International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism

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

Teachers’ code-switching in bilingual classrooms:

exploring pedagogical and sociocultural functions

Hilda Cahyani, Michele de Courcy & Jenny Barnett

To cite this article: Hilda Cahyani, Michele de Courcy & Jenny Barnett (2018) Teachers’
code-switching in bilingual classrooms: exploring pedagogical and sociocultural functions,
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21:4, 465-479, DOI:
10.1080/13670050.2016.1189509

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1189509

Published online: 31 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8479

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 24 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbeb20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM, 2018
VOL. 21, NO. 4, 465–479
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1189509

Teachers’ code-switching in bilingual classrooms: exploring

pedagogical and sociocultural functions
Hilda Cahyania, Michele de Courcyb and Jenny Barnettb
a
Accounting Department, State Polytechnic of Malang, East Java, Indonesia; bSchool of Education, University of
South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The pedagogical and sociocultural functions of teachers’ code-switching Received 1 September 2015
are an important factor in achieving the dual goals of content learning Accepted 28 April 2016
and language learning in bilingual programmes. This paper reports on
KEYWORDS
an ethnographic case study investigating how and why teachers Teachers’ code-switching;
switched between languages in tertiary bilingual classrooms in translanguaging; bilingual
Indonesia, where the main language of instruction was English. Data on programme; tertiary content
code-switching were gathered in three classrooms over one semester, classroom; Indonesia
employing classroom observation with video and audio recording,
semi-structured teacher interviews with some stimulated recall, and a
focus group discussion. Transcripts of classroom interaction were
examined using both an Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS) perspective
and functional categories of code-switching. Teacher reflections were
studied, and analysis indicated that teachers’ code-switching was
frequently used to support students to gain understanding of
unfamiliar concepts, where the pedagogical focus was on the subject
matter more than on language. It also involved managing students’
behaviour and engaging in interpersonal and affective interactions with
students. The teachers’ code-switching thus frequently functioned as
translanguaging in that it occurred as an intentional strategy for
teaching in these bilingual classrooms, integrating the two languages in
order to achieve better communication and engagement in learning.

Indonesia is a multilingual country where people predominantly use the national language (Bahasa
Indonesia) for educational and formal purposes, whereas the vernacular languages (such as Javanese)
are used for everyday spoken use. English is used for particular instrumental functions across the
country, but it is hardly ever used for naturalistic communication outside the classroom. For
this reason, using English as a medium of instruction in academic subject areas typically requires
switching across languages in order to enhance both content learning and English language learning.
This makes Indonesia an ideal site for researching teachers’ multilingual code-switching and how it
relates to these dual goals. Specifically, this paper provides an ethnographic study of how and
why teachers switched languages while delivering their tertiary level Accountancy and Business
Administration classes. The analysis suggests the importance of going beyond the forms of code-
switching to identify the pedagogical and sociocultural functions it can serve within the classroom.
This has implications for teaching academic subject areas bilingually in diverse contexts around the
world.

CONTACT Hilda Cahyani [email protected]

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
466 H. CAHYANI ET AL.

Code-switching and translanguaging

Code-switching has been a central issue in bilingual research, illuminating our understandings of
bilingualism (Cantone 2007). It is the systematic alternate use of two or more languages in a
single utterance or conversational exchange for communicative purposes (Gardner-Chloros 2009;
Levine 2011). Research into classroom interaction focusing on code-switching has the advantage
of providing an understanding of the discourse of a shared identity and community among the inter-
locutors (Losey 2009). Code-switching is a natural way of communicating among bilinguals; thus the
action to separate languages in a multilingual classroom by only using monolingual communication
is unnatural (Kirkpatrick 2014).
Nevertheless, teachers’ code-switching has been a controversial issue since it is sometimes per-
formed subconsciously and automatically (Modupeola 2013, 93) rather than as an intentional teach-
ing strategy. However, when teachers switch between languages in order to maximise their
instruction, code-switching can function to enhance students’ understandings and provide students
with opportunities to take part in the discussion. Martin (2005, 89) noted that code-switching offers
classroom participants ‘creative, pragmatic, and safe practices … between the official language of the
lesson and a language to which the classroom participants have a greater access’. This endorses
research in the past few decades that confirms code-switching as a linguistic strategy rather than
merely a language problem (e.g. Poplack 1980; Gumperz 1982; Myers-Scotton 1993). In activity
related to comprehension and learning, the use of code-switching can be justified in a situation
where teachers and students share pedagogical perspectives (Macaro 2014, 17). In classroom prac-
tice, code-switching can support communication and exploratory talk as a part of the students’ learn-
ing (Setati et al. 2002). However, teachers often discourage students from code-switching and insist
they use the target language instead (Shin 2005). Teachers also frequently feel guilty and uncomfor-
table over using the L1 in the foreign language classroom or in classrooms where English is the
medium of instruction (Wang and Kirkpatrick 2013; Kirkpatrick 2014).
Like code-switching, the newer field of translanguaging can initially be defined as the practice of
shuttling between languages in a natural way. However, translanguaging differs from code-switching
in that it is not merely switching in and out of two separate monolingual codes but combines two
languages as a unity to achieve effective communication: ‘translanguaging posits that bilinguals
have one linguistic repertoire from which they select features strategically to communicate effectively’
(García 2011b, 1). Thus, the focus in the concept of translanguaging is ‘not on languages but on the
observable communicative practice of bilinguals’ (García 2011a, 147), taking bilinguals rather than
monolinguals as the norm (García 2011b, 1).
Translanguaging in classrooms is where two languages are used in an integrated and coherent
way to manage and facilitate the mental process of learning, whether by teachers or by students.
Translanguaging has been seen as part of a movement in education from monolingual to multilingual
education, and a modern model in bilingual classrooms (García 2009). It is an action designed to
access different linguistic features to augment communication. It is not merely using the two
languages but also making meaning, and gaining understanding and knowledge through the inte-
gration of those languages. Heugh (2015, 283) sees translanguaging as a strategic use of code-switch-
ing involving cognitive engagement while working with two or more languages simultaneously
rather than separately.
Baker (2011) calls such translanguaging strategic classroom language planning, where teacher and
students can use two languages for both input and output. The emphasis in the notion of classroom
translanguaging is more on the functions than on the forms of language, and more on the bilingual
learning process than on its outcomes (Lewis, Jones, and Baker 2012). Baker (2011, 289–290) summar-
ises the four advantages of the pedagogical practice of translanguaging:

. it may promote a deeper and fuller understanding of the subject matter,

. it may help the development of the weaker language,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 467

. it may facilitate home-school links and cooperation, and

. it may develop learners’ second language ability simultaneously with content learning.

Translanguaging is thus not only for the business of teaching but also for engaging the audience to
connect with their identity and linguistic repertoires (Creese and Blackledge 2010, 109–112).
In sum, both code-switching and translanguaging have been perceived as positive phenomena in
the bilingual world to promote communication as well as to accomplish pedagogical objectives in the
classroom. However, to date, research in code-switching has primarily investigated language interfer-
ence and borrowing or transfer, while research in the newer field of translanguaging investigates
phenomena that show how multilinguals are involved in their linguistic practice (Hornberger and
Link 2012). It is this latter perspective which is adopted in the study reported here, identifying ped-
agogical and sociocultural functions of teachers’ code-switching as part of their bilingual repertoire of
professional practice.

Interactional sociolinguistics and functional categories of pedagogic code-

switching
For its analytic framework, this study employed an amalgam of interactional sociolinguistics (IS) and
functional categories of pedagogic code-switching. IS, as a discourse analytic approach, aims to ident-
ify what participants in a conversation intend to convey in everyday communication (Gumperz 2008,
215). This focus on the meaning making process makes it suitable for use in ethnographic investi-
gations which provide context to help interpret such meaning making, and thus also for investigating
translanguaging.
A key element in Gumperz’s theoretical framework (1982, 2008) is not only to glean the meaning
from an interaction but also to make a prediction about what will come next in the interaction
(Tannen 1992). In Gumperz’s view, speakers are guided by their own interpretive norms in speaking,
and consequently IS analysis goes beyond surface meaning to assess the communicative intention.
Another theoretical framework employed in this study relates to the pedagogical functions of
classroom code-switching (Ferguson 2003, 2009). This taxonomy was drawn from Ferguson’s
meta-analysis across a range of code-switching research in different post-colonial settings. It classi-
fies: (1) code-switching for constructing and transmitting knowledge/curriculum access, for scaffold-
ing knowledge, annotation of key L2 technical terms and mediation of L2 textbooks; (2) code-
switching for classroom management, for signalling a shift/footing, managing pupils’ behaviour
such as: motivating, disciplining, and praising them; and (3) code-switching for interpersonal relations
for humanising classrooms.
Ferguson’s model resonates with Halliday’s work on the functional view of language (1994) which
led Lin (2013, 202) to call code-switching a communicative resource. This includes code-switching to
(1) provide basic L2 proficiency, as in ideational functions; (2) signal a topic shift, as in textual func-
tions; and (3) negotiate social distance and convey in-group solidarity, as in interpersonal functions.
The taxonomy of Ferguson’s functional categories of classroom code-switching could be expected to
fit the purpose of this study since the categories were drawn based on a series of studies reflecting
classroom data in quite diverse contexts. Nevertheless, it is important to take account of the particular
context of bilingual education in Indonesia, as well as in the actual research site.

Bilingual education in Indonesia and the research site

Bilingual education in Indonesia was first used when vernacular languages (such as Javanese, Sunda-
nese, and Batak) were taught as a subject from elementary school to the end of junior secondary
school. As the popularity of English increased, the teaching of a local language at some schools
has been replaced by English, and since 1994 the teaching of English in primary school has been
popular, though not compulsory. It is compulsory in junior and secondary schools. Among the
468 H. CAHYANI ET AL.

ASEAN countries, Indonesia is the only country which does not require English as a compulsory
subject in the primary education curriculum. This relates to the need to promote use of the national
language as well as maintain local languages (Osman 2012).
In 2003 there was a movement at the school level to set up bilingual programmes or RSBI (Pilot
International Standard Schools) (Act of The Republic of Indonesia 2003). However, bilingual education
at that level was officially terminated in January 2013 because it was criticised for discriminating
against the poor in favour of the rich; it did not give equal opportunities for all Indonesian students
and was only exclusively executed for students with high economic status (Hamied 2012; Margana
2013). Therefore, nowadays the government encourages tertiary level institutions to open inter-
national programmes, as proposed in higher education policy Number 12 (Act of The Republic of
Indonesia 2012), in order to equip their graduates with English skills and make them more job-
ready and competitive.
However, since students usually choose their first language or vernacular language for social dis-
course (Tarone and Swain 1995, 170), the effectiveness of English as a medium of instruction depends
on the context of teaching, teachers’ competencies and skills, and their aspirations and perceptions
about their learners (Setati et al. 2002).
The context of teaching in this study is a bilingual programme at a vocational tertiary institution in
Indonesia. Currently, the internationalisation of education in Indonesia encourages the establishment
of bilingual or international programmes at the tertiary level of education rather than at lower levels
(Act of The Republic of Indonesia 2012). Therefore, universities and other tertiary providers have more
government support to open bilingual or international programmes, confirming that globalisation
also affects educational provision (Graddol 2000). However, limited research has been conducted
in tertiary bilingual classrooms in Indonesia.

Methods
This study investigated how and why Indonesian teachers made use of code-switching in a newly
introduced bilingual programme in Accountancy and Business Administration. The focus is on the
pedagogical and sociocultural functions of teachers’ code-switching, adopting a translanguaging per-
spective in the analysis.

Research design
Canagarajah (2005) encourages researchers to conduct ethnographic studies into the everyday rea-
lities of students’ and teachers’ lives to come up with constructive suggestions for policy. This study
therefore uses an ethnographic approach to examine how and why teachers shifted across languages
in classrooms where both English and Bahasa Indonesia were used as the medium of instruction for
Accountancy and Business Administration. Following Creswell’s advice to provide multiple evidence
over a prolonged time (2012, 480), data collection extended over one full semester and combined
classroom-based observation and recording of linguistic data with teacher reflections on their
language choices and patterns of switching from one language to another. The study did not
require transcription of prosodic and into national contours; rather it required ethnographic detail
of the classroom moments and conversational links, applying the principles of IS adapted to suit
the research purpose and design.

Research site and participants

The research site was a bilingual programme at a tertiary level State Polytechnic, in East Java, Indo-
nesia. In this bilingual programme English was intended as the main medium of instruction, but the
classroom participants were still allowed to use Bahasa Indonesia. Since the weighting for English and
Bahasa Indonesia was not explicitly stated in the policy, the choice was left up to the classroom
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 469

participants. Teachers could make pedagogical choices according to their reading of the classroom
interaction from moment to moment. Consequently, as Setati et al. (2002) also suggest, teachers’
competencies and skills, and their aspirations and perceptions about their learners, were of consider-
able importance.
The participant selection was done by sending the invitation letters to several bilingual teachers.
Then, three of them who first made response were employed as the participants.Three teachers with
three different classes were involved, a small sample suited to in-depth descriptive analysis of the
object studied (Trotter 2012, 2). Teachers were chosen from volunteers who had sufficiently fluent
English to avoid the possibility that their code-switching might be to cover weaknesses. One of
them had recently obtained his Ph.D. from a university in Australia, another had double degrees
for her Masters from the same Australian university, and another was a Ph.D. graduate from a univer-
sity in Indonesia who obtained her masters and teaching certification from different universities in
Australia. All were specialists in Accountancy or Business Administration and had mastered the aca-
demic language of their discipline in both English and Bahasa Indonesia. However, none of them had
had any training in English language teaching, and their teaching goals and aspirations for their lear-
ners were oriented more towards content learning than English language learning.

Tools
The study involved in-class observation with field notes and audio-and-video recordings, followed by
semi-structured interviews, and a single focus group discussion (FGD). The classwork was multilin-
gual, whereas the interview and FGD data were in Bahasa Indonesia, the language of greatest
fluency for all participants. The study was conducted over one semester from July to December
2012 and involved 7–8 classroom sessions with each of the 3 teachers, sessions lasting between
60 and 90 minutes. The semi-structured interview with individual teachers included some stimulated
recall, using the video as prompt to help them consider how they were performing a particular task
(Gass and Mackey 2000, 17), and to revive their memories so that they might explain their actions and
behaviours (Stough and Palmer 2003, 209). A FGD was conducted as the closing data collection
activity, since the synergistic effect of different participant perspectives tends to trigger expanded
talk including personal experiences and previously unexplored ideas (Powell and Single 1996, 499).

Data analysis
The analysis of classroom data was done by first reviewing all videos to select the sessions having a
lot of code-switching. The examples of code-switching were then transcribed from the selected 15
sessions (see transcription convention in the Appendix). Subsequently, by displaying all code-switch-
ing examples, it was possible to use IS combined with Ferguson’s work to identify key features and
interactive functions for switching out of English and switching back into English. Adopting a trans-
languaging perspective, a search was then made for instances where

(a) the code-switching was an intentional strategy to assist meaning making and
(b) the two languages worked together as a unity for achieving communication.

And where there was also potential for one or more of the following:

(a) making meaning across cultures and/or across teacher/student identities,

(b) increasing students’ understanding of the subject matter, and
(c) increasing students’ command of the less-known language.

These instances were then categorised in functional terms.

470 H. CAHYANI ET AL.

The analysis of interview data first involved transcribing from the audio recordings, which were
then reduced by eliminating repetitive data. The data were then sorted based on the functional cat-
egories generated from the classroom data.

Results and discussion

It should be emphasised that there were very few instances of teachers presenting the same infor-
mation in both languages – rather, different languages were used for different purposes. The data
analysis revealed that teachers’ code-switching fell into four functional categories: the first three
have been previously identified by Ferguson (2003, 2009) and the last is emergent from this study
(Cahyani 2015) reflecting the local pedagogical and sociocultural context. The four functional cat-
egories are:

(1) Knowledge construction: including pedagogical scaffolding of content lessons, conceptual

reinforcement, annotation of key second language (L2) technical terms, and review of a topic.
(2) Classroom management: ranging from a topic shift/footing in lesson content to management of
pupil behaviour such as developing self-awareness, gaining attention, and reprimanding/chiding.
(3) Interpersonal relations: including indexing and negotiating different sociocultural identities, and
humanising the classroom climate such as by giving praise and establishing rapport.
(4) Personal or affective meanings: covering teachers’ personal experiences, feelings, and sociocul-
tural functions such as saving face.

In what follows, examples to illustrate these four categories are provided from the data, with some
elaboration and discussion.

Teachers’ code-switching for knowledge construction

Teachers typically switched out of English into Bahasa Indonesia to ensure that students would
understand their explanations more easily, bridging the knowledge gap as effectively and efficiently
as they could. The following instance of single-word code-switching directly connected a new
concept (external capital) to students’ local funds of knowledge (Moll et al. 1992).

Extract 1
T5 : … (talking about external capital). It can be from bank, it can be from investors, it can be
from ((giving funny facial expression)) rentenir … whatever.

The word rentenir (a loan shark) refers to a person commonly found in a village who makes money by
lending cash with an extreme interest rate, and can also be called lintah darat (a blood sucker),
although the English terms are not semantically equivalent.
The teacher was clear about her reasons for switching to Bahasa Indonesia:
I use rentenir because they do understand in Indonesian context … I just could not find the translation of this
word in English and there is no terminology rentenir in Accountancy. (T5, stimulated recall)

In this instance, the teacher deliberately used a local word to ensure students’ cognitive engagement
(Heugh 2015), as indicated by the words ‘because they do understand in Indonesian context’. Even
had the teacher known the English terms, they are not common, and their use would neither have
facilitated communication nor been valuable target language learning. By using a single Indonesian
word in this way, within the English language explanation, the teacher was integrating the two
languages in a powerful communicative unity, thereby translanguaging. Her act of translanguaging
not only made the main concept clearer, but avoided spending time trying to explain a culturally
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 471

familiar concept in culturally unfamiliar and marginally useful English. This echoes Manara’s study
(2007) in EFL university classrooms in Indonesia where teachers specifically used L1 with time-
saving intention.
The next example of code-switching from English to Bahasa Indonesia refers to the foreign format
required by the American computer software when entering dates, and was intended to help stu-
dents construct knowledge by expanding on information.

Extract 2
T4 : So the first point, the first digit must be month; month, date and year. So just please pay
attention to that data. Jadi nggak seperti di Indonesia ya: tanggal, bulan dan tahun (so it
is not the same as in Indonesia: we have date, month and year).

The teacher then confirmed her reason for making this code-switching in the following excerpt:
It is related to the previous explanation that the students expected their screen to display something but the
screen was blank. They made mistakes in entering the date in MYOB. Our system starts from date, month
then year, while MYOB starts with month. Consequently, the journal cannot be displayed. I used English
because the system was in English and I moved into Bahasa because I had to explain the important thing. (T4,
stimulated recall)

The teacher affirmed that her code-switching was deliberately done to make students aware of the
different rules of the date system in Indonesia, and to help them avoid repeating previous mistakes.
Yes, the pattern was actually simple but it was crucial. I moved from one language into another and went back
again and again because I wanted to be flexible so that it would sound easy to the students who were listening.
(T4, stimulated recall)

From a language development perspective, it could be said that the expanded information was
simple enough that it could more usefully have been given in English, and that if the teacher was
in the habit of code-switching at this level, the students might not make the effort to understand
the English explanations. However, this teacher’s primary goal was to teach the subject matter,
and she wanted to use the flexibility of code-switching to avoid students seeing it as complicated.
It was a pedagogical decision based on her perception of the students and her content goal of
teaching them to manage the software. Therefore this is a clear instance of intentional
translanguaging.

Teachers’ code-switching for classroom management

Teachers’ code-switching for classroom management could be out of either English or Bahasa Indo-
nesia, depending on the effect intended by the teacher. It took place most frequently when teachers
assigned tasks, signalled a shift of topic or activity, or disciplined students’ behaviour. Signalling a
shift or what Goffman called footing (1981, 128) refers to a change in the alignment or stance and
a change in the frame of events. Both English and Bahasa Indonesia were employed for signalling
a shift. However, the data for switching into English were found to be more widespread and
varied, which might show teachers’ preference in using English for that purpose.
The following example of a switch from English to Bahasa Indonesia occurred when T4 wanted to
check students’ understanding by asking what points they remembered from an earlier discussion.

Extract 3
T4 : Do you still remember?.. Okay I will ask you a question ((looking at students’ faces))..
((waiting for students’ response)). Kayaknya harus dipaksa ya? (It seems that you need
to be forced, yes?) ((Picking up attendance list and calling out a student’s name from it)).
472 H. CAHYANI ET AL.

Shifting into Bahasa Indonesia here functions as translanguaging in that the sentence is integrated
with the previous English ones, and signals a shift from teaching mode to management mode by
using disciplinary action to engage students, whilst simultaneously reducing social distance
through the use of Bahasa Indonesia.
By contrast, social distance was increased in another translanguaging example, by switching out of
Bahasa Indonesia into English and giving a clear signal of increased formality. T6 had been checking
the students’ attendance in Bahasa Indonesia and switched to English when a student who came late
to the class approached to speak to him.

Extract 4
T6 : Ada yang bawa absennya nggak hari ini?(Has anyone brought the attendance list?)
Ss : ((smiling and indicating that none brought the attendance list))
T6 : Tidak ada? Oke. Nanti saja. (None of you? Okay. Get it later) ((A student coming late from
the door approaches the teacher to say something.)) Okay, good morning, you can sit.
Sx : ((did not say anything then turned to find an empty seat)).

In this case we see the teacher making a deliberate switch from simple management using Bahasa
Indonesia into English to illustrate the seriousness of the situation and thus remind the students
indirectly not to be late. The teacher stated his reason below:
I spoke in Bahasa to ask about ‘absen’ (attendance list) which is common in our class. I then switched into English
when a student came late to make my language more formal. I did not use Bahasa to ask him because I wanted to
make him more alert that we had started the class. (T6, stimulated recall)

This is an example of applying the concept of markedness (Myers-Scotton 1993) and also of prefer-
ence-related code-switching (Auer 1988, 4), since the teacher intentionally code-switched when the
situation called for immediate disciplining of the student.
In this study, teachers’ code-switching to remind or warn students occurred in both languages.
Teachers switched to Bahasa Indonesia when they wanted to make students be more active and
responsive in the class (as in Extract 3). Meanwhile, they switched into English to warn students to
be more careful in doing their assignments and to be more disciplined in class. This finding is differ-
ent from Johnson’s (1985) study, reported in Lin (2008, 2013), where Hong Kong teachers switched to
L1 to address a serious and urgent matter such as disciplining a student.
Teachers’ explanations for their choices of which language would work better in a particular class-
room management situation indicate that their code-switching was not random but had meaning for
them and was a representation of themselves as professionals. It reflects what Myers-Scotton (1993,
113) called a negotiation principle, requiring speakers to decide code choice according to a set of
rights and obligations. Here the teachers’ code-switching was a product of negotiation among
their perceptions of participant rights and obligations within their Indonesian tertiary classrooms.
This suggests the importance of both sociocultural and pedagogical context in understanding class-
room translanguaging.

Teachers’ code-switching for interpersonal relations

Teachers used code-switching for interpersonal relations to humanise the classroom – such as using
humour, lightening the mood in order to reduce students’ anxiety, and giving praise. These all
demonstrate a connection between teacher and students in order to build a supportive classroom
atmosphere, and also to show appreciation for students as people. In this paper, because of space
constraints, examples will be given only for giving praise and being humorous.
While in Western cultures it is customary to give praise, this is not so in Eastern cultures, and
Bahasa Indonesia does not lend itself to giving praise. Nevertheless, these teachers who had been
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 473

educated in English speaking countries were influenced by the importance attributed there to giving
praise, as suggested inT5’s following interview excerpt with the researcher (R).

R: You gave praise to the students and admired their work using English. Why is it so?
T5: Mmmm … yes maybe because it’s easier to do it in English. To me giving praise toward
their good work is important and why I used English is because English is expressive.
R: Are you saying that English is expressive? Any other reasons?
T5: Well if I use Bahasa Indonesia, honestly I am not comfortable.
R: Why not comfortable? Does it sound made up?
T5: English uses praising words a lot, they use them, but we don’t. [ … ] If we give the praise
in Bahasa Indonesia, it sounds not natural. (T5, stimulated recall).

Concluding with a cultural distinction between ‘they’ (native English speakers) and ‘we’ (Indonesians),
this interview extract suggests that the teacher gave praise in English because she found it more
sincere and socioculturally appropriate to use that language. An example of this is given in Extract
5 when T5 was delivering feedback on a group presentation. She gives glowing praise in English,
switches into Bahasa to make a recommendation to other students, and then back into English to
give further praise.

Extract 5
T5 : Okay, well done! And I like your slides, it’s very interesting slides and I hope eeh the next
group will have a slide like these slides ((smiling and pointing her finger towards the
PowerPoint slides)). Saya harapkan kalian bisa membuat slide seperti ini (I hope you
can make a slide like this), It’s very nice slide.

The use of the target language to give praise contrasts with Lin’s (1996) study where Hong Kong tea-
chers commended the students’ work by switching to the L1, in this case Cantonese. In Lin’s study,
the teachers’ intention was to establish a genuine and less distanced relationship with their students
(Lin 1996, 67). If praise had been given in English, the students might have thought that teachers
wanted to build social distance between them. This did not seem to be a factor for teachers in the
present study, however, as they shifted into English to show the genuineness of the praise itself.
Humour is often a feature of interpersonal relations, and often requires switching into the speak-
er’s most familiar language (e.g. Seidlitz 2003, 85). T6 loved using Javanese when he wanted to be
humorous since it was his mother tongue, and he would also switch to Bahasa Indonesia to
lighten the moment or treat the students informally. Here he switches from English to Bahasa to
Javanese.

Extract 6
T6 : … that you have more international exposure than regular program. Just for example,
some teachers speak English, like me sometimes I repeat it in Bahasa Indonesia just to
clarify the idea. And rekan-rekan, selain dosennya seperti itu.. (And, guys, it is not just the
lecturers who should speak English) Well actually not only the teacher has to speak
English, it’s supposed you to ask, make questions in English too. Jadi jangan hehheh
Pak..((demonstrating one student pulling out his hand)) ditarik tanganku ((speaking in
Javanese accent)) (So please don’t pull on my hands if you want to ask a question)

Humour is not universal and it needs sufficient local knowledge and understanding to get the
meaning. Here T6 was using humour to remind the students to behave politely with their teachers
(following an earlier incident when a student grabbed his hand to ask for help at the computer).
The teacher called the students rekan-rekan (guys) to position them temporarily as peers, which
474 H. CAHYANI ET AL.

also reflects how he built rapport with the students; similarly, he used the Javanese words ditarik tan-
ganku to position himself alongside the students as insiders.
In interview, T6 said:
Being humorous using Javanese is easier for me to do. Also, it is much easier for the students and it can be used as
ice-breaking strategy. (T6, interview)

Thus code-switching for humorous purposes can be seen as a strategic skill to make the classroom an
enjoyable place for learning. Likewise, code-switching for giving praise can be taken as a bilingual
teaching strategy which can be important for giving students powerful motivation, and for
showing appreciation for their efforts to learn.

Teachers’ code-switching for expressing personal affective meanings

Code-switching for expressing personal affective meanings concerns the teacher’s own life experi-
ences, feelings and psychological concerns. One example relating to reporting life experience
occurred when T5 informed the class about her education background, in the first teaching session:

Extract 7
T5 : … then I took my master degree in University oh sorry Curtin University of Technology,
Perth, Australia. But S3 saya di disini Fakultas Ekonomi Brawijaya (my doctoral degree was
here in Economics faculty, Brawijaya University).

T5 spoke English when talking about her Master’s degree which she took in Australia, but she
switched into Bahasa Indonesia when mentioning her doctoral degree which was in her homeland.
The teacher seems to be influenced by her prior place-based experience, although her reasoning was
not sought at the time of the interview.
In regard to feelings and psychological concerns, code-switching to save face was an important
function, to avoid showing embarrassment to the students. The data below were recorded in the
first session when T5 was about to introduce the topics for the semester and was uncomfortable
because she had not brought the syllabus.

Extract 8
T5 : Sorry today I didn’t bring the syllabus for my subject. Maybe next week I will give you
the syllabus … Saya akan berikan silabusnya untuk mata kuliah saya minggu depan yah
(I will give you the syllabus of the course next week). Jadi apa yang kita pelajari semester ini
(so what are we learning this semester)?

T5 intentionally switched into Bahasa Indonesia to assert more firmly that she would give out the syl-
labus the following week, and to move the students forward into thinking about the course content
rather than her own negligence. It was easy for her to give a quick apology in English, but she avoided
that in Bahasa Indonesia, where culturally an apology from teacher to students would have been
inappropriate. This code-switching to L1 displays the teacher’s authority; it represents a switching
of role from a friendly apologetic English speaking identity into a dominant Indonesian speaking
identity with traditional teacher-centred style. The shift reflects how bilinguals can feel different
when switching from one language to another (Dewaele and Nakano 2013). It may be questioned
whether or not this code-switching was for a pedagogical purpose, however we argue that it
occurred as part of the teacher enacting her tasks and was integral to the classroom discourse,
and is therefore indeed an instance of translanguaging.
Teachers’ personal affective code-switching could be triggered by past experience and appears to
be connected to speakers’ subconscious and cognitive behaviour. This category differs from the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 475

interpersonal category in that it responds to personal factors more than audience factors. It includes
‘spontaneous expression of emotions and emotional understanding in discourse with students’
which Flyman-Mattsson and Burenhult (1999, 65–66) give as their definition of code-switching for
affective functions. Their data showed teachers switching to L1 to show sympathy to students and
also anger. Flyman-Mattson and Burenhult’s research (1999) only covered emotional matters
whereas the present study suggests that teachers’ code-switching could be influenced by speaking
about prior experiences as well.

Conclusions
The data presented here are illustrative of extensive corroborative data which confirm that, rather
than merely reiterating information, the participating teachers typically had clear motivations for
their code-switching and were engaged in active translanguaging. Since this practice might only
naturally take place in a multilingual context, and not in a monolingual one (Canagarajah 2011, 8),
it can be said that the teachers were able to take advantage of their multilingual context to
extend their professional repertoire. Thus teachers in this study had the freedom to shuttle
between languages, such as when they occasionally switched to Javanese when making humorous
comments, shifted into English for giving praise or reprimanding students, and switched into Bahasa
Indonesia to reinforce students’ understanding.
The teachers’ way of building rapport with the students also demonstrates pedagogical and socio-
cultural values, for instance the way T6 addressed the students using the Indonesian words rekan-
rekan positioning them as peers or colleagues, which mirrors a collectivist perspective. Teachers’
identities as both Javanese and Indonesian but also as educated scholars are embedded in their
code-switching behaviour.
It is important to bear in mind that the goal of bilingual subject teaching is twofold, that is, for
content and also target language learning. This is in contrast to EFL classes, which are primarily
focused on TL competence. Also, while in EFL classes students are required to master standard
and everyday language, in bilingual subject teaching they are required to master the language of
their chosen field, gaining conceptual competences in the appropriate language (Lin 2006, 301).
Thus, code-switching in bilingual subject teaching may be somewhat different from that in an EFL
programme. Providing rich semantic context to facilitate students’ bilingual subject learning
especially for limited English proficiency students is essential (Lin 2006). We argue that providing
rich semantic context is facilitated through teachers’ integrated use of multiple languages.
This study emphasises the importance of translanguaging as a strategic use of code-switching,
involving pedagogical and sociocultural functions designed to facilitate full communication and to
engage students in the learning process. By not separating languages, but integrating them within
a single clause, sentence or set of sentences, teachers invite a fully multilingual construction of
meaning, drawing on students’ diverse cultural and linguistic resources for the sake of learning
and engagement.
We argue that multilingual learning can be maximised when code-switching is done intentionally
for pedagogical and sociocultural purposes. This is in contrast to the traditional sociolinguistic
concept which sees code-switching as language interference, a sign of lacking ownership in a
language, and associated with non-standard use of language (Canagarajah 2011, 2–3). This study
suggests that teachers’ translanguaging should be seen in a positive light, and as a demonstration
of the speakers’ multilingual communicative competence and their social accomplishment. As the
data excerpts show, teachers’ improvisation in switching between languages showed creativity in
communication and served as a pragmatic multilingual strategy to support their pedagogy. The
way the teachers use translanguaging to address differences in meaning across international
business context also suggests a degree of transcultural competence. This concept has long been
studied in the health sciences (Glover and Friedman 2015), but has only recently been attended to
in language education (e.g. Kramsch 2010). Yet here we have seen Indonesian teachers clearly
476 H. CAHYANI ET AL.

alerting students to ‘differences in meaning, mentality, and worldview’ (MLA Ad Hoc Committee on
Foreign Languages 2007, 4), as in the example of loan sharks.
Teachers’ multilingual communicative and transcultural competences are specifically indicated in
this study by their ability to

(a) express their relationship to their personal past experience, through switching to the language of
that experience;
(b) express their membership of the local community by switching to the vernacular (Javanese) to
make a joke;
(c) demonstrate membership of the national and institutional community by switching to the
national language (Bahasa Indonesia) to explain complex concepts, use culturally relevant
examples, and discipline students; and
(d) express professional authority by switching to the language of power in the bilingual programme
(English) to save face, discipline students, and switch topics.

These four features of using multilingual and transcultural resources clearly indicate both social and
pedagogical benefits, and thus a reason to foster their ongoing use.

Recommendations
Multilingual teaching strategies integrating learners’ home languages should be explored more fully,
and research findings made public. Not enough practitioners know that home languages can help to
maximise learning, build rapport, give support to students, and decrease student anxiety. Further
research should investigate translanguaging practices in similar contexts to this study, that is,
where English is operating as a foreign language. It will be important to show how and why partici-
pants used multiple languages in the pedagogical process, and to incorporate student perspectives
(see Cahyani 2015).
Finally, the present study indicates a need for institutional policy encouraging translanguaging as
a pedagogical strategy for teaching in bilingual programmes, and also providing training for bilingual
teachers in the effective and efficient use of translanguaging. In turn, such training would need to
build on research into students’ use of code-switching for making sense of their learning within
the content subject as well as in developing proficiency in the target language.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the bilingual teachers for their willingness to be participants.

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

Funding information
We would like to thank the Indonesian government and the Directorate General of Higher Education (DIKTI), which spon-
sored this study.

Notes on contributors
Hilda Cahyani is a faculty member of the Accounting Department, State Polytechnic of Malang, East Java, Indonesia. She
earned her Bachelor’s degree in English Literature and her Master’s in English Language Teaching from the State Univer-
sity of Malang. She completed her Ph.D. in TESOL in 2015, at the School of Education, University of South Australia. Her
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 477

research interests are in classroom discourse, bilingualism, bilingual education, code-switching, and intercultural
communication.
Michele de Courcy has recently retired from full-time teaching and remains an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow in the
School of Education, University of South Australia. Michele’s research interests have included using students’ multilingual
resources, teachers’ knowledge and use of scales in the assessment of English Language Learners, and TESOL teacher
beliefs and identity. Her Ph.D., obtained in 1995, was on language immersion education.
Jenny Barnett has recently retired as senior lecturer in TESOL at the School of Education, University of South Australia,
and continues her affiliation. She taught curriculum development, TESOL pedagogy, and language learning theory in
undergraduate and postgraduate courses from 1987 and conducted research in schools working with learners of
English as an Additional Language. She earned her Ph.D. in 2005 and has supervised over 20 doctoral students.

References
Act of the Republic of Indonesia. 2003. “Number 20 Year 2003 on the National Education System.” Accessed January 24,
2015, from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Indonesia/Indonesia_Education_Act.pdf.
Act of the Republic of Indonesia. 2012. “Number 12 Year 2012 on Higher Education.” Accessed July 22, 2014, from http://
www.iuli.ac.id/files/downloads/UU-012-2012-Pendidikan_Tinggi-English.pdf.
Auer, P. 1988. “A Conversation Analytic Approach to Code-switching and Transfer.” In Code-switching: Anthropological and
Sociolinguistic Perspectives, edited by M. Heller, 187–213. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Baker, C. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Cahyani, Hilda. 2015. “Code-switching in Indonesian tertiary bilingual classrooms: A deficiency or a strategy?” PhD thesis.
Adelaide: University of South Australia.
Canagarajah, S. 2005. “Accommodating Tensions in Language-in-education Policies: An Afterword.” In Decolonisation,
Globalisation: Language-in-Education Policy and Practice, edited by A. M. Lin and P. W. Martin, 194–201. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, S. 2011. “Translanguaging in the Classroom: Emerging Issues for Research and Pedagogy.” Applied
Linguistics Review 2: 1–28.
Cantone, K. F. 2007. Code-switching in Bilingual Children. Dordrecht: Springer.
Creese, A., and A. Blackledge. 2010. “Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and
Teaching?” The Modern Language Journal 94 (1): 103–115.
Creswell, J. W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th
ed). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Dewaele, J. M., and S Nakano. 2013. “Multilinguals’ Perceptions of Feeling Different When Switching Languages.” Journal
of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34 (2): 107–120.
Dressler, R. A., and R. J. Kreuz. 2000. “Transcribing Oral Discourse: A Survey and a Model System.” Discourse Processes 29
(1): 25–36.
Du Bois, J. W. 1991. “Transcription Design Principles for Spoken Discourse Research.” Pragmatics 1 (1): 71–106.
Ferguson, G. 2003. “Classroom Code-switching in Post-colonial Contexts: Functions, Attitudes and Policies.” AILA review 16
(1): 38–51.
Ferguson, G. 2009. “What Next? Towards an Agenda for Classroom Code-switching Research.” International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12 (2): 231–241.
Flyman-Mattsson, A., and N Burenhult. 1999. “Code-switching in Second Language Teaching of French.” Lund Working
Papers in Linguistics 47: 59–72.
García, O. 2009. “Education, Multilingualism and Translanguaging in the 21st Century.” In Social Justice Through
Multilingual Education, edited by T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. K. Mohanty, and M. Panda, 140–158. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
García, O. 2011a. “Educating New York’s Bilingual Children: Constructing a Future from the Past.” International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 14 (2): 133–153.
García, O. 2011b. “Theorising Translanguaging for Educators.” In Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB Guide for Educators,
edited by C. Celic and K. Seltzer, 1–7. New York: The City University of New York.
Gardner-Chloros, P. 2009. Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S. M., and A Mackey. 2000. Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Taylor &
Francis.
Glover, J., and H. L. Friedman. 2015. Transcultural Competence: Navigating Cultural Differences in the Global Community.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Graddol, D. 2000. The Future of English. London: The British Council.
Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press.
478 H. CAHYANI ET AL.

Gumperz, J. J. 2008. “Interactional Sociolinguistics: A Personal Perspective.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited
by D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. E. Hamilton, 215–228. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Hamied, F. A. 2012. “English in Multicultural and Multilingual Indonesian Education.” In English as an International Language
in Asia: Implications for Language Education, edited by A. Kirkpatrick and R. Sussex, 63–78. New York: Springer.
Heugh, K. 2015. “Epistemologies in Multilingual Education: Translanguaging and Genre – Companions in Conversation
with Policy and Practice.” Language and Education 29 (3): 280–285.
Hornberger, N. H., and H. Link. 2012. “Translanguaging and Transnational Literacies in Multilingual Classrooms: A
Biliteracy Lens.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15 (3): 261–278.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2014. “Afterword.” In Code-switching in University English-medium Classes: Asian Perspectives, edited by R.
Barnard and J. McLellan, 214–221. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Kramsch, C. 2010. “Theorizing Translingual and Transcultural Competence.” In Critical and Intercultural Theory and
Language Pedagogy, edited by G. S. Levine and A. Phipps, 15–31. Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Levine, G. S. 2011. Code Choice in the Language Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Lewis, G., B. Jones, and C Baker. 2012. “Translanguaging: Origins and Development from School to Street and Beyond.”
Educational Research and Evaluation 18 (7): 641–654.
Lin, A. 1996. “Bilingualism or Linguistic Segregation? Symbolic Domination, Resistance and Code-Switching in Hong Kong
Schools.” Linguistics and Education 8 (1): 49–84.
Lin, A. 2006. “Beyond Linguistic Purism in Language-in-Education Policy and Practice: Exploring Bilingual Pedagogies in a
Hong Kong Science Classroom.” Language and Education 20 (4): 287–305.
Lin, A. 2008. “Code-Switching in the Classroom: Research Paradigms and Approaches.” In Encyclopedia of Language and
Education, edited by K. A. King and N. H. Hornberger, 273–286. Boston, MA: Springer US.
Lin, A. 2013. “Classroom Code-Switching: Three Decades of Research.” Applied Linguistics Review 4 (1): 195–218.
Losey, K. M. 2009. “Written Code-Switching in the Classroom: Can Research Resolve the Tensions?” International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12 (2): 213–230.
Macaro, E. 2014. “Where Should we be Going with Classroom Code Switching Research?” In Code-switching in University
English-Medium Classes: Asian Perspectives, edited by R. Barnard and J. McLellan, 10–23. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Manara, M. 2007. “The use of L1 Support: Teachers’ and Students” Opinions and Practices in an Indonesian Context.” The
Journal of Asia TEFL 4 (1): 145–178.
Margana, M. 2013. “Alih Kode Dalam Proses Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris di SMA.” LITERA 12 (1): 39–52.
Martin, P. W. 2005. “‘Safe” Language Practices in two Rural Schools in Malaysia: Tensions between Policy and Practice.” In
Decolonisation, Globalisation: Language-in-education Policy and Practice, edited by A. M. Lin and P. W. Martin, 74–97.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. 2007. “Foreign Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a
Changed World.” Washington, DC: Modern Language Association of America. Accessed April 12, 2016, from http://
www.mla.org/pdf/forlang_news_pdf.pdf.
Modupeola, O. R. 2013. “Code-switching as a Teaching Strategy: Implications for English Language Teaching and
Learning in a Multilingual Society.” Journal of Humanities and Social Science 14 (3): 92–94.
Moll, L. C., C. Amanti, D. Neff, and N González. 1992. “Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to
Connect Homes and Classrooms.” Theory into Practice, 31: 132–141.
Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Social Motivations for Code-switching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Osman, S. 2012. “Keeping English in Indonesian Schools.” Jakarta Globe, December 4. Accessed November 3, 2012, from
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/archive/keeping-english-in-indonesian-schools/.
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.
Powell, R. A., and H. M. Single. 1996. “Focus Group.” International Journal for Quality in Health Care 8: 499–504.
Seidlitz, L. M. 2003. “Functions of Code-switching in Classes of German as a Foreign Language” (Unpublished PhD thesis).
The University of Texas.
Setati, M., J. Adler, Y. Reed, and A Bapoo. 2002. “Incomplete Journeys: Code-switching and Other Language Practices in
Mathematics, Science and English Language Classrooms in South Africa.” Language and Education 16 (2): 128–149.
Shin, S. J. 2005. Developing in two Languages: Korean Children in America. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Stough, L. M., and D. J. Palmer. 2003. “Special Thinking in Special Settings: A Qualitative Study of Expert Special
Educators.” The Journal of Special Education 36 (4): 206–222.
Tannen, D. 1992. “Sociolinguistics: Interactional Sociolinguistics.” In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited by W.
Bright, 9–12. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tarone, E., and M Swain. 1995. “A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Second Language Use in Immersion Classrooms.” The
Modern Language Journal 79 (2): 166–178.
Trotter, T. R. 2012. “Qualitative Research Sample Design and Sample Size: Resolving and Unresolved Issues and Inferential
Imperatives.” Preventive Medicine 55: 398–400.
Wang, L., and A Kirkpatrick. 2013. “Trilingual Education in Hong Kong Primary Schools: A Case Study.” International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16 (1): 100–116.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 479

Appendix. Transcription convention, adapted from Dressler and

Kreuz (2000) and Du Bois (1991)
Code Meaning
T Teacher
S Student
Ss Students
.. Pause
[] Overlapping speech
((behaviour)) Paralinguistic behaviour: whispering, coughing, laughing
() Unclear or unintelligible speech
Italics Translated version