No 9. Stirling: Department of
Education, University of Stirling.
Moskowitz, G. (1971). Interaction analysis—A new modern language for supervisors. Foreign
Language Annals, 5, 211–221.
Muysken, P. (1995). Code-switching and grammatical theory. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.),
One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching. Cambridge:
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bibliography 261
Myers-Scotton, C. (1992). Comparing codeswitching and borrowing. Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development, 13, 19–39.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in codeswitching. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2000). The matrix language frame model: Developments and responses. In R.
Jacobson (Ed.), Codeswitching worldwide II. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Myers-Scotton, C., & Bolonyai, A. (2001). Calculating speakers: Codeswitching in a rational
choice model. Language in Society, 30, 1–28.
Myers-Scotton, C., & Jake, J. L. (1998). Codeswitching and the nature of lexical entries.
Plurilinguismes, 14, 219–246.
Myers-Scotton, C., & Jake, J. L. (2000). Testing the 4-M model: An introduction. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 4(1), 1–8.
Nazary, M. (2008). The role of L1 in L2 acquisition: Attitudes of Iranian University students.
Novitas-Royal, 2(2), 138–153.
Newmark, L., & Reibel, D. (1968). Necessity and sufficiency in language learning. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 6, 145–164.
Ng, C., & Tang, E. (1997). Teachers’ needs in the process of EFL reform in China—A report from
Shanghai. Perspectives: Working Papers, 9(1), 63–85.
Nilep, C. (2006). “Code switching” in sociocultural linguistics. Colorado Research in Linguistics,
19(1), 1–22.
Nishimura, M. (1997). Japanese-English code-switching: Syntax and pragmatics. New York:
P. Lang.
Nortier, J. (1990). Dutch-Moroccan Arabic code switching among Moroccans in the Netherlands.
Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Obler, L. K. (1982). The parsimonious bilingual. In L. K. Obler & L. Menn (Eds.), Exceptional
language and linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge:
Pahta, P. (2004). Code-switching in medieval medical writing. In I. Taavitsainen & P. Pahta
(Eds.), Medical and scientific writing in late medical English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Pajares, M. R. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Parkinson, B., Sandhu, P., Lacorte, M. and Gourlay, L. (1998). To code or not to code. Edinburgh
Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 9, 86–103.
Parkinson, B. (1993). Can applied linguists do ethnographic interviews? Edinburgh Working
Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 96–109.
Pennington, M. C. (1995). Pattern and Variation in use of two languages in the Hong Kong
secondary English class. RELC Journal, 26(2), 80–105.
Pennington, M. C. (1999). Framing bilingual classroom discourse: Lessons from Hong Kong
secondary school English classes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 2(1), 53–73.
Pfaff, C. (1975). Syntactic Constraints on code-switching: A quantitative study of Spanish/English.
Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America, 50th Annual Meeting, San Francisco,
Calif.
Pfaff, C. (1979). Constraints on language mixing: Intrasentential code-switching and borrowing in
Spanish/English. Language, 55, 291–318.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poldauf, I. (1995). Language awareness. Language awareness, 4(1), 3–14.
262 Bibliography
Polio, C. (1994). Comments on Elsa Roberts Auerbach’s “Reexamining English only in the ESL
classroom”: A reader reacts. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 153–161.
Polio and Duff. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: A
qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language Journal,
78(3), 313–326.
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en espaiiol: Toward a
typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618.
Poplack, S. (1981). The Syntactic structure and social function of code-switching. In R. Durán
(Ed.), Latino language and communicative behavior. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Poplack, S., Sankoff, D., & Miller, C. (1988). The social correlates and linguistic processes of
lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics, 26, 47–104.
Prince, E., & Pintzuk, S. (1984). Bilingual code-switching and the open/closed class distinction.
[online] Available from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ON4ac_b_
9dMJ:ftp://babel.ling.upenn.edu/papers/faculty/ellen_prince/codesw.ps+Bilingual+code-
switching+and+the+open/closed+class+distinction,&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk, 02/10/2010.
Prodromou, L. (2002). From mother tongue to other tongue. [online] Available from http://www.
teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/mother-tongue-other-tongue, 10/10/2010.
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interzction. London: Sage.
Richards, J. C. (1996). Teachers’ maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 281–
296.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. [online] Available from http://
www.professorjackrichards.com/pdfs/communicative-language-teaching-today-v2.pdf,
02/10/2010.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan.
Rivers, W. (1964). The psychologist and the foreign-language teacher. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of the learners’ native language in the foreign
language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 204–218.
Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ross, R. N. (1975). Ellipsis and the structure of expectation. San Jose State Occasional Papers in
Linguistics, 1, 183–191.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of
turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Scheers, C. W. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 Classroom. English Teaching Forum, 37(2), 6–9.
Schendl, H. (2000). Syntactic constraints on code-switching in medieval texts. In I. Taavitsainen,
P. Phata, T. Nevalainen, & M. Rissanen (Eds.), Placing middle English in context. Mouton de
Gruyter: Berlin, New York.
Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 10, 209–231.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. New York: Longman.
Seliger, H. W. (1983). The language learner as linguist: Of metaphors and realities. Applied
Linguistics, 4(3), 178–191.
Sendan, F., & Roberts, J. (1998). Orhan: a case study in the development of a student teachers’
personal theories. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 4, 229–244.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgements,
decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455–498.
Bibliography 263
Shewan, C. M. (1988). The Shewan spontaneous language analysis (SSLA) system for aphasic
adults: Description, reliability, and validity. Journal of Communication Disorders, 21, 103–
138.
Shin, S. J., & Milroy, L. (2000). Conversational code-switching among Korean-English bilingual
children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4, 351–384.
Simon, D. L. (2001). Towards a new understanding of codeswitching in the foreign language
classroom. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Codeswitching Worldwide II. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin,
New York.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford
University Press.
Singleton, D. (1989). Language acquisition: The age factor. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Song, Y., & Andrews, S. (2009). The L1 in L2 learning—Teachers’ beliefs and practices.
Muenchen: Lincom Europa.
Spada, N. (1994). Classroom interaction analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 685–688.
Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects.
In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), The international handbook of English language teaching
(Vol. 1). Norwell, MA: Springer.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand oaks: Sage.
Stroud, C. (1998). Perspectives on cultural variability of discourse and some implications for
code-switching. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and
identity. London: Routledge.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French
immersion students working together. The Modern language Journal, 82, 320–337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based language learning: The uses of first language use.
Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274.
Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching Forum, 40, 36–43.
Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tarone, E., & Allwright, D. (2005). Second Language teacher learning and student second
language learning: Shaping the knowledge base. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language
teacher education: International perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Timm, L. A. (1975). Spanish-English code-switching: El Porqué and How-Not-To. Romance
Philology, 28, 473–482.
Tollefson, J. W. (1995). Language policy, power, and inequality. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power
and inequality in language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Torras, M., & Gafaranga, J. (2002). Linguistic identities and/in non-formal bilingual talk:
Trilingual service encounters in Barcelona. Language in Society, 31, 527–548.
Treffers-Daller, J. (1991) Towards a uniform approach to code-switching and borrowing. In
Papers for the workshop on constraints, conditions and models. Strasbourg: European Science
Foundation.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2011). Teacher education and teacher development. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook
of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but….
Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 531–540.
Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers’ uses of the target and first languages in second and
foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 204–218.
Ullmann, R., & Geva, E. (1983). Classroom observation in the L2 setting: A dimension of
program evaluation. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education: Modern Language Centre.
264 Bibliography
Underhill, A. (1998). Classroom politics, power and self-direction. [online] Available from http://
www.iatefl.org/content/newsletter/145AU.php, 20/06/08.
Üstünel, E. (2009). The sequential organisation of code-switching in EFL classrooms:
Teacher-initiated and teacher-induced code-switching in a Turkish University EFL setting.
Saarbrücken: Germany VDM Verlag.
Van Dulm, O. (2002). Constriants on South African English-Afrikaans intrasentential code
switching: A minimalist approach. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 31, 63–90.
Van Dulm, O. (2007). The grammar of English-Afrikaans code switching: A feature checking
account. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen LOT-series.
Villamil, O., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive
activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 5, 51–75.
Wentz, J. (1977). Some considerations in the development of a syntactic description of
code-switching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Wilson, E. K., Konopak, B. C., & Readence, J. E. (1991). Examining content area reading beliefs,
decisions, and instruction: A case study of an English teacher. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu
(Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and practice: Views from many perspectives. Chicago: NRC.
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and
classroom practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1980). Language learning through bilingual instruction. Berkeley: University
of California. (Unpublished mimeo).
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden
(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Newbury House: Rowley.
Yuan, L. (Ed.). (2002). The contemporary Chinese dictionary: Chinese-English edition. Beijing:
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Zentella, A. C. (1981). Ta bien, you could answer me en cualquier idioma: Puerto Rican
codeswitching in bilingual classrooms. In R. Ducan (Ed.), Latino language and communicative
behavior. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing Up bilingual. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Zheng, S., Wei, N., & Chen, Y. (1997). Guanyu daxue yingyu jiaoxuefa de yanjiu (on studies in
College English teaching methodologies). Waiyu Jie (Foreign Language World), 3, 1–7.

The Use of First and Second Language in Chinese University EFL Classrooms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Use of First and Second Language in Chinese University EFL Classrooms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yi

The Use of First

The Use of First and Second

ISBN 978-981-10-1910-4 ISBN 978-981-10-1911-1 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016944919

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

class time; to highlight differences between L1 and L2 grammar; and to ensure

April 2016 Prof. Tony Lynch

Part I Background and Design

2.4 Empirical Studies on Teachers’ L1 and L2 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.2.1 Procedures of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Part III Conclusions

8.2.6 The Teachers’ Language Use Across Different

Appendices (Introductory Note). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Appendix A: Sample Analysis of Code-Switching Instances (Carl). . . . . 235

Appendix B: Sample Pre- and Post-Observation Interview (Anne). . . . . 241

Even today monolingual approaches to L2 teaching seem to be widely accepted

In recent years, the dominance of monolingual approaches has again been

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016 1

1.2 Issues Relevant to the L1 in L2 Learning and Teaching

In addition to teaching objectives, teachers’ and students’ L2 proﬁciency and

1.2.1 Power and Politics

Although the maintenance of students’ L1 does not guarantee empowerment

1.2.2 Teacher Education

In the ﬁeld of language teacher education, the importance of knowledge of applied

according to Tarone and Allwright (2005: 18), second language acquisition is an

Freeman and Johnson were also against overattention to knowledge of applied

As far as current practices of training EFL teachers in China are concerned,

1.2.3 Teacher Cognition

complex construct involving various components relating to L2 teaching: teaching

1.2.4 Culture of Learning

methods involving grammar-translation seems to be more suitable to the expecta-

1.2.5 Teaching Context

Some recent adjustments in the national examination system may be another

1.3 The Objectives of the Study

While, as shown in the previous section, the use of the L1 in L2 education is

1.4 Overview of the Book

2.2 The Role of the L1 in L2 Learning

2.2.1 Arguments for the Negative Role of the L1 in L2

creating stimulus-response associations through imitation or reinforcement

In the foreword to Lado (1957), Fries also wrote:

The criticism of Contrastive Analysis was based on empirical, theoretical, and

as a result of the inconsistency between the L1 and L2 rules. Furthermore, unlike

needs if we abandon it ourselves as soon as such needs arise in the immediate

2.2.2 Arguments for the Positive Role of the L1 in L2

languages facilitated the acquisition of difﬁcult L2 structures. Moreover, they

In an attempt to understand language transfer as a cognitive process, Ellis (1994:

Although behaviourist learning theory seemed to overemphasize the errors

Fig. 2.2 The

Fig. 2.3 The word-

Fig. 2.4 The

Fig. 2.5 The asymmetrical

Fig. 2.6 Distributed model (De Groot 2002: 49)

Now, it is clear that from the perspective of socio-cultural theory, language

First-language learner Second-language learner

2.3 The L1 in L2 Teaching

This section chronologically reviews some major methodologies which have

2.3.1 An Early Attempt to Conduct L2 Teaching in the L2

According to Kelly (1969: 287), an early attempt to conduct L2 classes in the L2

2.3.2 The Grammar-Translation Method

2.3.3 The Direct Method