Code-Switching in the EFL Classroom at a Dutch Grammar School

(1)

Code-Switching in the EFL Classroom at a Dutch

Grammar School

Ahmad Alyousef (11996129) University of Amsterdam MA Language and Education (English)

Supervisor: Dr. Rose van der Zwaard 12 July 2019

(2)

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to all the people who helped me conduct this research. First and foremost, I want to thank my wife for her unshakable faith in me, her words of encouragement, and her endless patience when coping with ups and downs. Honestly, this work would not have been completed without her extraordinary support to me.

Besides, I would like to express my gratitude to my tutor Dr. Rose van der Zwaard for her assistance and critical comments on my work during the writing process. Without your valuable guidance, this paper would not have been written.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the two teachers and their students from the Barlaeus

(3)

Abstract:

The use of the target language inside the EFL classroom has been strongly encouraged, while switching to the students’ first language (L1) has been discouraged. However, the reality of the classroom is different, and switching to the first language (L1) of the students is a common occurrence. Therefore, a lot of studies have reinvestigated this controversial issue and advocated a principled use of the L1.

This case study at Barlaeus Gymnasium school in Amsterdam investigates the

phenomenon code-switching (CS) inside the EFL classroom. A total of 4 lessons, taught by two teachers, have been observed and recorded. Data analysis of the observations and the transcribed recordings reveals that CS is widely used in these lessons. Ten roles of CS to Dutch are

identified, as follows: vocabulary explanations, grammar explanations, discussing literature, correcting mistakes, filling lexical gaps, giving instructions, comments on students’ answers and performance, showing/ asking for solidarity and empathy, expressing strong feelings, and

providing positive/negative feedback. Drawing on Ferguson (2009), these roles, or subcategories, are organized into 3 main categories: CS for transmitting and constructing knowledge, CS for classroom management, and CS for interactional relations. Further analysis shows that, among the three types of CS, the intersentential CS is the most used type in the lessons. The attitudes of both students and teachers seem to be consistent with the results of the study and the discussed literature overview, more specifically the use of CS to explain grammar and new concepts. A notable finding in the students’ questionnaire implies a very low percentage of the function of “praising students”. Although this function is present in our findings and stated by the teachers, the students state that their teachers “never” code-switch to praise students. Additionally, the

(4)

teacher of the fourth form suggests that she code switch for humor and making jokes, which was not detected in the transcribed data.

Keywords:

Code-switching (CS)- Bilingualism- Communication- Dutch- EFL- Classroom- Students- attitudes.

(5)

Switching between the target language and the students’ first language (L1) has always attracted my attention throughout my experience as a student and as a teacher. As a secondary-school student, we used to have bilingual classes of English as a foreign language (EFL); my first language, Arabic, was extensively used inside the classroom for class management, maintaining discipline, translation, etc. This was the case although officially and in the study guides it is prohibited to switch to the students’ own language inside the classroom. However, I still remember that specific day when an inspector from the Ministry of Education paid our class a sudden visit. The bilingual lesson abruptly turned into a monolingual one, in which only the target language was used. Both students and the teacher had to use only English for all the activities. Consequently, the atmosphere in the classroom was uncomfortable and looks of confusion appeared on the faces of the students and the teacher. This awkward secondary school flashback raised some critical questions on how and why code-switching between the L1 and the target language occurs and whether or not it should be avoided. The curiosity about such a controversial issue prompted me to choose this phenomenon to be the topic of my thesis. Therefore, I want to start my inquiry with this phrase “To Code-Switch or not to Code-Switch, that is the Question!”. At the end of the thesis, the reader may be inspired to find the answer to this adapted Shakespearian inquiry.

1.1. A Synopsis of the study

The first part of the thesis (2) presents a general overview of the phenomenon of code-switching (CS) in its original- social- environment, where it was initially explored. The review includes the definition of CS, its types, and its functions. The following section (3) discusses the roles of L1 use inside the foreign language classroom and the conflicting views on this

(8)

controversial issue. After that, a critical consideration of the classroom from an ecological perspective is provided. Section (4) presents an overview of the studies that have been conducted on CS in the classroom environment. In the following section (5), a general overview of English in the Netherlands is presented, with a specific focus on its role in the educational setting. Afterwards, a full description of the methodology, research questions, data analysis and the results is given in sections (6 &7). Finally, the conclusion is provided in section (8).

1.2. The Focus of the Study

The focus of the research is on foreign language environments where the classroom is the primary source (to some extent) of the target language. The observations will be conducted in a Dutch secondary school where teachers share the L1, Dutch in this case, with their target students.

2. The Phenomenon of Code-Switching 2.1. Bilingualism and Codeswitching:

The definition of “bilingualism” has been academically a subject of hot debate. Generally speaking, earlier research tends to describe the term as mastering two languages completely, also known as ‘perfect bilinguals’.Bloomfield (1933), for instance, was among others who supported the idea that bilinguals are those who have native-like fluency in two languages. More recently, the term has expanded to allow more space in terms of linguistic competence. For instance, Crosjean (2010) rejects Bloom’s discussion as invalid and indicates that “bilinguals are those who use two or more than one language (or dialects) in their everyday lives” (4). In her

definition of bilingualism, Myers-Scotton (2006) puts more focus on the conversational aspect, indicating that “bilingualism is the ability to use two or more languages sufficiently to carry on a limited casual conversation… This definition does not limit bilingualism to speaking any one

(9)

specific dialect of the L2 in question; it can be the standard dialect or any of the non-standard dialects”(44). Thus, the concept of bilingualism has currently undergone dramatic changes to include the international usage of the two languages in the everyday lives of the bilinguals.

Grosjean (1998) proposes that bilinguals in their everyday lives operate in two modes: monolingual and bilingual. The monolingual mode occurs when they interact with those who share only one language (or language variety) with them; whereas the bilingual mode takes place when they communicate with other bilinguals who share with them two or more languages. The latter instigates a prevalent linguistic phenomenon termed as “code-switching”, hereafter CS. Among the most common definitions of CS is that of Heller (1988) who describes it as "the use of more than one language in the course of a single communicative episode" (1). Bullock and Toribio (2009) define CS as “the ability on the part of bilinguals to alternate effortlessly between their two languages (1).

2.2. Types and functions of CS:

Muysken (2000) suggests a tripartite typology of CS that consists of three processes: insertion, alternation and congruent lexicalization. The first type, the insertional CS, or the intrasentential CS in Poplack’s terms, entails the insertion of a single constituent into the frame of a Matrix Language (ML), which is the dominant language of interaction, while the Embedded Language (EL) is the language from which the inserted constituents come. This type of CS can be clearly observed in the example (a) below, where the Dutch (the ML) prepositional phrase “voor acht personen” is inserted into the Moluccan Malay (the EL):

a) Kalau dong tukan bikin dong tukan bikin voor acht personen dek orang cuma

‘when they always make they always make for eight persons and then people only’ (Moluccan Malay/Dutch; Huwae 1992, cited in Muysken 2000: 4)

(10)

This type of insertion is roughly similar to impulsive lexical borrowing which is limited to one lexical unit. Holmes (2013) suggests that borrowings are triggered by a lack of vocabulary because people do not know the suitable word in the second language. She also indicates that borrowed words are used “to express a concept or describe an object for which there is no obvious word available in the language they are using”(43). Bullock and Toribio (2009) state that Lexical borrowing includes the integration of a single lexeme on the morphological and phonological level. For example, the Japanese word “basubaru”, which means “basketball” in English, is completely set up in the monolingual Japanese lexicon (5).

The second type that Muysken intoduces in his framework is the alternational CS, also known as intersentential CS (Poplack 1980) or the classic CS (Myers-Scotton 1993). The switch in this case occurs between the two language systems of the interaction. There are no dominant or embedded languages in this case. Alternatively, the grammatical structures of the two languages are integrated. Occasionally, the two languages switch halfway through the sentence as can be noticed in the example (b) below:

b) Maar ‘t hoeft niet li-ánna ida seft ana ... ‘But need not for when I-see I’ ‘but it need not be, for when I see, I …’

(Moroccan Arabic-Dutch; Nortier 1990:126, cited in Muysken 2000: 5)

The intersentential CS may also happen at the clause boundaries as in the following example (c), where the Swahili phrase “Sina pesa” occurs at the end/boundary of the English phrase “that is too much”:

c) Swahili–English

(11)

(Myers-Scotton 1993a:41, cited in Bullock and Toribio, 2009, p.3 )

Both intra-sentential and intersentential CS require speakers of an advanced level of proficiency in each language since it involves producing full clauses. Though, only the

intrasentential CS provides insights into how the grammars of the two languages interact at the level of the sentence (Bullock and Toribio, 2009, p.3).

The third type of Muysken’s typology is the congruent lexicalization. It involves substantially a shared structure, lexicalized by items from either language. It is prevalent

principally among languages that are typologically related. In the example (d) below, Crama and van Gelderen cited by Myusken presents a clear case of how the congruent lexicalization is used in a sentence.

d) Weet jij [waar] Jenny is?

‘Do you know where Jenny is?’ (Dutch: waar Jenny is)

(English/Dutch; Crama and van Gelderen 1984, as cited in Muysken 2000: 5)

In both languages, English and Dutch, the structure “where Jenny is” could be easily recognized. In addition to that, the question word “where” is close and equivalent to the Dutch word “waar”, and Jenny is a name that is recognized in both languages.

Tag-switching, proposed by Poplack (1980), is another type of CS which is particularly prevalent among bilinguals who have limited abilities in one language. It is created by inserting a linguistic tag, formulaic expression, or an interjection from one language into the utterance of another. In sentence (e), for instance, the final tag “ya know” is inserted into the French utterance:

e) Frenchville French–English

(12)

“The others could speak French like him, . . . ”

(Bullock fieldnotes, cited in Bullock and Toribio, 2009, p.4) Holms (2013) suggests that tag switching, also called emblematic switching, serves the function of an identity marker. For instance, in example (f), which is an exchange of two Mexican Americans in the USA, inserting the Spanish tag “ándale pues” by M serves as a solidarity marker between the member of a minority ethnic group.

f) Spanish – English:

A: Well I’m glad I met you. OK?

M: ándale pues [ OK SWELL ], and do come again. Mm?

(Holmes, 2013, p.35)

Montes-Alcala (2000), drawing on Poplack (1980), McClure(1981), Gumperz(1982), and Fallis (1976), compiles a comprehensive list of 17 stylistic and sociopragmatic functions of CS as follows: emphasis, quotes, elaboration, clarification, anticipations, parenthetical comments change of topic, listener specification, message qualification, reiterations, , personalization as opposed to objectification, tags, idiomatic expression, exclamations, repetitions, interjections, and systematic alternations (197).

3. Theoretical Perspectives:

3.1. Code-switching in the Classroom:

Not only does CS take place among individuals in bilingual communities, but it is also a common occurrence in the EFL classroom settings. Lin (2013) defines CS in the classroom simply as language alternation which includes the use of different and alternating linguistic codes by any of the participants, teachers or students, inside the classroom. The alternation may

(13)

involve codemixing (sentential alternation/ clausal) and code-switching (Inter or intra-sentential switching) (p.195). Generally speaking, CS in the classroom is more complex than that in social environments since the foreign language is both the end and means of the interaction. Simon (2001) argues that the participants in the classroom setting paly double roles: institutional and social. The teacher is held responsible by society for being the “giver of knowledge”, and the goal of the communication, in this case, is to make the students acquire this knowledge. In addition, whereas the teacher is expected to deliver knowledge in the code of the foreign language, the students are anticipated to use and acquire this code (316-317).

As a feature of classroom interaction, CS has been prohibited in a bilingual or multilingual classroom. However, investigations reveal that CS from the target language to the L1 of the students is inevitable (Simon, 2001). In an attempt to answer the question of why CS is still a continuous issue in the classroom, Macaro (2005) suggests a number of reasons. First, it remains as a constant reminder of the grammar-translation method, which is currently outdated.

Secondly, it is used by bilingual (non-native) teachers to reduce the amount of exposure of the target language, taking into consideration that it is not the quantity or exposure that matters in acquiring the language, but its quality. Thirdly, some national authorities attempt to impact and control teachers’ practices in the classroom. Teachers’ autonomy has not been supported by solid research evidence. Therefore, certain ideologies have been reinforced in the past irrespective of little or insufficient evidence. An example that Macaro presents is the attempt to monitor teachers in the early 1990s in England when the agencies of the government attempted to introduce the National Curriculum for Modern Languages, which insists on using the target language for all aspects of the lesson. The questionable justification was that monolingual teaching was the most successful in the TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) world.

(14)

3.2. The Role of the first(own) language inside the English language Class:

Since the late nineteenth century, there has been a widespread assumption that learning and teaching a new language is best achieved monolingually, exclusively using the new language; and everything that happens in the language class should be in the language being taught (Hall & Cook, 2012, p.271-272). Accordingly, the use of the first language inside the classroom has been discouraged. This position towards the L1 use ranged from its strongest form of prohibiting the L1 in the classroom to the weakest form of minimizing the use of L1 by maximizing L2 usage (Cook, 2001, p.404). This monolingual paradigm continued to be the norm throughout the 20th_{century; however, most recently it has been challenged in favor of a bilingual} approach to the language classroom. Practical considerations of the aims of language learning have led to the reassessment of the merits of bilingual teaching. Hall & Cook (2012) mentions some major factors that contribute to the advocacy of bilingual teaching. These include the need for learners to operate bilingually, the wish to save their linguistic and cultural identity while speaking the language, and the fact that the language will not solely be used in native speaker environments. Stern (1992), as cited in Hall & Cook, 2012, p.280, suggests that the connection between the own language and the new language inside the mind of the learners is an

‘indisputable fact of life’, and that is what makes the own language as a ‘reference system’ for the learner. Stern also suggests that crosslingual teaching, which makes reference to the learners’ first language, and intralingual teaching, which uses only the target language, can be

complementary. Some activities, such as translation and bilingual dictionaries usage, demand the former; whereas other activities that put the focus on the communicative proficiency require the latter.

(15)

Proponents of monolingual language classrooms such as Ellis (1984), Chaudron (1988) and Lightbown (2001), as cited in Ray (2015, p.85-86), suggest that teaching completely in the target language helps students to establish and develop an inbuilt language system by exposing students to as many functions of the learned language as possible. According to Ellis (1984), as cited in Cook (2012), first language use deprives students from using the new language. Others like MacDonald (1993) and Turnbull (2001), as cited in Cook (2001), advocates using the target language in the classroom because it is motivating and triggers immediate success.

The role that L1 plays in the foreign language classroom has been a controversial issue over the years. Positions range from totally excluding the L1, towards recognizing its role in providing support for learning. In practice, there is also a similar variation from total exclusion to 90 % of L1 usage (Littlewood and Yu, 2011, p.64). Cook (2001) critiques the idea that in order to acquire a new language successfully, the two languages need to be separated in the learner’s mind. Form a psycholinguistic perspective, Cook argues that the L1 might be positively used to “convey meaning, explain grammar, and organize the class, and for students to use as part of their collaborative learning and individual strategy use. The first language can be a useful element in creating authentic L2 users rather than something to be shunned at all costs” (402).

In his article “Rethinking the Use of L1 in the L2 Classroom”, Zulfikar (2018) advocates the notion that L1 use does not hinder the learning process. The article demonstrates that the L1 constitutes an inseparable part in the L2 classroom, and that it facilitates, not hinders, learning and acquisition when properly used. Zulfikar mentions and lists a number of the major reasons for L1 use inside the foreign language class. Firstly, foreign language learners, low proficient in particular, can express themselves more effectively in their mother tongue than in the target language. Auerbach (1993) indicates that some learners with low proficiency in English dropped

(16)

bilingual programs mainly because they felt intimidated. Thus, since limited proficiency in the target language can restrain students, the L1 use helps create “a sense of security and validates the learner’s lived experiences, allowing them to express themselves” (Auerbach,1993, p. 13). Secondly, first language use contributes to stimulating collaborative dialogue among the learners when they cooperate with each other to solve a task. Cook (2001) proposes that “L1 provides scaffolding for the students to help each other” and they “may explain the task to each other, negotiate roles they are going to take, or check their understanding or production of language against their peers” (418). Thirdly, integrating the students’ first language inside the L2 classroom is timesaving. For instance, managing the classroom, introducing new vocabulary items and explaining complex grammar in the L1 save time and effort. Fourthly, in EFL settings, the monolingual policy poses a problem with authenticity. In the case of EFL, learners do not have the chance to communicate with the L2 speaking community. Finally, the L1 assists the teacher to give instructions and explain tasks, concepts, and activities.

Levine (2011) invites educators to reconsider the benefits of the systematized use of the L1 inside the EFL and FL classrooms, suggesting that code-switching should become a matter of code choice. He calls researchers and educators to reinvestigate code choice as a part of a

multilingual approach. In his review of a number of key sociocultural and quantitative studies, he concludes that teachers used the target language to communicate with students, who used the L2 less frequently. The L1 is used by the instructors during grammatical instructions and

explanations, course policies and assignments. Research within sociocultural theory indicates that the instructors use the L2 more frequently than the students, and it serves various functions such as scaffolding in identity negotiation tasks.

(17)

3.3. Complexity Theory and an Ecological Perspective on Language Teaching Early SLA concepts about the natural acquisition of languages have lost their credibility. Within applied linguistics, a social turn that acknowledges the complexity, difference and diversity within language teaching and learning has developed. In addition, the language classroom has been considered to be a multilingual speech community (Edstrom, 2006, cited in Cook 2012, 279).

Seedhouse (2010) examines to what extent spoken interaction has the characteristics of a complex adaptive system. The interaction in the second language classroom is used as a variety of spoken interaction. The study uses the comparison between the characteristics of the two systems in order to attempt to answer the question whether the L2 classroom displays the

characteristics of a complex adaptive system. Seedhouse argues that in the L2 setting language is not only the object, but also the vehicle of interaction. Moreover, participants comment on and analyze the linguistic forms themselves and employ these as the departure point for more interaction. A distinctive characteristic of a complex adaptive system is that its behavior comes from the interaction of its components (p.5).

In his article “Learning to live with complexity: towards an ecological perspective on language learning”, Tudor (2003) presents a survey on recent trends concerning the distinctions between the ecological and the technological perspectives on language learning and teaching. He discusses that the ecological perspective emphasizes the subjective reality and the dynamic interaction between context and methodology. The period from 1960s onwards witnessed a redefinition of the aims of languages teaching, putting a special emphasis on the communicative competence, which refers to “the learners’ ability to do things in the language for the purpose of study, commerce, travel, and so on” (Tudor, 2003, p.2). This period has also been marked by

(18)

creativity in language teaching which can be clearly noticed in the productivity concerning teaching materials and the learning aids which include modern technology such as videos, computer-assisted learning and multimedia. Accordingly, it would be safe to say that the last decades have developed a new technology of language teaching(Tudor, 2003, p.3).

The technological perspective, according to Tudor (2003), considers learners as ‘simply’ learners and teachers as ‘simply teachers’, and that every classroom is similar to another. The ecological perspective, on the other hand, considers the process of language teaching to be complex since students and teachers are unique, not identical. Tudor (2003) indicates that an ecological perspective “involves exploring language teaching and learning within the totality of the lives of the various participants involved, and not as one sub-part of the lives which can be examined in isolation”(4). Moreover, Tudor insists that the reality of the teacher is an ecological one, and it is shaped by “ the attitudes and expectations of students, of parents, of school

administrators, of materials writers and many others including, of course, each teacher as an individual in his or her own right” (6). In addition to that, whereas the technological approach seems to be positive and confident, the ecological one calls upon “wait a minute” and “it depends”(6).

4. Overview of Studies in CS:

Code-switching by both teachers and learners in the EFL classroom has engendered a faire share of research. The switch happens from the foreign language to the L1 of the students. The research on this issue has undergone several stages. Early studies in North American settings focused on two types of contexts: Second language context and bilingual education classroom (Lin, 2013). For instance, Wong-Fillmore (1980) investigates whether the children’s L1(the linguistic minority) and the societal language (L2) gain equal emphasis by means of calculating

(19)

the number of utterances in each language. The study finds that the amount of the L1 use depends on the degree of individualization in the interaction between the students and the teachers. It concludes that there is a preference for the use of the L1 in less formal interaction in the classroom.

More recent studies look at CS form a slightly different angle, drawing on approaches from various fields such as the “cognitive processing perspectives and experimental methodologies” (Lin, 20132, p.204-205). An example of such a study is that of Macaro (2009), which

investigates the effects of CS on students’ vocabulary learning in two studies. The context of the first study was two reading lessons that involved interaction between the teacher and the

students. The two sessions included two different conditions; in the first of which, the equivalents of the difficult words in the reading text have been provided by the teacher. The teacher in the second session, on the other hand, provided English definitions, paraphrases, of the same difficult words. The study also included a control group that received the two types of information, paraphrase and CS. The findings of the study suggest that providing the words’ equivalents in the L1 is not harmful to the acquisition of the vocabulary.

The second study explores the responses of the students to their teachers’ CS in two universities in China, where a number of EFL classes were video-recorded. The students, after that, participated in a stimulated recall interview, which was conducted in their L1. Macaro concludes that providing the words in the L1 helps increasing the amount of processing, which indicates that more cognitive processing is taking place.

In his ethnographic study, Arthur (1996) investigates the interaction between the teachers and pupils in 6 classes in two primary schools in Botswana. The official language to be used inside the classroom is English, also called the “onstage” language; whereas Setswana is said to

(20)

be the “backstage” language (18). Setswana is second in position and prestige to English. Arthur reports that CS is used to encourage participation by students. Her investigation shows also that the teachers in Botswana have an ambivalent attitude towards code-switching, and they are hesitant to admit its role in the language classroom. Arthur attributes this position to the

educational climate that can be described as prescriptive; thus, teachers do not want to be viewed deviating from the official policy of using only English inside the classroom. Moreover, teachers use code contrasts to achieve pragmatic functions such as the specification of the addressee, and as a framing device.

Latter studies have investigated CS in the classroom with regard to its roles, types, and the attitudes of both teachers and learners towards the issue. An overview of such studies is presented below with their most relevant findings.

Arthur observes that tag switches are used by teachers to serve the function of “positive politeness” as Hymes (1984) suggests. Switches from English into Setswana were employed explicitly to express solidarity. When the class is teacher-fronted, Setswana is used by the teachers to exhort students to raise their voices or speak aloud. In addition to that, Arthur suggests that any interaction between the students and the teachers outside the classroom

happens in the own languages of the students, Setswana or Ikalanga. She also remarks that there is a difference between “doing the lesson” and “talking about it”. When teachers, for instance, wants to talk about previous or future lessons, they used to switch to Setswana, the backstage language (27). Finally, feedback by teachers that is done in Setswana was principally

accompanied by prosodic or contextualization cues; suggesting that there is such a complex relationship between code choice and the identity of the speaker. Beyond the activities of the classrooms, Setswana was used as a language of complicity to manage the problem of interaction

(21)

in English; thus it creates a “safe-space” that assists students to indulge more actively in the lesson.

Campa and Nassaji (2009) investigate in their study the amount, the reasons, and the purposes of using the L1 inside the L2 classroom. Their data are gathered from audio and video recordings of two second-year German conversation courses. Two teachers participated in the study: the first one is a native speaker of German and has an experience of 20 years in teaching German; the other one is also a native speaker of German, but she has little experience in teaching. The word count of the transcriptions reveals that the percentage of L1 use is 11.3%, whereas that of the L2 is 88.7 %. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that there are 24

categorical functions of the L1 use, and they are: translation, L1-L2 contrast, evaluation, activity instruction, activity objective, elicitation of students contributions, personal comments,

comprehension check, classroom equipment, administrative issues, repetition of students’ L1 utterances, reactions to student’s questions, Humor, and instructor as bilingual (747-748). Further quantitative analysis shows that the first and second most frequent functions, translation and personal comments, are used more by the experienced teacher than the novice one. In both of the interviews and the stimulated recall, instructors mention 16 reasons for the L1 use. The reasons are categorized as “foreign language context, students’ low level of language

proficiency, setup of German classes at the university, class composition, necessity of explaining problem areas, student motivation, and facilitative role of L1 use”(752).

In her case study, Moore (2010) investigates and analyzes the roles and function of codes-witching in the foreign language (FL) classroom in two educational contexts, a French school in Spain and a bilingual program in Italian and French in Aosta Valley, Italy. In the first situation, the teachers were native speakers of French with average or little competence in

(22)

Spanish, which is the native language of the students. The bilingual program is based on the idea of language alternation which is believed to foster the metalinguistic awareness by means of the interactional use of the involved languages.

Data analysis reveals that switches to the L1, whether conducted by the teacher or by the student, might contribute to a certain degree of attention to the content or the form the discourse, usually resulting in feedback and another sequence of production and negotiation of meaning in the target language. This specific type of CS has a “corrective function” and has a two-way movement ranging from (1) converging to the choice of language of the student, announcing that the understanding occurred on the linguistic level; to (2) diverging and putting emphasis on the form by sticking to the use of the target language (282). Furthermore, switches to the L1 may serve the function of maintaining and facilitating communication during the lesson. This includes confirmation and comprehension checks and clarification requests. Thus, the switches ensure the flow of the interaction in the classroom. Further analysis indicates that CS form the side of the students signals lexical gaps, contributes to raising the metalinguistic awareness, and assists in focusing on the form as well as on the content. Communicatively, teachers' attitudes show that they consider L1 use in the classroom as a problem-solving strategy, which may lead to a potential learning progress.

As for the bilingual program, Moore found that switches between the two languages, French and Italian, “could help reinforce, complexify and refine the formation and elaboration of new concepts” (288). She discusses that such a process goes beyond translation and makes students attend to the subtle differences in meanings and insights.

Mokgwathi and Webb (2013) discuss the role of CS at four senior secondary schools in Botswana, where English is considered to be the language that should be officially used in

(23)

schools. Data were collected by observing lessons and administering questionnaires to teachers and learners. The findings of the study reveal that the national language ‘Setswana’ is frequently used and utilized as an instructional strategy as the students were not sufficiently proficient in English. Moreover, the study reveals some benefits and drawbacks of using CS in the classroom. The advantage is that it increases learners’ participation and comprehension, whereas the

disadvantage is that it has bad consequences on the learner’s proficiency and confidence in speaking English, the language of instruction.

Both quantitative and qualitative analyses show that CS occurs regardless of the subject taught, the gender of the teachers, the location of the school, and the grade being taught.

Additionally, it happens more during content lessons such as Biology (76%), History (75%) and Home Economics (86%) than during English lessons(36%). The reason for this is that in content lessons the emphasis is put more on the understanding the content, whereas in the English lessons the emphasis is more on developing English proficiency. The statistical evidence was also highly important (p = 0.006), indicating that content-subject teachers used CS as a

communicative strategy for facilitating understanding. Conversely, the majority of the English teachers (80%) disapproved of learners’ CS to Setswana. Thus, teachers’ tolerance to CS is influenced by the nature of the content. The learners supported CS albeit teachers disapproved of students who code-switch in the classroom. Therefore, there are some contradictions in the teachers’ attitudes towards the issue and their practice.

The study also demonstrates that the three types of CS (intra-sentential, inter-sentential and emblematic) are used in the lessons. An insightful observation indicates that CS occurs during the discourse in the content lessons, while it takes place during the developmental stage in the English lessons. Moreover, teachers of English code-switch less using the inter-sentential type in

(24)

order to clarify or emphasize meanings. The research shows also some social and educational effects of CS. Socially, it bridges the gap between the students and the teacher in order to

establish an atmosphere of warmth and friendliness. On the pedagogical level, it is considered to be a teaching strategy that results in positive and negative effects. Positively, it does not have detrimental effects on the contents, nor does it slow the pace of the lesson down. Additionally, it enhances comprehension, increases participation and group work, and expands on the vocabulary of the language. The discovered disadvantages are that CS stifles the participation of learners, withholds the students’ confidence in speaking English, discriminates against the incompetent students in Setswana, contravenes the LiEP (the Language in Education Policy in Botswana), and, finally, restricts written communication,

In another study that focuses on this phenomenon inside the FL classroom, Shahid (2014) examines teachers’ and learners’ attitudes towards code-switch from English to Urdu or vice versa. He also investigates the functions, patterns and the effects of CS instances in the classroom. This research is founded on both quantitative and qualitative data analyses.

The results of attitude check show that 23% of the students and 52% of the teachers recommended the use of L1 (Urdu) in the English class. Further data analysis reveals that 76% teachers and 81% of the students assert that code-switching is present in the GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) classes. Only small percentages, 18% students along with 24% students, oppose the use on L1 in the GCSE classes. Moreover, while 49.27% student and 60% teachers indicate that they feel comfortable using the first language in the ESL classroom, 6.34% students and 4.00% teachers state that they are not comfortable using the L1 for

(25)

Shahid also finds that maximum agreement has been reached on all functions of

codeswitching with the exception of emphasis, expressing solidarity and gratitude. On the other hand, the functions that received maximum percentages are clarifications and joke telling, with 80.98% and 74.15% of students and 92.00% and 60.00% of teachers respectively. Other functions such as translation, expression of feelings, giving instructions and boosting students gain more than 50% form both teachers and students.

Concerning the types of code-switching that are detected in this study, data analysis of the recordings reveals that all three types illustrated by Poplack (1980), tag switching,

intersentential switching, and intrasentential switching, are utilized in the GCSE classes. They are used to serve different functions that have been mentioned before.

In his empirical study at the Centurion University ,Odisha, Ray (2015) investigates how learner-teacher’s code switching practices in a graduation classroom is considered to be a friendly strategy that assists students to abandon fear of English as a subject and the restrictions to express themselves. The outcomes of data analysis uncovers that the majority of the students support the use of their own language or even other alternative languages to clarify their

uncertainties. Moreover, most students report that they are dependent on this method and that they are used to having teachers of English utilize Odia Hindi in the classroom. Further findings reveal that teachers’ use of the native languages assists students to shed their fear and doubt when asking questions and to better understand grammatical rules, especially when drawing connections to the structures taken form their mother tongue. Concerning the vocabulary building classes, students state that they are not willing to attend the session when the teacher refuses to provide the equivalent words in their own languages. As for the phonology lessons,

(26)

findings demonstrate that students’ perception of the English sound system was made clearer upon drawing analogies and difference between the two languages.

The 12 teachers who participated in the post-interviews indicates that they do not use English at all during the theory classes of B-Tech (Bachelor of Technology). However, in the labs there is a chance for code-switching since the teaching methods are different, and the mode is mostly interactive, allowing students to engage in group activities. Therefore, eleven out of twelve teachers report that they switch to the student’s native language in nearly all lab sessions. Eight teachers believe that English has a positive role, and it should be used in the classroom to teach the target language. The teachers state that their use of the L1 is to explain grammar, to give feedback, to clarify doubts, and to train in phonetics. Ten out of twelve of the teacher are of the opinion that students learn the new language by referring to their mother tongue. CS occurs frequently to translate new vocabulary items, which are not in the students’ repertoire.

A major factor for CS is the low proficiency of the students in English. Moreover, teachers report that CS patterns are variably used per subjects and participants. The data show that intersentential CS takes place more than intrasentential CS and tag switching. The switch happens mostly either after completing sentences in the target language or after giving

theoretical explanations. Almost all teachers report that they think that the L1 is a resource rather than a barrier to teach the new language. They also agree that the use of the native language bonds the teacher with the students. Ray finally indicates that the most important finding is that the key factor for using the L1 is the low proficiency of the students.

Fachriyah (2017) investigates the functions of code-switching that is used by a teacher during the interaction in her language classroom in Serang Banten, Indonesia. To collect the qualitative data for the research, the researcher used ethnography of communication, which

(27)

includes techniques such as recordings, observations and transcriptions. Fachriyah detects 14 functions of code-switching as follows:

“(1) clarification, (2) reiteration or repetition, (3) explanation, (4) asking, (5) translation, (6) checking for understanding, (7) emphasizing of a language element, (8) making inferences, (9) developing vocabulary, (10) class discussions of student’ tasks, (11) giving feedback, (12) aiding memorization, (13) class management, (14) entertainment and general communications” (151).

5. English in the Netherlands:

Dutch is the official language in the Netherlands. It is a member of the West-Germanic branch of the Indo-European language family and closely related to English, German, Frisian, and the Scandinavian languages (Edwards, 2016, 24).

The Netherlands is considered to be one of the Western European countries in which English has a dominant role as a foreign language, which has already started to develop into a second language. Booij (2001, p.2) introduces a number of reasons why English has such a prominent position in the Netherlands. Firstly, English is an international language and does not belong to a particular country. That is what makes it different from the other European languages such as French, which is strongly associated with one country, France, and its culture. Secondly, the Dutch are affected by the Anglo-Saxon culture that the Second World War has reinforced. In other words, English is considered to be the language of the liberators; whereas German, for instance, was the language of the invaders. Thirdly, Netherlands is a relatively small country that

(28)

depends on international trade; therefore, knowledge of foreign languages, specifically English, is essential for communication.

English plays an important role in the daily lives of the Dutch. 90% of the Dutch population report being able to strike a conversation in English (European Commission 2012). Netherlands topped the English Proficiency Index, which is a ranking of 72 countries in which English is not the first language. Booij (2001) states that “English is used in a number of domains: internet, job market, industry and trade, and very strongly in advertisements and commercials, apparently also because the use of English has snob appeal” (3).

English was introduced into the language curriculum after 1800 and became a compulsory subject in 1863 (Edwards, 2016, p.25). After 1968 (Secondary Education Act), English became the only compulsory language, among other languages such as French and German, in secondary school. At present, English is mandatory in the substructure of secondary education and all streams of higher education types (HAVO, VWO and VMBO). Moreover, a lot of secondary schools in the Netherlands offer bilingual teaching, which is not meant to meet the needs of the foreign students; but it is rather directed to Dutch children to increase their chances for international careers (Booij, 2001, p.2).

6. My Study

6.1. Research Questions:

This thesis attempts to provide answers to the following research questions:

1. Do/To what extent students or teachers code-switch to Dutch inside EFL classroom? 2. What are the roles of CS in the observed EFL lessons?

(29)

4. What are the attitudes of the students towards codes-witching inside their English classroom?

5. What are the attitudes of the teachers towards switching to Dutch inside their EFL classroom?

6.2. Methodology and Process:

To answer the research questions, classroom observations and recordings of 4 lessons at the Barlaeus Gymnasium school were conducted. At a later date, the researcher transcribed the recordings and analyzed a selection of the instances of CS in the light of previous research on the topic. The transcribed data helped answer the research questions 1 through 3, whereas the fourth and fifth questions were answered through conducting post interviews of the teachers and

questionnaires with the students. A full description of the questionnaires, post interviews and the process of recording and transcribing is provided in the sections below. The teacher and the students were told at the beginning of each lesson that the lesson would be recorded for the purpose of research. However, the participants were not told about the specific linguistic feature, codeswitching between teachers and students, that the study is focusing on. The reason for this is to ensure that the data are as natural as possible.

6.3. The School

This study was conducted at Barlaeus Gymnasium school, which is equivalent to a grammar school. Generally speaking, a Gymnasium is a secondary school that offers a classical

curriculum which includes Latin and Greek and puts a special emphasis on academic learning. It prepares students for higher education at a university.

(30)

The participants in this study were two teachers, who volunteered their lessons to be recorded and observed, and their students. The students included both males and females, whose age group ranged from 10 to 14 years. They belonged to 3 different forms; consequently, they had different levels of English: beginner, intermediate and advanced.

The first three classes were taught by teacher Mary, and the fourth one was by teacher Simone. The first lesson was a grammar lesson. The age group of the students, who were second form, was 12-13 years, and they were intermediate in English. Similarly, the students in the second one, which was a reading lesson, were also second form; intermediate in English. The learners in the third session, which was first form, were 11-12 years old; they were beginners in English. The students in the fourth one, fourth form, were 14-15 years old, and their level in English was advanced.

Both of the teachers, under pseudonyms Mary and Simone, have an experience of

approximately 35 years in teaching English as a foreign language. They are experts in delivering their lessons, tackling problems, maintaining discipline and managing the class. They loved and enjoyed their job, and that is specifically what made them have a successful career.

6.5. Theoretical Framework:

Cook and Hall (2012) suggest that there is evidence confirming that own language use and CS facilitate learning during tasks that are cognitively challenging. Macaro (2006), cited in Cook and Hall (2012), also reports own-language use and CS inside the classroom perform two roles: a communicative strategies and a learning strategy(290). Furthermore, Ferguson (2009,

(31)

1. CS for transmitting and constructing knowledge, covering pedagogic scaffolding, annotation of technical terms, and the mediation of meaning on the L2 book;

2. CS for classroom management, covering shifts in footing form lesson content to managing the behaviors of the students;

3. CS for interactional relations. This would cover CS to index different teacher identities and to humanize the atmosphere in the classroom.

The framework of Ferguson (2009) will be used to classify the instances of CS which are detected in the recorded lesson. Accordingly, the roles of CS in the transcribed data were classified under the three above-mentioned broad categories.

Both qualitative and quantitative (numerical analysis) data analysis will be used to answer our research questions. The qualitative analysis compromises the analysis of the transcribed data to demonstrate the extent, the roles and types of CS; while the quantitative analysis includes the calculation of the proportions of the student’s responses to the

questionnaires, which will help checking their attitudes towards CS to Dutch by their teachers.

6.6. Data collection & Instruments:

6.6.1.1. Classroom observations and recordings

The main data were collected by observing and recording 4 lessons of EFL classrooms at Barlaeus Gymnasium in Amsterdam. As for the observations, they are significant since they assist in examining different aspects of the lesson such as turn taking, scheduling, and time management. Additionally, taking these field notes into consideration helps in transcribing the data accurately.

(32)

The researcher acted as a non-participant observer; he sat at the back of the classroom, took field notes and audio recorded the lessons, using his mobile phone and laptop. The total time duration is 180 hours of about 45 minutes per lesson. For the purpose of analyzing the data collected, the researcher transcribed the lesson, focusing on a selection of the excerpts that contain instances of code-switching. the standard orthography, with slight modifications, has been used to transcribe the data. A fine-grained analysis of the excerpts that contain CS will be performed to investigate the roles of code-switching in the lessons, the extent of CS use, and the types of the prevalent CS instances The analysis of the transcribed data will answer the first 4 research questions. Moreover, it will help the researcher compare and contrast the data received from the questionnaires and the post-interviews.

6.6.2. Post-interviews

At the end of the series of the lessons that the researcher attended, he held post-interviews with the teachers, Mary and Simone. The interviews consisted of ten questions that explores their awareness of the phenomenon of CS in their EFL classes, why it is used, how often, and how to utilize it to facilitate learning (see appendix 2). The data collected from the post interviews assists the researcher in answering the last research question.

6.6.3. Students’ Questionnaires

After conducting the post-interviews, the researcher gave a copy of the students’

questionnaire to the teacher, who handed the questionnaire out to the students in order to fill in. A total of 109 questionnaires were received from the students. The questionnaires were designed on a similar Likert-scale model and consisted of eight uses of CS by the teacher in the EFL classroom. These functions were the most uses reported by the studies in the literature overview, and they are:

(33)

1. Explaining complex grammar

2. defining new vocabulary items

3. Explaining difficult concepts

4. Providing instructions

5. Praising students

6. Translating the texts in reading sessions

7. Maintaining discipline in the class

8. Explaining similarities and differences between English and Dutch.

Students had to match these suggested uses with a scale of six percentages raging from never (0%) to always(100%) (see appendix 1). The significance of the students’ questionnaire lies in the fact that it investigates and sheds light on the attitudes and beliefs of the students towards how their teachers of English switch codes to Dutch, their own language, inside the EFL classroom. The quantitative analysis of the students’ questionnaires will help answer the fourth research question. The analysis will be conducted through using Excel to calculate the

percentages of the student’s responses to test their attitudes towards why code-switching is used by the teacher in the English classroom.

6.7. Data Analysis & Results:

In this section, an analysis of the collected data from the recordings, the post-interviews and the students’ questionnaires will be presented. Section 6.7.1 compromises a synopsis of the lessons. In section 6.7.2, a detailed analysis of the transcribed data which include instances of CS is provided. A discussion of the types of CS that are detected in the analyzed data is provided in

(34)

section 6.7.3. The attitudes of the teachers towards CS is explored in section 6.7.4. The final section of the analysis 6.7.5. represents the analysis of the students’ questionnaires, which probe their attitudes about their teachers’ CS from English to Dutch.

6.7.1 A synopsis of the lessons:

The first lesson was a grammar lesson by teacher Mary and lasted for 45 minutes. It started with checking homework and included activities such as discussing grammar, doing gap-fill exercises, writing answers on the whiteboard, and performing a text from the book.

The second one, also by teacher Mary, was a reading lesson. The teacher started the lesson by introducing the researcher in front of the class. Then, she asked one of her best

students to explain to the observer what their reading was about. The text that the students had to read for their English class was a science fiction short story entitles “Flowers for Algernon” by the American writer Daniel Keyes, which tells the story of a retarted person called Charlie Gordon who is chosen to undergo an experimental surgery in order to boost his intelligence. The teacher started by reading a passage from the book. Then she asked another student to take over. After the students finished their turns, she used to make some comments on the passages they had read. For instance after the second student had finished her turn, the teacher commented “I see Charlie, again, sort of he sees himself as another person, the little Charlie. He talks about himself in the third person”. The observation illustrates that there were little instances of code-switching during this reading lesson because the core focus of this lesson was on reading, and there was little chance for interaction between the students and the teacher. In other words, most of the time of the lesson was dedicated for reading passages from the book.

The third lesson that I attended was also by teacher Mary, and it was from 1. It was also a checking-homework lesson and lasted for 45 minutes. Students were 11-12 years old, and they

(35)

were beginners in English. The classroom observation reveals that students of this group were generally naughty and more noisy than the students of the other classes. Some students thought they were funny when they made noise to make others laugh at them. However they are really annoying, the teacher could manage the class and maintain discipline.

The last attended lesson was fourth form by teacher Simone. It was a presentation lesson. The students were approximately 14/15 years old, and they were advanced speakers of English. Three peers of students had prepared themselves to present on that day. Other students had to listen carefully to the students who were presenting and write down some complex and

interesting words they hear. The teacher started the lesson by giving instructions for the students who would present and for those who would be listening to them. Generally speaking, the students presented fully in English, the researcher did not detect any switches to Dutch during the presentations from the side of the students. However, the teacher switched to Dutch in her comments on the students’ performances. The last 10 minutes of the lesson was dedicated to solving some grammar exercises, in which CS to Dutch was extensively used.

6.7.2. The transcribed data :

This section focuses on how and why CS occurred and presents and analyzes samples of the transcriptions1_{. Generally, in all four lessons that were attended, the field notes and the} recordings clearly indicate that teachers and students indeed code-switched “extensively” to

1 The capital letters used in the transcriptions are the capital letter “S”, which refers to “student”, and the letter “T”, which indicates “teacher”. In case more than one student engage in the interaction in the same transcript, they will be referred to as “S1”, “S2”, “S3”…,etc. The English translation of the Dutch switches will be provided in brackets (…). The contextualization clues and the explanations of what is happening and the participants’ actions, which come aminly from the field notes, are given inside another type of brackets […].

(36)

Dutch, their native language. Drawing on Ferguson’s triangulated categorization, the detected functions and roles of CS are categorized as follows:

1. CS for transmitting and constructing knowledge: 1. Vocabulary Explanations

Transcript 1

T: Thank you S1. And, S2! [she asks S2 to take the turn]. S2: [unintelligible voice]

T: Switched off his combitube. You spelled it double “f”. Why is that? Why is “off”? [Students talk]

Ya, ‘switch off’ de beweging. Ze bewegen en het wordje ziet...heb je double “f”.

(Yes, ‘switch off’ the movement. They move and the word seems…. Then you have double ‘f’) Okay, three. Uh S3.

S3: I know all about this celebrity since ….

In some occasions, the teacher used to explain some difficult English vocabulary in Dutch so that she ensures that the students understand what she exactly says and means. Transcript 1 presents a clear example of how explaining difficult vocabulary is performed. This script is taken from lesson 1, form 2; students are intermediate in English, which may be why the teacher chooses to switch to Dutch in order to clarify the meaning for the students. The teacher starts by thanking the previous student S1 who performed his/her task successfully and assigning the turn to another student S2, who provides an answer that contains the phrasal verb “switch off”. The teacher raises the question of why the preposition “off” is spelled with double “f”, not single “f”. When the student fails to give an answer, the teacher explains in Dutch that “off” is used because it indicates that there was a movement, but it stops. I would also argue that this use of

codeswitching has also the function of saving time. If she explains the reason in English, more time is needed to ensure that the students understand the idea. Choong (2006) states that “Some

(37)

reasons for using the L1 in the classroom are to convey and check the comprehension of lexical or grammatical forms and meanings, to give directions, and to manage the class” (3).

2. Grammar Explanations: Transcript 2

T: If S knows the answer, …go on … the teacher will be happy. Well done, S! So, what are the rules? What is the main clause, de hoofdzin? Is “If” stukje de hoofdzin of het andere deel? (Is the ‘if part’ the main clause or the other part?) S: De andere. (the other)

T: Ja!(Yes!) [The teacher points to the sentence on the board] Dit is de bijzin, (This is the subordinate clause) “if” clause. You are not allowed to use will/would in the “if” clause. Okay? Well done! thank you! Let’s do the first one. Uh, S2!

One of the main uses of Dutch by the teachers inside their English classroom was explaining grammar and grammatical terms. Transcript 2, which was taken from the first lesson, form 2, demonstrates how providing grammatical explanations was done by the teacher in Dutch. In this excerpt, the teacher writes a sentence on the whiteboard in order to demonstrate the location of the main clause in the conditional sentence. The switch between the two languages ensures that the students understood the rule in order to apply it correctly on the sentence that she has just written. When she checks the students’ understandings of the grammatical term “main clause”, she uses the Dutch equivalent “De hoofdzin”. Then, she continues explaining the rule in Dutch, asking about the position of the “main clause” whether it is included in the “if clause” or the other part of the sentence. Switching to Dutch seemed to have worked well sine a student provided a correct answer. Therefore, the teacher provided a positive feedback in Dutch “Ja”, confirming that the student’s reaction is correct.

(38)

 Transcript 3

T: I need you now to open your notebook. I would like you to take notes. New subject! It is important for the test … past tense. Net zoals in het Nederlands... En ik zal het doen half Engels

half Nederlands zodat het uitgelegd wordt. (Exactly as in Dutch… I am going to do the half of

the explanation in Dutch and the other half in English so that it becomes explained.)

[The teacher stops talking, moves to the student, who was making noise and moves his desk right to the back of the classroom, and then she continues her explanation without saying anything to the students]

Net zoals in Nederlands hebben we regelmatige (regular) en onregelmatige (irregular verbs).

(Exactly the same as in Dutch, we have regular and irregular verbs)

Engels[ pauses] English: regular verbs end in (ed). That is easy. Just put “ed” and it becomes a

regular verb, alright? You remember that this verb “I try” is regular. But then what happens to this?

S:[spelling the word in the Dutch pronunciation /tei/er/ i:/ei/dei/] T R I E D. T: well done!

Another example of how the teacher switches to Dutch during her explanation of the past simple tense is provided in transcript 3, which is taken from lesson 3, first form, by teacher Maria. First, she begins by giving instructions in English “open your notebook/ take notes” and introducing the topic of today’s lesson, the past simple. Switching to Dutch, she illustrates that an explanation will be provided in both languages, English and Dutch. That is because the students are beginners in English, and they are not familiar with the grammatical terms. Her utterance is interrupted by one of the noisy students, who was talking and making noise. To tackle the problem, she moves his desk to the back of the classroom in order to isolate him from other students as a kind of punishment. Afterwards, she continues her explanation of the rule of the past simple. In addition to switching to Dutch, she makes connections between the two languages by drawing on the Dutch classification of the past tense (regelmatige ‘regular’ and

onregematige ‘irregular’). Implementing this strategy of switching and making use of the Dutch

(39)

past. Next, she gives an example of the verb “try” and asks the students to conjugate it in the simple past. A student S replies by giving the correct spelling in Dutch, to which the teacher triggers the positive evaluation “Well done!”.

3. Discussing Literature: Transcript 4

T: What do you mean. I mean it is not just a fixed level. He used to be retarded and now he is developing into a mature person. [In the meantime students start discussing in Dutch]

S1 en S2! Je mag zo zeggen. Even herhalen the answers (S1&S2, you can say that. To repeat the

answers )

S1 : [Unintelligible]:….

T: Ja ja.. ze begeleiden ... ze begrijpen dat hij misschien niet alles (Yeah! They understand that he perhaps not everything..)... that he does not understand that he needs a coach perhaps or someone to ... to help him. Yeah! Okay fine! S1, you wanted to ask me about…

S2: Hoe ziet hij er uit? Hoe verder kan je zien dat hij..[S2 struggles to find the right word] (How does he look like? How further can he see that ...?)

T: Uh uh zo begaafd is? (Uh Uh very gifted?)

[Students start discussing the idea in Dutch with each other, they speak at the same time, unintelligible].

Transcript 4 is taken from the 2nd_{lesson, the reading lesson. In this extract, the teacher} discusses a literature point in the novel. The topic under discussion is the feeble-mindedness of the main character ‘Charlie Gordon’ who starts to develop into an ordinary person. She attempts to elicit spontaneous responses from her students. This can be clearly seen when students start discussing the idea among each other. Moreover, it does not matter for her whether they react in Dutch or English, as long as the discussion goes on. Therefore, even though the main language of the interaction is English, we notice that she allows S1& S2 to use Dutch, and she even switches to Dutch herself. When S2 asks a question in Dutch and struggles to find the proper

(40)

word also in Dutch, the teacher does not hesitate giving the missing word “begaafd/ gifted” in Dutch in order to guarantee the continuity of the discussion.

4. Correcting Mistakes Transcript 5

T: Independent. A nice word as well. Okay! The ladies are still preparing this. Um…[addressing (S1) the student who has just presented] you lasted quite long. You were talking, I think, for more than 4 minutes.

S1: It was just too much important wars.

T: [correcting the student]: You mean “too many important wars”. Okay, all these wars! [the teacher comments afterwards on the pronunciation of the students] Jij moet even hier goed

opletten met het uitspraak van het woordje “but”. Nederlanders zeggen heel vaak “the Dutch

pronunciation of the word ‘‘bʊt” … try to make it English. Dat geluidje in, hoe zeggen we dat,

uh in het transcriptie ... dat is geen [a] en geen [ʊ], maar net in tussen [bʌt].... Je had dat allemaal tijdens je presentatie, probeer het en komt het goed. Nu zijn jullie klaar. Nu de derde en laatste presentatie .... The same procedure. Write down interesting words.

(You must at this point be really careful with the pronunciation of the word “but”. The Dutch say very often “bʊt” . Try to make it English. That sound, how to say it, uh the phonetic

transcription …that is not [a], nor [ʊ], but it is in between [bʌt]. All of you had that during your presentations. Try it and it will be Okay. Now, you are done! And the third and the last

presentation ……)

When some students commit some mistakes, especially in pronunciation, the teachers switch to Dutch in order to provide corrective feedback. Transcript 5, taken from the last lesson,

represents an obvious example of such a situation when Simone corrects the pronunciation of the word “but”. The beginning of the transcript indicates that the next couple are supposed to begin their presentation. However, they are not read yet to present. That is the reason Simone initiates a

(41)

conversation with one of the students (S1) who has just finished his presentation, commenting that his turn lasted more than his peers. S1 replies with the phrase “… It was just too much important wars”. The teacher recasts the student’s answer in English by repeating the answer corrected “You mean too many important wars”, with a stress on the correct form. After that, she uses Dutch to comment on a phonological mistake that the students made during their

presentation, which is a common mistake in pronouncing the word ‘but’ among the Dutch in general. Simone attempts to draw on the Dutch phonology in order to make her point clear, comparing and contrasting the English vowel [ʌ] with the Dutch vowel [u] and [a]. She explains that the correct pronunciation is between these vowels. Thus, the teacher uses both Dutch language and the Dutch phonology as a means to make sure that they understand what she exactly means. This role of CS seems to be consistent with the findings of Ray (2015) who states that students’ perception of the English sound system was made clearer upon drawing

similarities and difference between the two languages.

5. Filling Lexical Gaps: Transcript 6

T: Okay S not too tired! [The teacher asks one of the students who fasts Ramadan] S: Een beetje. (Alittle bit)

T: Een beetje...Alittle bit.

T: So, what time does the sun set?

S: Rond 10:00 uur. (Around 10:00 o’clock) T: Around 10:00 o’clock?

S: negen twee en dertig. (Nine thirty-two/ 9:32) T: Nine thirty-two.

Code-Switching in the EFL Classroom at a Dutch Grammar School

Code-Switching in the EFL Classroom at a Dutch

Grammar School

Table of Contents: