THE PEDAGOGICAL ENHANCEMENT OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION

THROUGH THE USE OF CODE SWITCHING IN MULTILINGUAL

CLASSROOMS IN SOUTH AFRICA

STANLEY MADONSELA
University of South Africa
[email protected]

Abstract

Code switching constitutes one of many language contact phenomena

and it can be understood by placing it in the double context of the
speech economy of a multilingual society. It is a product of prolonged
interaction among those who operate with shared beliefs regarding
their own culture and communicating with others and is central to the
understanding of human language and the making of meaning. The aim
of this article is to explore whether code switching in the classroom
environment can be an effective pedagogic tool to enhance teaching
and learning and also expands the vocabulary of learners and the level
of their communication in the classroom. The article also explores the
distinctive nature of communication in the classroom environment by
considering the different research paradigms and approaches that have
been adopted in studying code switching in the classroom. The issue of
code switching from the learner’s first language (L1) and the second
language (L2), which is usually the language of teaching and learning, is
the focus in which this article is approached. This research study
employs qualitative method in an attempt to interrogate the existing
literature on classroom interaction using code switching as the basis of
its argument.

Keywords: code switching, communication, multilingualism, learning,

classroom

Introduction

Because of the multilingual nature of South Africa, multilingual

classrooms are becoming more common in many schools as is the range
of mother tongues that children have. The term multilingual has been
defined differently by different scholars with different approaches.
However, for the purpose of this discussion, multilingual should be

126
 Stanley Madonsela:
The pedagogical enhancement of classroom interaction through the
use of code switching in multilingual classrooms in South Africa

understood as the ability to use two languages in some proportion in

order to facilitate learning by learners who have a native proficiency in
one language and are acquiring proficiency in another language. The
learning of English has become an area of interest in English language
teaching research in countries around the world (Gainer and Lapp,
2010) and this applies to the South African context as well. Gardner and
MacIntyre (1991) have identified multiple factors involved in language
teaching and learning, including cognitive and affective factors, and a
range of miscellaneous factors that include the age and sociocultural
experiences of the learners.

It is recognised that the effectiveness of the language learning process

relates to learners’ levels of first language acquisition (Wu, 2010;
Gregersen, 2003; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991; Price, 1991). Classroom
interaction amongst bilinguals and multilinguals can be stalled by the
language used and learners’ low levels of competency in the second
language (L2). For the purpose of this research, multilingual classroom
should be understood to refer to a situation of linguistic diversity
among learners. In South Africa, multilingual classrooms are largely to
be found in historically ‘white' schools (English-and/or Afrikaans-
medium) where there is an increase in the enrolment of learners from
African language background. This article argues that code switching
can be an effective tool for teaching multilingual classes, and that a
better understanding of code switching and of bilingualism can have a
beneficial impact both on the quality of teaching and on learners’
performance. However, this depends on the linguistic competence of
the speakers using code switching. Teachers who are educating non-
native speakers of English encounter a number of challenges, especially
as regards the teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL). In most
cases, they use the phenomenon of code switching or switching from
one language to another in their lessons to enhance their teaching
techniques. The study of code switching is often associated with second
language (L2) learning in the classroom environment and it is at the
centre of interest where bilingual and multilingual speakers are the
focus of discussion. Important changes are taking place in learners’
classroom environments globally and in South Africa, particularly as
regards the question of language of instruction in relation to learners
who are speakers of L2 languages. These changes are exerting some

127
 Journal of Educational Studies 15 (1) 2016

language pressure on teachers and learners alike, and sometimes

require a "cross-language" approach. This article sets out to address a
range of issues encountered in classrooms where learners are not
mother-tongue speakers of the language of teaching and learning. A
cross-language approach involves the use of more than one language
at the same time in the classroom where there is a lack of competency
on the part of the learners and/or teachers in the language of
instruction and/or the L2 language(s). The literature on classroom code
switching will be explored, and where appropriate, used to support the
arguments raised.

Research objectives

i. To explore the use of code switching in classroom environments in

order to enhance teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms.
ii. To identify existing teaching and classroom management strategies
used by teachers in multilingual classrooms.

Theoretical framework

The analysis in this article is grounded on a sociocultural view of

language, backed by the theories of Bakhtin (1998) and Bourdieu
(1991). The Grammar Translation Method (GTM) and the Direct
Method (DM) are also considered as theories that navigate the
discussion closer to the classroom environment. The underlying
assumption is that each learner in the classroom simultaneously
constructs and is constructed by the discourses that surround him or
her, and such communally constructed discourses define not only the
group dynamic but also the individual identities of group members. The
Grammar Translation Method (GTM) was in use in English Second
Language (ESL) classrooms for some time, but the Direct Method (DM)
has replaced it as perhaps the dominant approach to language learning.
As against the latter two approaches, Nation (2003) introduces a so-
called Balanced Approach, according to which teachers need to show
respect for learners' L1 and to avoid behaving in ways that make the L1
appear to be inferior to their L2, which may often be English but it is the
English teacher's job to help learners to develop their proficiency in
English, and the importance of maximizing L2 use in the classroom is
also emphasized.

128
 Stanley Madonsela:
The pedagogical enhancement of classroom interaction through the
use of code switching in multilingual classrooms in South Africa

In all the discussions of code switching, the role of the mother tongue
in foreign language classrooms is crucial (Butzkamm 2003). Other
important factors are the extent to which students use their mother
tongue in a task-based classroom (Carless 2007), L1 use in the L2
classroom (Edstrom 2006), bilingual pedagogy in EFL (Forman 2010) and
first language and target language in the foreign language classroom
(Littlewood and Yu, 2009).

Turnbull (2001) claims that support for the exclusive use of the target
language in the classroom is losing ground and that many researchers
are now in favour of the appropriate use of the L1 in ESL classrooms
when it is understood to be the facilitator of learning. According to this
view, the use of L1 by L2 learners enables them because in it, they
already possess a language system with its many levels of
communicative and functional usage. Auer (1984) acknowledges the
positive role of the mother tongue in the classroom, arguing that it
supports many learning functions, including more effective classroom
management, better language analysis, a greater understanding of
rules-governed grammar, room to discuss cross-cultural issues, the
giving of instructions or prompts, explaining errors and checking
comprehension, among others. Despite the fact that code switching is
one of the significant and idiosyncratic features of bilingual behaviours,
its use has often been regarded negatively, particularly in educational
scenarios. However, there is a perceptible incongruity between the
code switching that is routinely observed to occur in bilingual
communities and the focus on avoiding opportunities for code
switching that has been common in educational settings.

Literature on classroom code switching

Code switching in this article will be defined very broadly as the use of
more than one language within a single utterance, irrespective of the
level of integration between the languages. There is a distinction in the
literature between code switching and borrowing, also referred to as
“transference,” in which a single lexical item appears in a sentence or
utterance otherwise entirely offered in one language (Clyne, 2000).
There is some debate in the field about how to distinguish code
switching from borrowing. Research has been conducted to understand

129
 Journal of Educational Studies 15 (1) 2016

and explain the functions of code switching in wider social contexts

(Calteaux 1994; Finlayson & Slabbert 1997; Kamwangamalu 1998;
Mesthrie 1995; Makoni 1999). Few local studies have been carried out
on the role of code switching in education in South Africa (Adendorff
1993; Kieswetter, 1995; Du Plessis 1995; Setati, 2002, 2005). If all
learners in a conversation share linguistic background, there is no
problem envisaged or communication breakdown caused by the use of
code switching. However, code switching becomes a source of problem
only when one party is not privy to the meanings of the words or
phrases used in all languages. In such a case, learners will, from time to
time, repair a code switch by repeating their utterance in the language
that other learners will comprehend.

Myers-Scotton (1997), Poplack (1980) and Sankoff and Poplack (1981)

have attempted to identify and model formal linguistic constraints on
code switching. Other researchers, among them Gumperz (1982) and
Myers-Scotton (1993), have investigated code switching in social terms,
with the aim of explaining the sorts of linguistic choices that people
make when they use two languages. From a cross-disciplinary
perspective code switching can be regarded as an interaction between
speakers in the course of a single communicative episode, and the use
of more than one language. Scholars such as Auer (1984), Gumperz
(1982) and Myers-Scotton (1993) have investigated language
alternation from a socio-functional perspective, arguing that the use of
two languages in the same conversation performs specific interactional
tasks for speakers in a conversation, and is not a random phenomenon.

Evolving dynamics of code switching

Code-switching demonstrates that fluent bilinguals use code-switching

as they use many other linguistic resources, drawing on both (or all) of
the codes available to them in patterned and structured ways in order
to express their meanings (Chung, 2006; Clyne, 2000; Myers-Scotton,
1995; Poplack, 2000). Code switching can occur wherever there is a
question of contact or interaction between speakers of different
languages, or of the use of different codes by bilingual or multilingual
speakers. Simply put, code switching may occur in any situation in
which more than one language is used in the same place at the same
time. Since the earliest systematic investigations of the phenomenon,
research aimed at describing and explaining the features and

130
 Stanley Madonsela:
The pedagogical enhancement of classroom interaction through the
use of code switching in multilingual classrooms in South Africa

manifestations of code switching has produced a number of more

detailed definitions varying in specificity and using a range of
theoretical models.

It has become common recently for English First Language-EFL teachers

to use the students' mother tongue as a tool for conveying meaning.
Research has shown that a complete deletion of L1 in an L2 situation
can be inappropriate (Butzkamm, 2003; Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Nation,
2003; Schweers, 1999). There are some benefits in the use of L1 for
learners who are not proficient in L2. Brown (2000) indicates that the
use of a first language can be a facilitating factor for effective learning,
rather than acting as interference to learning. Schweers (1999)
encourages teachers to incorporate a relevant native language in their
lessons to encourage an effective classroom dynamic, and also suggests
that starting with the L1 provides learners with a sense of security while
also validating their lived experiences and allowing them to express
themselves. It has been shown that excluding a student’s L1 for the sake
of maximizing his or her exposure to the L2 is not necessarily productive
(Dujmovic, 2007).

However, recent research on the use of L1 in the classroom context has

revisited this position, and considered the possibility that integrating
the L1 in classroom communication might in fact accelerate L2 learning
(Turnbull 2001). Researchers tend to agree that the L2 can be used in
teaching. The question at issue here concerns the role of the L1 and the
extent to its use might be beneficial to learning, and on this matter we
find a range of views (Turnbull and Arnett 2002).

Furthermore, recent years have seen a growth in the influence of

poststructuralist accounts that see language not as a set of static
“codes” with solid boundaries but rather, as a collection of fluid
resources in meaning-making practices (Pennycook, 2010). These
views, which are part of a scholarly trend with regard to L2 learning,
have been expressed in a number of different ways and with the use of
different technical terms, but they converge on a shared idea, that the
process of learning a language is aimed at achieving the ability to use it
effectively as a means of argument and persuasion.

131
 Journal of Educational Studies 15 (1) 2016

Canagarajah (2011) uses the term “code-meshing”, whilst García,

(2009) and Creese and Blackledge (2010) prefer the term
“translanguaging”. They use these terms to reconceptualise the term
“code switching” as a social practice that forms part of the everyday
social life, but they are part of a wider trend in this direction. Indeed,
Lewis, Jones and Baker (2012:649) identify an overabundance of terms
that are currently in use or which have been advanced as denotations
for the phenomenon now often referred as “translanguaging”:

A plethora of similar terms (e.g., metrolingualism, polylanguaging,

polylingual languaging, heteroglossia, codemeshing, translingual
practice, flexible bilingualism, multilanguaging, and hybrid language
practices) makes this extension of translanguaging appear in need of
focused explication and more precise definition. Such varied terms are
competitive with “translanguaging” for academic usage and
acceptance.

As it has been noted, a variety of terms have been suggested by a

number of scholars, but for the purposes of this discussion the term
“code switching” is used as an operational term to refer to this
phenomenon. Further complicating the picture, it is noted that a
number of different terms and phrases are used in academic discourse
to refer to the distinction between speakers’ home languages and those
they learn in the classroom. Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain (2009) write
about first language (L1) use in second- and foreign-language (L2)
classrooms, while Mahboob (2011) writes about the use of local
languages in English classes and Brooks-Lewis (2009) writes about the
incorporation of L1 in foreign language teaching and learning.

Code switching as a tool in the classroom

Code switching has been understood to be an important part of the

debate about bilingual and multilingual classrooms for almost three
decades. According to Martin-Jones (1995), research on code-switching
has necessarily been cross-disciplinary in nature, involving a range of
areas including educational research on classroom interaction,
conversational analysis, language pragmatics and the ethnography of
communication. Code switching is common in classrooms all over the
world, but it is sometimes met with negativity or outright disapproval.
Influential pedagogical theories have argued that mixing languages in

132
 Stanley Madonsela:
The pedagogical enhancement of classroom interaction through the
use of code switching in multilingual classrooms in South Africa

the classroom context is strongly contraindicated because it involves a

contamination of the languages so used, and therefore jeopardizes
learners’ opportunities to acquire a different language, and this view
has been widely adopted by educational authorities. Some have even
argued that code switching is a dysfunctional form of speech behaviour
(Ferguson, 2009). In some places, such as Hong Kong, there have been
official calls for teachers to refrain from what is called “mixed code”
teaching (Lin, 1996).

For example, the teacher can use code switching when presenting new
concepts to learners in biology lesson. The learners can illustrate the
breathing system using a biological model constructed from improvised
materials. The teacher explains the system as follows:

I-inhalation yindleIa yokudonsa i-oxygen kanti exhalation yindlela

yokukhipha i-carbon dioxide.
“Inhalation is the process of breathing in oxygen and exhalation is
breathing out carbon dioxide.”

But applied linguists have taken a different view on code switching.

Adendorff (1993:142), for instance, regards classroom code switching
as a useful communicative resource, particularly when learners lack
proficiency in subjects that pose challenges for them. He views code
switching as a communicative resource that enables teachers and
learners to accomplish a range of social and educational objectives. On
this view, classroom code switching can enable learners to grasp lesson
contents that are taught in a language with which they are not familiar.
If code-switching helps students to better grasp an idea, then it should
be encouraged (Low, 2013).

This is another example that could be explored. The teacher uses this
type of code switching during the lesson to give information to the
students.

Akesibuke at the breathing ngezinsizakusebenza azibambile uLinda.

When udonsa iplastic, i-ballon iyafutheka and this is the way esingenisa
ngayo umoya. Akunjalo yini?

133
 Journal of Educational Studies 15 (1) 2016

“Let us look at the breathing apparatus that Linda is holding. When

you pull the plastic bag downwards, the balloon relaxes, and this is the
way to breathe in. Isn't it?

Ferguson (2003) proposes three functional categories of code switching

in subject classrooms as part of his argument that the practice has a
communicative value. Firstly, code switching can be useful for
constructing and transmitting knowledge. This idea is based on the
premise that it is difficult for learners to understand new concepts if the
language of instruction and of the texts used is one with which they are
not proficient. Teachers who employ code switching in such situations
are able to explain written texts and provide instruction in a language
with which students are familiar.

Secondly, on Ferguson’s view, code switching has a pedagogic function

in that it facilitates classroom discourse. And thirdly, he suggests that
code switching is effective in interpersonal relations and it therefore
offers opportunities to humanize the classroom, which is seen not only
as a place of formal learning, but also as a social and affective
environment where teachers and learners negotiate relationships and
identities.

Recent research on code switching in bilingual circumstances has,

however, shed light on the function of code switching as a
communicative resource. Studies by Lin (1996), Rubdy (2007) and
Moodley (2007) of typical classrooms in multilingual societies outside
the United States of America have demonstrated that the monolingual
ideology of the classroom and the multilingual linguistic reality of the
world around it were in conflict, and that this was evident in the code
switching that teachers and learners actually produced in classrooms.
Rubdy (2007) describes how a monolingual ideology was resisted in one
particular classroom and provides a view of code switching as a useful
pedagogical resource.

The function of L1 in an L2 classroom

In the classroom context, code switching forms an important part of the

debate on second language acquisition. Studies of language acquisition,
second language acquisition and language learning use the term “code

134
 Stanley Madonsela:
The pedagogical enhancement of classroom interaction through the
use of code switching in multilingual classrooms in South Africa

switching” either to describe bilingual speakers’ or language learners’

cognitive linguistic abilities, or to describe classroom or learner
practices involving the use of more than one language (Romaine 1989;
Cenoz & Genesee 2001; Fotos 2001).

Bucholtz and Hall (2005) base their own work on language and identity
in socio-cultural linguistics, a broad interdisciplinary field concerned
with the intersection of language, culture and society. From this point
of view, a teacher may use code switching in class when teaching, but
this is not necessarily conscious act, but rather an unconscious effort to
accommodate learners who are struggling to grasp the sense of the
lesson. It is an attempt to overcome the challenges that learners face
when they encounter difficulties in learning the material of a lesson due
to a language barrier. According to this view, language should always
be understood in terms of its functions, its roles in making meaning, for
all language use involves meaning-making (Levin 2011:36).

Recent research shows that that the use of L1 can actually provide more
time to practice L2 because the use of L1 can help to achieve a more
rapid comprehension of the material. L1 can be used as an alternative
language for clarification purposes, especially after attempts to
communicate ideas in L2 have not yielded positive results. The idea is
that L1 can play a supportive and facilitating role in the classroom (Tang,
2002), even if is not the primary language of communication. Hamin
and Majid (2006) investigated the effectiveness of the use of L1 to
generate ideas for second language writing, and found an enhancement
in the writing performance of learners who used their first language to
generate ideas; their explanation for this was that using L1 helped to
trigger learners’ background knowledge. Elementary learners who are
not proficient in L2 must always think before they speak and this inner
speech happens in L1 (Auerbach, 1993).

L1 use in thinking allows students to become more aware of the

similarities and differences between cultures and linguistic structures,
and thus help to improve the accuracy of their translations between L1
and L2. By using L1 alternatingly with L2, learners may perform
cognitively better in linguistic tasks than when they were limited to
communicating only in the language they are trying to learn. L1

135
 Journal of Educational Studies 15 (1) 2016

vocabulary allows learners to use levels of expression that they may not
yet possess in L2, and they may need to do so to process ideas more
effectively and reach higher levels of understanding. Alternating
between L1 and L2 also allows learners to repeatedly evaluate and
clarify communication with regard to choice of content and register
appropriate to the task (Wells, 1999).

The effects of L1 in the classroom environment

L1 language plays an important role in teaching language skills and sub-

skills and also in classroom activities. Use of L1 offers the teacher a wide
range of functions that can provide learners with a learning
environment that enables them to be successful. Butzkamm (2003)
believes that successful learners capitalize on the vast amount of
linguistic skills and world knowledge they have accumulated via the
mother tongue, and that the use of code switching in the classroom can
significantly boost learners’ performance.

Mattioli (2004) lists five positive functions of the use of L1 in an EFL

classroom. These functions are:

i. Explaining vocabulary

Clear explanation helps learners to understand better. An item can be

defined in familiar terms in L1 for learners who are not familiar with a
particular term used in L2. For example, a science teacher who is trying
to explain a Square Kilometre Array (SKA) to a class consisting of Nguni
language learners could define and describe the installation in a Nguni
language so that learners are able to understand it.

This might be a description such as the following: ‘Uhlelo lokusakaza

oluqoqa ulwazi lweSayensi ibanga elithi alibe yisikwelekhilomitha
esisodwa’ (A radio telescope project that has a total surface area of
approximately one square kilometre). In this way, Nguni language
learners in the classroom can impart to learners an idea of a large
telescope project. Further explanations might help them to understand
that the project addresses a broad range of questions concerning the
evolution of the galaxy, general cosmology, fundamental physics and
astrobiology.

136
 Stanley Madonsela:
The pedagogical enhancement of classroom interaction through the
use of code switching in multilingual classrooms in South Africa

ii. Giving instructions

Sometimes it might appear that learners are not doing what they are
asked to do, or that they are not performing as expected because they
are defying the instructions given.

“Sipho, put the palms of your hands at the side of your chest, breathe
in deeply and breathe out. What happens to your chest?”

Sipho responds to the instruction given by the teaching by putting his

hand on his stomach and does not breathe in and out as instructed.
However, it might be that he did not understand the instructions given
to him because it was were given in L2. Giving learners instructions in a
language that they understand better would help them to follow
instructions more easily. For example: Sipho, beka izandla zakho at the
side chest, bese udonsa umoya. What happens esifubeni sakho?

iii. Reprimanding students

A formal expression of disapproval of a learner’s wrongdoing can also

be more effective in a language that he or she understands readily. A
reprimand is a severe rebuke, the more so when it is issue in a formal
context by a person who is in authority.
Please thulani umsindo now ukuze nikuzwisise kahle lokhu.
“Please be quiet now so that you can understand this.

iv. Talking to individual students.

When learners are addressed in a language that they understand what

they are told “goes to their heart” – it means something to them in a
more direct way. Using a language with which they are more familiar
helps to foster a sense of belonging in learners and it also easier to
reassure by using their language. When teachers switch to the language
of their learners, they are able to reach them and to put across their
message more effectively.

137
 Journal of Educational Studies 15 (1) 2016

L1 and code switching in context in the classroom

There is a new emphasis on the relevance and pedagogic purpose of

using L1 in the classroom context. However, a haphazard use of the
mother tongue may be an unwanted side-effect of an effective
monolingualism, and it is often employed today by disaffected teachers
(Butzkamm 2003).

A succinct description of the role of L1 in an EFL context is presented by

Larsen–Freeman (2000). Larsen–Freeman (2000) supports the role of
the mother tongue in the classroom procedures and summarizes the
role of L1 in various ELT methods. It is worth mentioning that not all the
methods suggested by Larsen-Freedman will be considered in this
discussion. Only those that contribute to the enhancement of
classroom communication are discussed.

i. Grammar Translation Method

According to this method, the meaning of a term in the target language

will be made clearer to learners by translating it into their native
language. On this approach, the students' native language will in fact be
the one mostly used in class. This method depends on the teacher’s
competency in the students’ mother tongue, of course, but it can assist
students to grasp content more quickly.

ii. Silent way

This method supports the use of the students’ native language in that
it can be used to give instructions when necessary, and to help a student
improve his or her pronunciation. The native language is also used (at
least at beginning levels of proficiency) during feedback sessions.

iii. Suggestopedia

According to Larsen-Freedman, this method makes use of native-

language translation to make the meaning of a dialogue clear. The
teacher also uses the native language in class when necessary. Stages
are identified in which the translation into the native language can be
discontinued. As the course proceeds, the teacher uses the native
language less and less.

138
 Stanley Madonsela:
The pedagogical enhancement of classroom interaction through the
use of code switching in multilingual classrooms in South Africa

iv. Community Language Learning

Larsen-Freedman says that this method supports the use of L1 because

a student’s sense of security is initially enhanced by using their native
language. The purpose of L1 is to provide a bridge from the familiar to
the unfamiliar. Directions in class and sessions during which students
express their feelings and are understood are conducted in their L1.

The functions of code switching in a classroom

As it has been noted, code switching can play a positive role in the
classroom. The first function of code switching is the speaker’s choice
of a linguistic code. The conversation between the speaker and the
addressee is usually determined by the choice of words used by the
speaker because the speaker’s word choice reflects his or her
understanding of the language used by both the speaker and the
addressee. In this case, teachers in a multilingual classroom tend to
choose words that they think will be easily grasped by the learners to
understand the content of the lesson.

Scotton (1983:116) says that the choice of one code rather than
another is driven by the “negotiation principle”, which underpins code
switching as follows:

Code switching directs the speaker to choose the form of your

conversation contribution such that it symbolises the set of rights and
obligations which you wish to be in force between Speaker and
Addressee for the current exchange.

The linguistic code is chosen on the basis that the speaker is fully aware
that the addressee will not encounter difficulties in grasping the sense
of an expression used. In a classroom situation, the teacher can regard
switching from one language to another as a tool that will assist learners
in understanding the content. As Myers-Scotton (1998:152) asserts,
code switching is both a tool and an action by which a result is brought
about.

Gumperz’s second function of code switching is interjection.

139
 Journal of Educational Studies 15 (1) 2016

Interjection in a classroom situation, especially in multilingual

classrooms, occurs when a linguistic term is not known and its use could
hinder learning. In such situations learners will, from time to time,
purposefully interrupt the teacher in order to bring to his or her
attention their difficulty in grasping the sense of a particular linguistic
term used of the teacher. Code switching is an available solution.

A third function of code switching is repetition. Teachers use repetition

to emphasise a particular term for the benefit of the learners in their
classrooms. For example, if learners seem to struggle to understand a
term used in English, the teacher can code switch to the learners’ L1,
repeating the term several times for the benefit of the learners.

Moodley (2007) explored the classroom environment in South Africa, in

particularly the situation in which many learners of English as a second
language have been immersed in English-medium classrooms because
the education policy in place insisted on this approach. Moodley found
that learners’ code is switched for several reasons: to seek clarification,
for elaboration, for reiteration, in the interests of group management,
to express their answers to questions and their points of view and to
“claim the floor”. On this basis, Moodley proposes that code switching
can be “strategic” even though it is an “automatic” phenomenon in
classrooms where the majority of learners are multilingual.

Conclusion

The ethnographic observation used as a base for this discussion

indicates that code switching in the language of the classroom is
conditioned by people’s ideas as regards dealing with oral and written
language. Events of literacy are carried out mostly in the “acceptable”,
standard language, while oral events are mostly subjected to linguistic
variation. Having considered the literature on classroom code
switching, it has emerged from this discussion that code switching can
contribute immensely to learners’ comprehension of the content
taught when it is used in a classroom environment with learners from
different language backgrounds. Code switching in the classroom
environment can be an effective pedagogic tool in that it expands the
vocabulary of learners and the level of communication between the
teacher and the learners, especially in multilingual classrooms. It is very
difficult to prevent the use of code switching in classrooms and possibly

140
 Stanley Madonsela:
The pedagogical enhancement of classroom interaction through the
use of code switching in multilingual classrooms in South Africa

detrimental, and its value for teaching and learning is becoming more
and more evident. Indeed, code switching can be seen as a linguistic
tool that multilingual speakers have available to them without its
having been explicitly taught to them or their being consciously aware
of it. Educators need to be aware of the widespread nature of the
phenomenon (Kieswetter 1995; Kamwangamalu 1998).

The use of L1 in the L2 classroom by both teachers and students can be

beneficial in the language learning process and may even be necessary
for increased comprehension and acceptance of the new language by
the language learners. L1 should be used only for purposes of
clarification and should not be the primary mode of communication
either by the students or teacher(s) in an L2 classroom. When an
appropriate balance between L1 and L2 is achieved, the use of L1 may
enhance an L2 classroom.

References

Adendorff, R. (1993). Code switching amongst Zulu-speaking teachers and their

pupils: Its functions and implications for teacher education. Southern African
Journal of Applied Language Studies 2(1):1–26.

Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

Auerbach, E. (1993). Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL

Quarterly, 27(1):9-32.

Bakhtin, M. K. (1998). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas

Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Brooks-Lewis, K. A. (2009). Adult learners’ perceptions of the incorporation of

their L1 in foreign language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics,
30(2):216-235.

Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic

approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 585-614.

141
 Journal of Educational Studies 15 (1) 2016

Butzkamm, W. 2003. We only learn language once. The role of the mother
tongue in FL classrooms: death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal, 28(1):
29-39.

Calteaux, KA. (1994). A sociolinguistic analysis of a multilingual community.

Unpublished thesis, Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg.

Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for

research and pedagogy. In Applied Linguistics Review, edited by W. Li.
Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1-28.

Carless, D. (2007). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based

classroom. ELT Journal, 62(4):331-337.

Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (2001). Trends in bilingual acquisition. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.

Chung, H. H. (2006). Code-switching as communicative strategy: A case study

of Korean-English bilinguals. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 293–307.

Clyne, M. (2000). Constraints on code-switching: How universal are they? In L.

Wei (Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 257–280). New York: Routledge.

Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual

classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language
Journal 94 (i):103-115.

Du Plessis, JM. (1995). Greetings and parting routines in Nguni: The effects of
social distance and sex. Unpublished Master’s research report, University of
the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-evaluation.

Canadian Modern Language Review 63(2):275-292.

Eldridge, J. (1996). Code switching in a Turkish secondary school. ELT Journal

50(4):303–311.

Ferguson, G. (2003). Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts:

functions, attitudes and policies. AILA Review, 16:38-51.

Finlayson, R. & Slabbert, S. (1997). “We just mix”: Code switching in a South
African township. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 125:65–98.

142
 Stanley Madonsela:
The pedagogical enhancement of classroom interaction through the
use of code switching in multilingual classrooms in South Africa

Forman, R. (2010). Ten principles of bilingual pedagogy in EFL. In The NNEST

Lens: Nonnative English Speakers in TESOL, edited by A Mahboob. Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.

Fotos, S. (2001). Codeswitching by Japan’s unrecognized bilinguals: Japanese

university students’ use of their native language as a learning strategy. In
Studies in Japanese bilingualism, edited by MG. Noguchi and S. Fotos.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Gainer, J.S. & Lapp, D. (2010). Remixing old and new literacies = motivated
students. English Journal, 100.1, 58-64.

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective.

Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gregersen, T. (2003). To err is human: A reminder to teachers of language-

anxious students. Foreign Language Annals, 36:25-32.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Kamwangamalu, NM. (1998). “We-codes”, “they-codes”, and “codes-in-

between”: Identities of English and codeswitching in post-apartheid South
Africa. Multilingua 17(2–3):277–296.

Kieswetter, A. (1995). Codeswitching amongst African high school pupils.

Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg.

Larsen–Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Levin, GS. (2011). Code choice in the language classroom. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.

Lewis, G., Jones, B., and Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: developing its
conceptualisation and contextualization. Educational Research and Evaluation,
18(7):655-670.

143
 Journal of Educational Studies 15 (1) 2016

Lin, AMY. (1996). Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination,

resistance and code switching in Hong Kong schools. Linguistics and Education
8(1):49-84.

Littlewood, W. and Yu, B. (2009). First language and target language in the
foreign language classroom. Language Teacher 42:1-14.

MacIntyre, P.D. & Gardner, R.C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of
anxiety and language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning,
41:85-117.

Mahboob, A. (2011). Using local languages in English language classes.

(Available at http://www.nnestblog.blogspot.com/, accessed on 11/06/2015.)

Makoni, S. (1999). Shifting discourses in language studies in South Africa. In

Knowledge in black and white, edited by Kwesi Kwaa Prah. Cape Town: Centre
for Advanced Studies of African Society.

Martin-Jones, M. (1995). Codeswitching in the Classroom: Two Decades of

Research. In One Speaker, Two Languages: 25 Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives
on Code-Switching, edited by L. Milroy and P. Muysken. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Mattioli, G. (2004). On native language and intrusion making do with words.

The English Teaching Forum, 42:20-25

Mesthrie, R (ed.). (1995). Language and social history: Studies in South African
sociolinguistics. Johannesburg: David Phillip.

Moodley, V. (2007). Codeswitching in the multilingual English first language

classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
10.6:707-721.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1995). Social motivations for code-switching: Evidence from

Africa. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1998). Codes and consequences: Choosing linguistic

varieties. New York: Oxford University Press.

144
 Stanley Madonsela:
The pedagogical enhancement of classroom interaction through the
use of code switching in multilingual classrooms in South Africa

Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning.
The Asian EFL Journal, 5(2). Available at http://www.asian-efl-journal.
com/june_2003_PN.html, [accessed on 11/06/2015].

Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. London/New York:

Routledge.

Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en

espanol: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18(7/8):581–618.

Poplack, S. (2000). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en

español: Toward a typology of code-switching. In L. Wei (Ed.), The bilingualism
reader (221–256). New York, NY: Routledge.

Price, M.L. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety:

Interviews with highly anxious students. In International education studies,
language learning anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications
edited by E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall:101-108.

Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Rubdy, R. (2007). English in the school: An impediment or a resource? Journal

of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 28(4):308-317.

Sankoff, D. & Poplack, S. (1981). A formal grammar for code-switching. Paper

in Linguistics 14(1–4):3–46.

Schweers, W. Jr. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Forum,

37(2):6–9.

Hamin, S., & Majid, A. H. (2006). The use of first language in limited English
proficiency classes: Good, Bad or Ugly? Bilangan, Jilid, 1. Available at
http://eprints.ukm.my /24/1/sitihami-edited1.pdf, accessed on 11/06/2015.

Setati, M. 2002. Researching Mathematics education and language in

multilingual South Africa. The Mathematics Educator, 12(2), 6-20.

Setati, M. 2005. Teaching Mathematics in a primary multilingual classroom.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 447-466.

145
 Journal of Educational Studies 15 (1) 2016

Scotton, CM. (1983). The negotiation of identities in conversation: A theory of

markedness and code choice. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language 44:115–136.

Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching Forum,

40(1), 36-43. Avialable at http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol40/
no1/p36.htm#top, accessed on 11/06/2015].

Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language
teaching. Canadian Modern Language Review 57(4):531-540.

Turnbull, M. and 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.

Turnbull, M. and Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009). First language use in second and

foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Wells, G. (1999). Using L1 to master L2: A response to Anton and DiCamilla's

"Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom."
The Modern Language Journal, 83(2):248-254.

Wu, K. (2010). The relationship between language learners’ anxiety and

learning strategy in the CLT classrooms. International Educational Studies,
3(1):174-191.

146