Code Switching in Selected English-medium Subjects

Code Switching in Selected English-medium Subjects: An Insight Nolan Severino R. Jusayan Gov. Juanito Reyes Remulla Senior High School Email: [email protected]

Abstract This paper dealt with the analysis of the transcripts as regards the use of code-switching in the three selected subjects at Gov. Juanito Reyes Remulla Senior High School which are expected to use English as the medium of instruction. This is theoretically based on the claim that code switching is prompted by trigger words (Clyne, 1991). Discourse markers were evidently employed which triggered code-switching. The functions of the utilization of code-switching was also interpreted based on the context in which the code-switched words were uttered. As a qualitative research, transcriptions are verified through the audio recordings done during the observation of classes of the three teacher-participants. The transcriptions are analyzed and interpreted, afterward. In sum, the paper tries to establish a sound judgement on the functions of code-switching such as to clarify and emphasize, call attention, express humor, and explain concepts which are essential in the continuous communicative process in an ESL classroom. This study highly recommends that other research be conducted in other regions and locales for comparability of results. Key words: Code-switching, trigger words, bilingualism, discourse markers, bilingual homophones, proper nouns, lexical transfer.

Introduction Code switching is an occurrence among the bilingual and multilingual speakers and has been one of the major interests for research in the field of psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics in the context of ESL. It is defined as the “a phenomenon of switching from one language to another in the same discourse” (Nunan & Carter, 2001). It is increasingly an interesting phenomenon to investigate about when and why a speaker switches from language in use to another language that in a sense may be different in terms of their linguistic features such as sound and pronunciation.

In the context of the teaching and learning process in an ESL classroom, it is deemed significant that code switching is beneficial in enhancing the flexibility of language thought (Myers-Scotton, 1993). Thus, code switching should not be perceived as a mere incompetence of the speaker to utilize language in use in conversations or discussions between and among the other speakers inside the classroom. Furthermore, it alleviates the problems among the ESL learners to deliver the message and comprehend it in the context of sentential semantics. Jacobson (1983) supports this by asserting that code switching serves as a vehicle for acquiring vocabulary in first and second language. Some may still argue that code switching does happen among low proficient speakers, it is seen to satisfy the difficulties experienced by the students in communicating in the language in use (Skiba, 1997). Likewise, Ellis (1984) argues that the consistent use of code switching in an ESL classroom delimits the opportunities of the second language learners to experience development and achievement of learning the target language. Though this seems to be a taboo for teachers of ESL, it should be noted that code alternation should be grammatical in structure and that the learners are fluent in the two languages (Myers-Scotton, 1993). In terms of its sociolinguistic nature, code switching happens for the purpose of enhancing conversation between the speaker and the listener. Crystal (1987) asserts that the speaker’s use of code switching may be attributed to his or her inability to express himself or herself in the language in use as a result of the social factors like stress and fatigue from work which leads to the incapacity to communicate the attitude to the listener. Furthermore, in the psychology of language, code switching is seen as a recourse from the cognitive nature of thought to the affective aspect of it as Tsiplakou as cited by Anonymous (2010) in the study of language alternation concluded:

…found out that Greek seems to be reserved for the transmission of factual/referential information, while English is used mostly for expressions of affection and evaluative comments. Other functions of switching identified are switching to English as a means of mitigating potentially face-threatening acts, and switching to Greek (Cypriot Greek, slang or mainland Greek dialectal) for negotiation/affective evaluation and language play (p.13). This supports Franceschini (1988) as he claimed that code switching does occur through the mental processes in the brain of the speaker. Likewise, Filipino ESL learners are also bounded on the psychological orientation where the cultural aspect is deemed significant in the use of language. Gaerlan (2009), despite the use of English as a medium of instruction, the students still prefer to use their first language, Filipino, in performing the learning activities whether inside or outside the classroom. The aforesaid scholars assert that code switching does not only happen as it is but by a psychological spectrum as oriented in the mind of the speaker. This will be the framework of this paper as Clyne (1991) regards code switching as a psycholinguistically motivated occurrence through the “trigger words” which suggests the exclusion of sociolinguistics and the structural notion of language. Trigger words as defined by Clyne (1991, p.193) are ''words at the intersection of two language systems, which, consequently, may cause speakers to lose their linguistic bearings and continue the sentence in the other language.'' This further discussed the specifics under the framework of Clyne (as cited in Broersma & De Bot, 2006) in the following items: “lexical transfers (items belonging to one standard language which have also become part of the lexicon of the speaker’s other language), bilingual homophones, and proper nouns.” Indeed, there are a few studies on code switching that have been conducted in the context of FL (foreign language) classrooms most especially in the Philippines. It is to be noted that the

learning of the English language in the Philippine Education starts from Grade 4 up to Grade 12 and that the medium of instruction is English in the various disciplines except those of Filipinomedium subjects. It is worth mentioning, however, that ESL learners are still confronted by the difficulties in the use of the English Language up until Grade 11 and 12 in the public schools and that the use of the Filipino language is dominantly used in daily conversation and outside the classroom. Due to the apparent use of code switching in English-medium subjects in ESL classrooms, as well as during teacher-student engagements, and the number of research conducted in this concern, this paper is realized to establish a framework of understanding as to how and when code switching occurs. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze how different teachers of English-medium subjects use code switching and to arrive at sound reasons as regards the trigger words observed in switching from current language use to another language grounded on Clyne's hypothesis (1991). Specifically, the following questions are sought in this study: 1. What are the trigger words that are responsible for code switching in the different English-medium subjects in Senior High School? 2. What are the functions of code switching in the different English-medium subjects in context? Method Research Design This study is qualitative in nature. Thus, this utilizes gathering data through class observations, together with audio recordings and notetakings.

Participants The participants of the study are three teachers: two teachers of English and a teacher of Philosophy at Gov. Juanito Reyes Remulla Senior High School which shall be named as teacher A, B, and C, respectively. The two teachers of English have acquired units in a master’s program for ESL or relevant and has been a teacher for more than five (5) to ten (10) years. The teacher of Philosophy has a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and has acquired units in the master’s program in the same field. All have experiences teaching in the tertiary and secondary level.

Data collection and Analysis To gather the necessary data for this study, the class observation is audio recorded for transcribing. The focus of this study is on three ESL classrooms. These ESL classrooms are selected randomly to observe the nature of code-switching across contexts and disciplines. Each class was carefully observed and audio-taped for about 30 minutes by the researcher in addition to note taking. The transcription conventions used in this study were adopted from Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998), who follow Gail Jefferson. (0.0) Duration of pause in seconds (.) Micropause ↑ Intonation rising ↓ Intonation falling (( )) Comments ! Animated or emphatic tone (xxx) Unclear fragment of the recording Bold lettering Point of interest within conversation Underlined word/phrase Emphasis added on the word/phrase (...) Utterance of speaker not included in the transcript

Results and Discussion This section exhibits the data gathered from the observations and transcribed audio recordings as regards code-switching in ESL classrooms. This shall include the three transcriptions with the code-switch in italics and the equivalent translation in English in brackets. Also, the function of the code-switching is indicated in bold. 1. Trigger words observed in the transcripts that are responsible for the code switching. The following are excerpts from the observation and transcription made from the class of Teacher A. There is a dominant use of discourse markers and lexical transfer which served for the purpose of clarification and emphasis. T: Context, going back. What now is a context? In your own words what now is a context? S: Nilalaman (contain) T: Ok, it is the nilalaman (contain) or (…) S: Content The discourse marker ‘OK’ signaled the teacher to clarify the answer while repeating the code-switched word ‘nilalaman’. It is also observed in the next part of the transcript the discourse marker ‘OK’ which signaled the teacher to code-switch. Likewise, the word ‘context’ which is prompted by lexical transfer led the teacher to use the word to clarify the supposed answer. S: It is ano (what) (.) proven T: Ok sige (alright) S1: Sige una ka na (Alright (.)you go first) S: Di (…) mapagbigay naman ako e (No, I am generous) S1: Sige ikaw na (Alright you go first) T: What do you think is the difference between the two?

S: Sir para sakin lang ahhh (only for me) (.) it is proving sir (xxx) para sakin lang ah (only for me) T: What do you mean by proving? It seems that the code-switching happened when there is a need to emphasize or clarify as what Pan (as cited in Bautista, 2004) that code switching is employed for “ease in understanding, for brevity, for lack of indigenous terms, for precision, and for emphasis and clarity.” It is also worth noting that students kept on retaliating from responding in English. This could be seen as a downplay in using a superior language and a subordinate one. Fishman (1967) argued that the community defines bilingualism as “played by different languages, rather than two specially related forms of the same language.” This means that there is a dichotomy in languages—one is considered high and the other is low. In this case, the Filipino Is considered as low and English is high. This can explicitly be observed in the following excerpt: T: Ok, anyone? Ok, isa na lang, isa na lang (one more, one more). Are they different? S: No↑ S1: Ayoko na, ayoko na. ↑ No na lang [I don’t want…that would be a No] T: Are they different? S: No! T: Why did you say no? S: Sir kasi sir (because) S1: Kasi sir ano… pag claim…sir pwede Tagalog? Hindi ko ho kaya…ang hirap magEnglish (Because sir (.) a claim (.) sir, can I speak in Tagalog? I can’t speak in English (.) it is difficult to speak in English) S2: Sir kasi sir pag parehas ilang context ano…hirap magEnglish…pang matatalino lang (if it is the same, the context (.) it is difficult to speak in English. It is only for the intellelectuals)

The student who asked if he could speak in Tagalog seems to lack vocabulary in L2. The other student found English as for the use of the intellectuals. These seem to suggest that L2 is high and L1 is low. The following are excerpts from the observation of Teacher B and the transcribed audio recordings during the class observation in another English-oriented subject. There was a dominant use of discourse markers that signaled the code-switching. This perhaps is the congruent with the observations made with teacher A. S: Ma’am (xxx) T: Oh? S: Absent si ano Aligardo po ano (.) Nakuha po sila (.) (Aligardo is absent. They were excused) T: Ahhh ok. So, with Javier? Where’s Javier? S: He is (.) Baka late po (probably late) T: Ahhh Usman wag na natin pag usapan yun (let us not talk about Usman) S: ((laughs)) In the excerpt above, the use of a discourse marker ‘so’ can be observed. This supports Gaerlan’s (2009) conclusion that students still prefer to use L1 as they struggle on using L2. Teacher B commonly used discourse markers which signaled the code switching at most part such as in this excerpt: T: Halimbawa ang tanong sa inyo eh: Anong balak niyong gawin sa CR? Ay hindi (.) Balak niyo na lang ba talaga pasara na lang yung CR? Of course, you can’t just say yes or no to that. You have to explain why no and you have to explain why yes. Or if someone says Bakit hindi niyo na lang gawing swimming pool yang quadrangle natin? Tutal laging may tubig. Right? So, you have to be a quick thinker when you are doing extemporaneous speaking…Because when you are caught with nothing, then, people will look at you as nothing. Wala lang. Bat ko iboboto yan, hindi nga nakakasagot yan eh. Right. K? So, when you are giving out a speech during your campaign or you know those candidates from Ms.

Universe? So, yes of course, you know on school level the questions were already given to you right? Ms. Diez, yun, can I give you a question during intrams? Binigay ko yung questions diba? When I was in college, when I competed for the pageant they already gave us the list of questions (…) The last observation was in the class of Teacher C. An activity was facilitated as planned by the teacher. The transcription of the interactions of the students were as well verified through an audio recording. T: So, I have ahhh (…) things to do. So, first things first, anong topic natin ngayon? Naguguluhan ako (what is our topic today? I am confused) S: World (0.0) T: World ano? (what) S: Discipline sir T: Ay mali. Nalilito ako. Wait lang. (Wrong (.) I am confused (.) Wait for a while) Pwede bang World Religion, maya na lang Discipline? (Do you like to have World Religion first before Discipline?) S: OPO T: Naiintindihan niyo naman yun diba? (You can understand that, right?) S: YES It can be observed that discourse marker ‘so’ was used that signaled the code-switching. There is a frequent code-switching all throughout the excerpt which suggest that the teacher’s use of L1 is dominant than L2. The words “opo” and “yes” are prompted by lexical transfer which generates the same concept of response. This is congruent with Riehl (as cited in Rahimi, 2011) as he noted that lexical transfers may not be “phonologically integrated in the language of interaction.” This further suggest that the expected medium of instruction of a subject is ignore to best suit the environment and the capacity of the learners in it. This is said to be a sign of weakening of the use of the English language in the Filipino community (Gonzalez & Sibayan, 1988).

T: Kasi pag nag perform kayo alam niyo na kung religious or non-religious pero (so, if you performed you would know if it is religious or non-religious) we will be the one to identify whether it is religious (.) religious or non-religious. Ok, kung sino po yung pinaka mahirap na hulaan siya po yung may ano (.) may points. (for the one who will come up with a difficult charade to guess (.) will gain points) S: AH↑ T: Pag nahulaan kayo, halimbawa nag ano ka, ano ka (xxx) then religious yun. Gets niyo? (If they manage to guess (.) for example, you (.) then it is religious. Did you get it?) S: Yes The excerpt also presents the use of a discourse marker ‘ok’ which is common among the other teachers’ transcripts. This discourse marker, like the others, triggered the code switching. No instance of bilingual homophones was observed in the three transcripts probably because English and Filipino are not genetically related. This supports Rahimi (2011) when he found out that “homophones usually appear in genetically related languages.” T: Write your complete name na. Ok na po? Dapat meron akong nine na one-eight. (I should have nine one-eight papers) Ok, so making na po lahat. May I have your attention please? So, ang objective natin sa araw na ito (our objective for today). Makinig na. ↑ Listen. Oh, so while others are still writing their name (.) guys listen. So, our objective for today’s activity is to recognize the distinction between religious and non-religious, and we will do it by means of ah (.) ano tawag ditto (.) S: Ah (.) pantomime. T: Pantomime ba ang tawag? (Is pantomime the name?) S: Opo The excerpt above also shows the frequent use of discourse markers ‘ok’, ‘so’, and ‘oh’ which eventually triggered the code-switching. The word ‘pantomime’ prompted the lexical transfer which led the teacher to code-switch. The lexical transfer seems to be unsuccessful.

2. Functions of code switching in the different English-medium subjects. It is evident that the three teachers have employed code-switching in various occasions of their discussions and engagements with the students. This should not be seen as mere incompetence of the teachers to use L2 rather it should be seen as a cognitive ability to employ two languages simultaneously. This affirms Parama et. al (2017) when they hypothesized that “bilinguals in general perceive code-switching to be indicative of unique cognitive ability.” As discussed in the presentation of the trigger words, the teachers eventually code-switched because of the following reasons: clarifying and emphasizing, calling of attention, expressing humor, and explaining of concepts. In terms of clarifying and emphasizing the concepts such as in (T: Ok, it is the nilalaman (contain) or (xxx)\ S: Content), (T: Pantomime ba ang tawag?), and (T: Halimbawa ang tanong sa inyo eh: Anong balak niyong gawin sa CR? Ay hindi… Balak niyo na lang ba talaga pasara na lang yung CR? Of course, you can’t just say yes or no to that. You have to explain why no and you have to explain why yes). Also, code switching was employed to call the attention of the students such as in (T: Ms. Diez, yun, can I give you a question during intrams?) and in (T: (xxx) Makinig na. Listen). It was also noted that code-switching was used to express humor like in (T: Ah↑ Usman wag na natin pag usapan yun \ S: ((laughs)) and (T: Ok, kung sino po yung pinaka mahirap na hulaan siya po yung may ano…may points). This complements Burenhult (as cited in Rahimi, 2011) who claimed that code switching is also used to express emotions. Lastly, code-switching was employed to explain concepts which is evident in (T: Kasi pag nag perform kayo alam niyo na kung religious or non-religious pero (0.0) we will be the one to identify whether it is religious (.) religious or non-religious) and in (T: Context, going back. What now is a context? In your own

words what now is a context? \ S: Nilalaman (contain) \T: Ok, it is the nilalaman (contain) or (xxx)). These served to explain concepts such as religious and non-religious and context.

Conclusion The paper presents the use of code-switching of three teachers from three ESL classrooms that are triggered primarily by certain words as introduced in Clyne (1991). The most common type of trigger words employed by the teachers is discourse markers. There were no bilingual homophones observed in the transcripts which suggest that English and Filipino are not genetically related languages. Code-switching was framed in a belief that it is not a sign of incompetence to use L2 continuously rather a sign of cognitive ability for bilinguals. The findings in this paper suggest that the functions of code-switching as employed by the teachers are to clarify and emphasize certain points, call attention, express humor, and explain concepts in which the L1 learners are more adept to. It is also noteworthy that in the community of Filipino learners, where English is seen as a dominant language, the use of Filipino language parallels with English in the practice of discourse. The implications of the findings are that code-switching may be used to maintain the communication between the teacher and the students in the context of the subject being taught. Likewise, the practice of code-switching may suggest cognitive development for two languages which may be applicable to students who are not too proficient in the use of L2.

Recommendations In light of the analyses and interpretations of the data, the following recommendations are offered. Firstly, facilitation of articulation (vertical and horizontal) meeting emphasizing the worth of code-switching as essential in the communication process but not limited to issues governing its use. Secondly, it is suggested that a technical verification technique after the final or after each processing level of transcribing be utilized to ensure transcription correctness. Thirdly, an interview should be conducted to acquire data as regards the perception of the participants to codeswitching which may be helpful in the triangulation of the data. Lastly, other research similar to this should be conducted in other regions or locales for comparability of results.

References Bautista, M. L. (2004). Tagalog-English code switching as a mode of discourse. De La Salle University-Manila. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), pp. 226-233. Broersma, M., & De Bot, K. (2006). Triggered codeswitching: A corpus-based evaluation of the original triggering hypothesis and a new alternative. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(1), 1-13. doi:10.1017/S1366728905002348 Clyne, M. G. (1991). Community languages: the Australian experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clyne, M. G. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Code-switching as a conversational strategy: evidence from Greek students in Edinburgh. (2010). The University of Edinburgh. Retrieved from https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/ handle/1842/5345 /dissertation1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon. Fishman, Joshua. A. (1967), Bilingualism with and without diglossia; Diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23 , 29-38. Franceschini, R. (1998). Code-switching and the notion of code in linguistics: Proposals for a dual focus model. In Peter Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction, and identity, (pp. 51-75). NY: Routledge. Gaerlan, M.J.M. (2009). Social influences on successful learning in a L2: A proposed model from

Consensual Qualitative Research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. Gonzalez, A. & Sibayan, B.P. (1988). Evaluating bilingual education in the Philippines (19741985). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (1998) Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Oxford:

Polity Press.

Myers-Scotten, C.M. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nunan, D., & Carter, R. (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parama, K., Kreiner, D, Stark, K., & Schuetz, S. (2017). Monolingual and bilingual perceptions of code-switching: A difference in cognition but not competence. North American Journal of Psychology, 19 (1), pp. 87-101. Rahimi, M. E. (2011). Psycholinguistic code switching in iranian university classroom context. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 1, pp. 54-63. Skiba, R. (1997). Code Switching as a Countenance of Language Interference. The Internet TESL Journal 3, 10. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Skiba-CodeSwitching.htm