How code switching functions in EFL classes is examined and discussed in terms of 7 themes that emerged from the data gathered from the NS and NNS teacher interviews, student group interviews and transcribed classroom talks of the observed classes.
‗Activating, motivating and drawing attention‘ is found to be one of the prominent functions code switching serves in EFL classes. The students believed they were more involved in the classroom activity and performed better when they were let to use their L1 and collaborate. Having difficulty in expressing their ideas and comprehending what
was being taught because of inadequate knowledge of the target language cause the students to feel passive and left out at times. NS teachers as well as NNS ones do not want the students to be demotivated and give up participating because of their inadequate English. In addition, some students get bored of the subject matter finding nothing in common with the target language and culture. Some of the NS teachers make jokes to catch their attention and to have their cooperation (NST Int.(1); NST Int. (2); NST St. Int.(7)). One of the NS teachers was observed and recorded to allow the students speak in Turkish among themselves and refer to their group membership by finding examples from their daily lives in Turkey, advertisements on Turkish TV channels, etc. to make them active and help them develop ideas as long as they affiliate with the pedagogical focus (Excerpt 2). This is what Canagarajah (1995) put forward as ‗negotiating the cultural relevance‘which is adapting the lesson content to learners‘ life- worlds outside the classroom. Even though the NNS teachers usually avoid switching to L1 themselves, they let the students speak in L1 among themselves and refer to their group membership (eg.Excerpt 3; Excerpt 5) besides accepting what they have asked or said in Turkish by giving replies in English (eg.Excerpt 3) or translating their Turkish utterances to English (eg.Excerpt 4) to satisfy them and make them participate as long as they affiliate with the pedagogical concerns. Afterwards, they direct the students to the English language and culture for which they have attended the EFL classes. On the other hand, some of the NNS teachers used Turkish discourse markers that emphasise group membership probably to motivate the class, have the students‘ active participation or draw their attention (eg.Excerpt 1; NSTclass/ST.Int.2).
‗Comprehending‘ seems to be another purpose code switching serves in EFL classes. The interviews and classroom observations and recordings showed that the examined students tried to understand the vocabulary and grammar rules of the target language by translating to L1 from time to time. The students more proficient in the target language helped the others providing the Turkish equivalents (NST Int.(1); NST class/St.Int7; NST class/St.Int.2 The students with inadequate level of the language prefered the teacher make explanations and give feedback in L1for them not to repeat the same mistakes (NNST Int.(2) Some of the NNS teachers believed that sometimes the students might need only one Turkish word from the teacher to comprehend the subject matter so
the teacher should give it to go on communicating (NNST Int.(1)). A NNS teacher made only one utterance in L1 throughout the lesson using equivalence and reiteration at the same time for making a word important in the lesson content understood (Excerpt 9). Some of the NS teachers supported the students who made utterances in L1 to explain a word in L2 as long as the utterance shows that the student had comprehended the meaning of the word (Excerpt 7; NST Int.(2)) On the other hand, one of the NS teachers shared his experience and belief that student code switching should not be supported as the students poor in English do not make much effort but expect help from those with more proficient English which is the easiest way (NST Int.(3) The students were recorded to switch to L1 for comprehending the utterances in L2, by referring to their group membership calling forth peer support and making use of equivalent items in L1 (eg. Excerpt 11 and Excerpt 7).
The students might also turn to their L1 and the related culture for ‗feeling free while expressing meaning‘. Because of the inadequate vocabulary and grammar knowledge in the target language, the students sometimes needed to fall back on their mother tongue to express the exact meaning in the EFL classes. Otherwise they would get demotivated, give up saying what they have started to say, or at least feel limited. The students reported that they could turn to their L1 for this purpose mostly in NNS teachers‘ classes since they understood why they needed to use L1 and what they meant when they used it as they shared the same language and culture (NNST class/St.Int.3; NST class/St.Int.2). Yet, their NS teachers who have got acquainted with the Turkish language and culture having lived in Turkey for some time did not restrict them much, accepted the utterances they made in their L1 and then went on communicating with them in L2 (NST class/St.Int.4; NST Int.(2)). It was surprising that some of the students stated they sometimes needed to use some English words while speaking in their L1 in a Turkish context, as bilingual people did (NNST class/St.Int.5). Additionally, in Excerpt 13 while code switching functioned to make students feel free to express their feelings, its ‗disalignment function‘(Eldridge, 1996) also worked. Off-task talk of the student who started to express his thoughts freely in L1 (disaligned with the pedagogical focus of the class) was stopped and warned by his classmate.
‗Cultural orientation‘ seems to be another function code switching serves which involves employing the students‘ first language to refer to their culture. The examined students stated and their teachers told about them that they feel closer to their NNS teachers as they share the same mentality, sense of humour and grammar background (NNST class/St.Int.3; NNST class/St.Int.5), and they feel the same about the NS teachers when they use some Turkish words and give examples from Turkish culture in the EFL classes (NST class/St.Int.6; NST class/St.Int.7; NNST class/St.Int.1; NST Int(1); NST Int(2)). It is also negotiating the ‗cultural relevance‘ suggested by Canagarajah (1995) which involves adapting the lesson content to learners‘ life- worlds outside the classroom. These examples related to cultural orientation function also involve ‗emphasising or forming group membership‘ function of code switching, suggested by Eldridge (1996). On the other hand, the students told about their belief which matched with what was observed that English translation of Turkish utterances involving cultural dimension would not give the inferred meaning just as Turkish equivalents of English utterances might not give the actual meaning or sometimes might be inappropriate with respect to Turkish culture. Thus; employing formulaic speech can help overcome misunderstandings arising from translating such words and phrases (Excerpt 14; Excerpt 15; NNST class/St.Int2).
Code switching might also help maintaining ‗naturality‘. It was perceived as artificiality and not seen as ‗being cool‘ among some of the classmates to speak in English especially in situations where keeping on ‗English only‘ was unnecessary (NNST Int(3); Excerpt 17). Therefore those students sometimes resisted using the target language both in their NS and NNS teachers‘ classes. Moreover, they expected their NNS teachers to employ L1 at times. Making use of L1 at times, they might also be seeking support from classmates to avoid looking funny being a bad imitator due to their inadequate knowledge in L2 and the related culture. (NST class/St.Int.6; Excerpt 16). Particularly, when the lesson content is not relevant to the students due to cultural distance, they show disalignment and refer to their group identity employing L1 from time to time (Excerpt 18; Excerpt 19). Thus; they might be trying to stress that their natural language was Turkish (NNSTclass/St.Int.1; NNST class/ST.Int.5; NNST class/St.Int.4; NNST Int(1), they belonged to the Turkish culture, and they were in the EFL classroom to pass the
proficiency exam only (Excerpt 19).
The students would cooperate with the teacher and speak in English in case s/he speaks or lets them speak some Turkish (NST class/St.Int.7; NST Int(2). Moreover, it was like a kind of ‗negotiation‘or resisting that the students turned to their L1 to tell about their needs and preferences and expected the teacher to take their perspective even if s/he is a NS of the English language and might not understand Turkish. As one of the teachers states, it is like a bargain (NNST Int (4)). In Excerpt 20, in response to the student‘s blame in L1, the NS teacher apologises in L1 which resembles concession in a negotiation. The students do the same in NNS teachers‘ classes. They make comments in Turkish to the questions the teachers ask in L2 (NNST Int(2), and the teachers respond in L2 to the students‘comments made in L1 as long as they are correct (Excerpt 22 and Excerpt 23). There is a kind of reciprocity about using the target language and the mother tongue. As their teachers perceive and the researcher has observed, the students assert their group membership (Eldridge, 1996) by insisting on using L1 in this way. The students were ashamed to make mistakes while speaking in English. When they could not find the appropriate word and make an absurd utterance while speaking in English it was face-threatening among friends. Inserting Turkish utterances might save face them. In Excerpt 24, being misunderstood for having made a wrong utterance in L2, the student turns to L1 which serves ‗conflict control‘(Eldridge, 1996) and ‗anxiety reduction‘(Mattson and Burenholt, 1999). They fall back on their mother tongue at least at the end of the sentence they are not confident about, using a reflective utterance in L1 such as, ‗yani‘ (I mean), as a NS teacher stated (NST Int(2). Switching to L1 was a way of getting the support of the NNST and the classmates when needed. Thus, they felt ‗secure and relaxed‘ when they were allowed to speak Turkish or their teachers used some Turkish words (NNST class/St.Int1; NNST class St.Int.5; NNST Int(1); NNST Int(4)). However, some of their NS teachers believe that this is an easy way which makes the students lazy and impedes target language learning (NNST Int(3); NST Int(2); NST Int.(3)).