Code-switching (CS) in L2 Classroom Interaction

In SLA, the arguments against deploying CS have been summarised by Cook (2001) in three respects. Firstly, L1 learning argument sets up an L1-learning-model as well as a target of native competence for L2 learning. The L1 linguistic system is acquired without relying on another language, which is argued to illustrate the potential of learning L2 in the way of learning L1. However, this model is not convincing due to setting up an ideal learning competence as same as that of the target learning. This because it ignores the different backgrounds of L1 and L2 learners, such as L2 learners having the existent other language (i.e., their first language). Consequently, few L2 learners could speak as successfully as native speakers (Towell & Hawkins, 1994, cited in Cook, 2001), due to the mind of L2 users who are argued as “multi-competent language users” must be different from that of native speakers (Cook, 1999, p. 191). Hence, the native speaker’s standard has also been criticised, as the standard of successful L2 users should be argued for in its own right rather than in the shadows of native speakers(Cook, 2001).

Secondly, language compartmentalisation considers that L1 and L2 are separated systems, so that L2 should be learned in its own right without linking to the L1 linguistic system as a resource for teaching. In this respect, the rejection of CS use mainly

attributes to L1’s interference. It is a common belief that learners’ first language strongly influences the second language acquisition (SLA), and always has a negative transfer of L1 features into L2 learning (Ellis, 1985). Accordingly, to eliminate L1’s negative transfer, it is necessary to build up an L2 linguistic system independently.

However, some researchers’ (e.g., Beauvillain & Crainger, 1987; Cook, 1994; Obler, 1982, cited in Cook, 2001) arguments of the interweaving of L1and L2 in the L2 users’ mind indicates that setting up a new language system in the mind is not simply like extending a room at the back of a house, but also rebuilding the internal structures in

20

order to well hold in both linguistic systems. The interweaving of L1 and L2 can also be reflected by non-compartmentalised code-switching used outside the classroom by the participants with both same languages (Cook, 2001). Therefore, there comes the third argument which advocates the maximum use of L2. This argument shows slight tolerance to the use of CS. To be specific, despite not absolutely denying CS, meaningful L2 use should be maximised at any extent. This argument highlights the value of rich language input to L2 learners (Krashen, 1985b; 1985a; Turnbull and Dailey-O'Cain, 2009), and has won the support from a number of researchers (Chaudron, 1988; Duff and Polio, 1990).

Even though “none of the three arguments…strongly support the view that the L1 should be avoided” (Cook, 2001, p. 410), the English-only approach still has been prevailing (Atkinson, 1987; Butzkamm and Caldwell, 2009; Harmer, 2010). The English- only approach supporters are in favour of relying on full exposure to natural and

authentic language environments (Karahen, 1985a). Therefore, the exclusive L2 use is considered to be productive and effective for the L2 learning (Harmer, 2010). The prevalence of English-only classroom teaching is taken as good language teaching (Atkinson, 1987), which strengthens an extremely negative position of CS use: for example, “a skeleton in the closet” (Prodromou, 2000, cited in Gabrielatos, 2001), a taboo subject (Cook, 2002), or “a source of embarrassment” (Butzkamm, 2003). The teachers’ language proficiency and qualification may be questioned if they use CS (Raschka et al., 2009; Tian, 2014). All in all, using CS in English classrooms

generalises a feeling of guilt (Prodromou, 2002; Cheng, 2013; Cahyani et al., 2018), whereas exclusive L2 use is rewarded as “a badge of honor” (Butzkamm and Caldwell, 2009, p. 24).

However, there is still a shift claiming that the side-effects of L1 use should not be satisfactory reasons to completely discard CS in the L2 classroom (Atkinson, 1987; Butzkamm, 2003;Raschka et al., 2009). Thus, a place has been found to deploy CS in the L2 classroom and meanwhile the exclusive L2 use is questioned from cognitive, socio-linguistic, socio-cultural and pedagogical perspectives.

Cognitively, a positive claim for this is to reduce rather than to avoid the inevitable already-existing language/L1 interference, and to make up what learners do not

21

such as semantic, pragmatic and discourse comparison between two languages (Butzkamm, 2003, p. 7). Exclusive L2 use possibly reduces the “cognitive and

metacognitive opportunities available to learners” that the CS employment can provide (Macaro, 2009, p. 49). Butzkamm (2003, p. 29) holds a similar view that CS may

cognitively awaken learners’ potential for Universal Grammar lying in the learners’ mind.

Socio-linguistics holds the view that L2 acquisition could be influenced by learners’ attitude toward themselves, the teacher, and the learning environment (Richard-Amato, 1996). Employing CS is a “humanistic approach”, due to giving learners more

opportunities to express themselves, reducing anxiety and preventing from being frustrated in a less stressful but more communicative and affective language-friendly atmosphere (Atkinson, 1987; Butzkamm, 2003). CS is a “normal means of

communication and so of the ability to behave fully as normal people” (Allwright and Bailey, 1991, p. 173), which helps them build up confidence (Canagarajah, 1999), and entails them independence in their choice of expression (Janulevičienė and

Kavaliauskienė, 2002).

Socio-culturally, Vygotsky’s “concepts of scaffolding, semiotic mediation, and the Zone of Proximal Development provide an analytical framework supporting student L1 classroom use”(Ford, 2009, p. 64). In particular, the key concept “scaffolding” is later developed and favourably adopted as “collaborative dialogue” (Swain, 2000) and “instructional conversation” (Tharp and Gallimore, 1991), which continually places the emphasis on learning promotion with information-providing (pedagogically) and social perspective being appended. There is also evidence that CS deployment facilitates L2 learners’ cognitive development while interacting with the more proficient one who plays a scaffolding role, and therefore “acts as a critical psychological tool” (Antón and

DiCamilla, 1999, p. 245).

Pedagogically, it is time-saving to complete a particular task with efficiency (Atkinson, 1987) - to explain grammar or give instructions for classroom management, just to name a few examples. In addition, regarding learner autonomy, an English-only

pedagogical approach ignores learners’ option to choose the ways that best suit them to learn (Macara, 2009), such as employing the translation to form “part of the preferred learning strategies” (Atkinson, 1987, p. 242). Thirdly, the non-native teachers’ language proficiency is questioned such as their inability to create the language environment as

22

native teachers do, and/or failure to provide comprehensible target language input (Polio and Duff, 1994). These situations are likely to be made up with resorting to CS use. However, CS is not necessarily due to lack of knowledge in a particular language, but for different functions in classroom interaction (Park, 2013). In this sense,

monolingual classrooms neglect the pedagogical roles of the CS employment (Butzkamm, 2003). Interestingly, there is also a paradox that the exclusive L2 use classroom actually (at least) cannot exclude the silent CS use, especially for the beginners (ibid).