Dynamics of Code-Switching In
Academic Discourse: Evidences for
Multilingual Education Bill
Ariel L. Ramos
Cebu Technological University Date Submitted: March 7, 2010
Date Revised: October 1, 2010
ABSTRACT
The aim of uniting the Filipinos for community building allowed government leaders and lawmakers to see the role of language motivating them to draft and promulgate laws for communication and instruction. However, at present, the government only perceives the critical role of Filipino in performing civic duties, declaring it a national code and English, to respond internationally, while regional languages are only used as auxiliary codes up to grade two only, leaving non-Tagalogs with doubts of the real purpose of legalizing Filipino and English as languages of communication and instruction. This paper reveals that auxiliary languages with English exist in academic discourse to facilitate learning even in a Higher Educational Institution.
Keywords: code-switching, laws for communication and instruction, multilingual education bill, unity
INTRODUCTION
The Philippine Language of Instruction
Because there are more than a hundred and ten languages in the Philippines as reported by McFarland (in Bautista, 1983), laws on language to be used for communication were promulgated to promote national unity such as sections 6 and 7 in article XIV of the 1987 Philippine constitution, stating that the national language of the Philippines is Filipino and that for purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English. The regional languages, such as Cebuano-Visayan, are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein.
and technology subjects) at the national level, through the teaching of both languages and their use as media of instruction at all levels while the regional languages like the Cebuano-Visayan were to be used as auxiliary languages in grades one and two only. In addition, according to the UP forum, the Bilingual Education Policy in which one of the goals is to develop the Filipino as a linguistic symbol of national unity and identity, was made to permit all Filipinos to gain proficiency in the Filipino language in order to perform public duties and to learn English in order to respond to the needs of the country in the community of nations.
Multilingualism: Effects of Aiming at Unity
Along with the legality of using Filipino, where most of the vocabulary comes from Tagalog, and English, a foreign language, the Tagalog-based Filipinos eventually become bilinguals, with Filipino as their home-based code and English, their second code as learned languages, while non-Tagalog Filipinos such as those living in Cebu become multilinguals because of the local code used in daily communication, with Filipino and English languages learned in their academic milieu.This is a situation which proves that every non-Tagalog Filipino has no choice but to learn the national language and he has to learn if not fully master the use of the English language.And because language is a tool to convey messages and transmit knowledge, in a bilingual/multilingual community like the Philippines, the topic on what language to use in educating the people is an issue resulting in the creation of policies for bilingualism in academic communities.
Unity or Dominance
Adendorff (in Shin, 2009) mentioned that languages are carriers of social meaning and express the identity of their user. However, as stipulated in the Bilingual Education Policy anchored on the 1987 Philippine constitution, only Filipino-a Tagalog based language-represents the Filipino identity, making it together with English the official language of instruction to achieve competence, a condition that makes three interesting questions for a non-Tagalog Filipino.
1. If auxiliary languages are permitted by law to be used to facilitate learning only until the second level in the elementary grades, are Filipino and English enough to facilitate learning in the rest of the academic life of a Filipino learner?
meeting the needs of the country in the community of nations? 3. One of the goals of the Bilingual Education Policy is the
development of Filipino as a linguistic symbol of national unity and identity; does this mean that if other regional languages are used such as Cebuano-Visayan, their Filipino identity is stripped off?
At the bottom of these questions could be a seed of doubt left bugging the minds of every non-Tagalog Filipino, asking if the bilingual education policy, along with the fundamental law of the land, is really aiming for unity or is simply just a successfully conceived means of legal dominance.
Codes in Cebuano-Visayan Academic Discourse
To produce assets for nation building, the Commission on Higher Education issued Memorandum Order Number 59, S1996, in accordance with Republic Act 7722, including 6 units of literature as part of the minimum requirements for the mandatory general education curriculum, indicating the need and relevance of this subject in unfolding a Filipino life. In support, Kahayon and Zulueta (2000) said that Filipinos have to study literature to better appreciate their literary heritage for the fact that one cannot appreciate something that he does not understand is a very good reason to use it as a springboard in the research.
This signifies that literature is a subject that would allow Filipinos to know more of their roots and deepen their self-understanding, since the literary pieces serve as windows to their past.In a literary class of multilinguals such as those in Cebu, university students who are linguistically knowledgeable in of both English and Filipino engaged their professors in academic discourse. However, English is usually used rather than Filipino and they would shift to Cebuano-Visayan when the need arises.
The students’ tendency to use code-switching has been explained by Myers-Scotton (1993), who stressed that speakers must share, at least to some extent, an understanding of the social meanings of each available code.The students opt to use code-switching because according to the Markedness Theory of Myers-Scotton, speakers must share at least to some extent, an understanding of the social meanings of each available code. For the Cebuano-Visayans, when English cannot guarantee understanding, switching to the mother tongue is done to answer the need.
the teacher and when negotiating form and meaning. Unaware of switching codes, the students conversed to convey ideas to the rest of the members in the communication process. Because conveying messages is important for the participants of communication, in some cases, switching is used for certain functions such as repeating or clarifying the message in a conversation, according to Choi and Kuipers(2003).
Myers-Scotton’s theory further states that in any communicative situation, there exists an unmarked, expected R__ O__ (RO) set and a marked, differential one. In choosing a code, the speaker evaluates the markedness of their potential choices, determined by the social forces at work in their community, and decides either to follow or reject the normative model making the marked choice a conscious bid for a new RO set. Speakers employ code choices rationally, as a way of establishing their social position.
Nilep (2006) said that Myers-Scotton’s Markedness theory is stated in the form of a principle known as negotiation patterned after Grice’s cooperative principle which states that the individual must choose the form of his conversational contribution such that it indexes the set of rights and obligations which he wishes to be in force between him as the speaker and the addressee for the current exchange. Simply, the principle points to how the speakers in the communication process look for ways to match their utterances to be understood by the listeners, a situation considered as a dilemma in a multilingual communication scenario.
Faltis’ (in Shin, 2009) said that multilinguals having contact with others mostly face a quandary of which available codes to use for them to best communicate with peers, family and teachers in school. According to Bautista (2009), this quandary is augmented when speakers lack mastery in one or both of the languages. With this, switching becomes the speakers’ option in communicating with the listeners more particularly when both of the languages allow it to happen. According to Poplack (1980), when linguistic constraints are less between languages of multilingual speakers, switching is very possible.
In communication, the speaker has more power since, he has the access to resources which is called time, the time to convince the listener. The listener, on the other hand, as a challenger, wields the power by taking the opportunity to speak and to sell his ideas.In this manner, choosing a code to communicate is just one aspect, while maintaining the authority to persuade is another. In order for the speaker to utilize his resources (in this case it is the time to persuade), he has to arrange his thoughts logically for the listener to easily get convinced. Usually, this is done by limiting the options of the listener, most likely in questioning. As what Schegloff (in Shoraka, 2005) said, that question prefers a “yes” or a “no” response as a matter of its speaker's construction of it. The preference is built into the sequence, and is not a matter of the respondent's construction of the response. If the question is built to prefer “yes”, then “no” is a dispreferred response, even if delivered without delay and in turn-initial position, and vice versa.
The table reveals the existing types and functions of code-switching in the academic discourse of the Cebuano-Visayan university students in their literature class.
Table 1 Code-Switching Dynamics in Academic Discourse
Despite the researcher’s use of English as code in communicating with the subjects, switching of available linguistic codes is still evident. In fact, the four types of code-switching were clearly recorded during the academic discourse. There are two reasons why students in the academic discourse resort to switch codes in several types. Evidently, at the beginning, because of their multilingualism, they already have alternative codes in communicating, which according to Bonvillain (2003) is natural, because when multilinguals engage in discourse, they basically utilize all available codes.
TYPES Vocabulary Comprehension Affective Total Rank
Intraword 1 2 0 3 4th
Intrasentential 106 73 103 282 1st
Intersentential 19 19 14 52 2nd
Tag 0 2 5 7 3rd
TOTAL 126 96 122 344
RANK 1st 3rd 2nd
FUNCTIONS
Quotations 0 1 0 1 6th
Addressee Specification 48 30 41 119 2nd
Interjections 20 14 23 57 3rd
Repetition 0 2 4 6 5th
Message Qualification 7 3 3 13 4th
Inquiry and Giving information 51 46 51 148 1st
Expressions of Politeness 0 0 0 0 7th
TOTAL 126 96 122 344
Another reason is the lesser linguistic constraints between Cebuano-Visayan and English, allowing the students to easily insert or alternate words because the two languages are somehow lexically congruent from phrase to clause level. This is supported by Poplock (1980) when she said that when there is less linguistic constraints between languages, like Cebuano-Visayan and English, switching is possible (see also Lipski 1978; Muysken 2000; Pfaff 55 1979). The boundary between adjacent fragments occurs between two constituents that are ordered in the same way in both languages, ensuring the linear coherence of sentence structure without omitting or duplicating lexical content.In the case of the students’ codes, there is less re-arrangement of lexicons when translating a Cebuano-Visayan phrase e.g. “amu’ngmangga” which means “our mango”, “siDodongugGogo” which means “Dodong and Gogo” or in a clause e.g. “Tabangiku Wilson.” which means “Help me, Wilson.”, “Asa ka?” meaning “Where [are] you?”
Furthermore, the study revealed that code-switching types rank from intrasentential, intersentential, tag to intra-word. Switchings were often done in longer structures than in singular morphemes. This is attributed to the nature of the discourse which is academic. As the discussion progressed to higher levels of understanding the literary selections, the students needed to express more of their ideas, motivating them to converse more.
In the transcript, the first language of the student which is Cebuano-Visayan was used as an introductory statement when he said, “Ana nisiya” which means
“It’s like this” in his second language before he gave his complete response to his teacher’s question using solely the English language in the succeeding clause, an evidence on how the student switched his codes from one clause to another.
It is clear that in the situation cited above, S11 was giving direction to S10 so that she would be guided to the page of where the teacher was discussing the word. Here, it is seen that instead of responding either in a Cebuano-Visayan or English sentence, S11 used both available languages in her statement, “Sa left”
Intrasentential Switching T: It is…?
S7: powerful, strong
T: It is strong. It is persuasive. So when you say the wisdom of the heart may be as potent as the logic of the mind what does it mean?
S7: Ana nisiya.//The knowledge of the heart maybe is as strong as the judgment of the mind.//
Intersentential Switching
T: Okay. Read the sentence. “Arellano returned to Manila with an idea, he started going the rounds. When, you say going the rounds, you start to…? S14: Button-holed?
which means “At the left” where the lexicon “sa” from her native language acted as a function word to show position and was followed by the lexicon “left” which comes from her second language.
In the transcript, the students specifically talked about a film that was related to a topic currently discussed in their literature class. When, the student who has seen the film failed to narrate clearly the story to the class, he asked another student whom he thought had seen the film, an act which signaled that he needed confirmation and support. In this situation, the teacher asked if there were students among his class who had seen the film. Not responding directly to the whole class, S12 inaudibly gave her answer and the same was done by S7. However, when the teacher noticed S7 speaking quietly about the topic, he called the student but S7 did not share his knowledge about the film to the class and because of this, S4 got the courage to speak in order to clarify if the film in his mind was what the class talked about. With this, S4 asked the rest of the students who were softly talking using tag switching. It was observed that S4 clearly made a statement of uncertainty about the topic of his class, a statement which was constructed in the English language and was followed by a Cebuano-Visayan tag “di ba” which means “right?” in his second language.
Here, though S5 responded in the intrasentential manner when she said, “… kung bagamusudka’g relationship” which means “…just like when you are in a relationship” where evidently English was integrated with the local language and was followed by a statement “Na-a kay experience ngadilinimu ma-experience sa…” meaning “You will experience [something] that you don’t experience in…” it is still noted that S5 did not only insert the English verb “experience” in her supposedly Cebuano-Visayan statement, but it was with “ma”, a Cebuano-Visayan bound morpheme indicating futurity.
Moreover, there were six functions observed in the academic discourse. These functions were topped by inquiry and giving information. This is based on
Tag Switching
T: Who has seen the film? S12: Nagduwasiyaugku-an… S7: Gipakitatusiyaugku-an T: Yes? Yes Jessy?
S7: Wala sir my…wakukita…
S4: //Actually, the policeman tolerates him,//di ba?
Intraword Switching T: Yes?
two basic reasons. First is on the nature of the discourse which is academic and second, is on the subjects’ multilingual skills. As the discussion progressed, many were involved in inquiring to seek new information about the literary piece and put the other members in a situation of answering these questions. Because of their knowledge of more than one language and the need to persuade the rest, the students tended to switch codes more often to inquire or give information.
Meanwhile, the second highest function which was addressee specification was influenced by the students’ respect for their teacher. In the research, if not implied, most of the statements were directly addressed to the teacher during the academic discourse. Most often, as Shin (2009) said, addressee specification is used to show that they are addressing their answer to someone, in this case to the teacher.
Furthermore, taking the third highest rank among the code-switching functions was interjection. This is attributed to what Bautista (2009) called a sign of deficiency in one or both of the languages and Jorgensen’s power wielding. Here, the students frequently used the Cebuano-Visayan utterance fillers “ku-an and kana’ng” when they ran out of words or failed to give the right word in their statements during the discussion. At the same time, the students utilized these fillers for them not to lose the chance of speaking, believing that considerable points are given for oral recitation.
These were then followed by message qualification, repetition and quotation functions. In many cases, sharing of ideas requires interlocutors to be clear with their messages. This is in consonance with what Choi and Kuipers (2003)have discovered that at times, re-voicing or clarifying the message in a conversation is also needed.Because the students in the research were given copies of the selections to be discussed and enough time to do advance reading before the actual discussion, it helped them give answers that usually need not be qualified nor repeated in another language.Bergsleithner (in Greggio and Gil, 2007) observed that the learners used code-switching to better express themselves when interacting with the teacher and when negotiating form and meaning. In the case of the students in the academic discourse, it was evident that the use of code-switching was done in several functions in order to negotiate meaning and better express themselves to the rest of the members of the discourse.
Among the four types of switching, intrasentential topped in the three parts of the academic discourse, namely, vocabulary building, comprehension and affective. This was because of the students’ preference in answering and their careful responses to questions in the comprehension part, a stage of the academic discourse which got the lowest recorded incidents of code-switching. Schegloff (in Shoraka, 2005) said that whether a question prefers a “yes” or a “no” response is a matter of its speaker's construction of it. Because code-switching was used as a communicative strategy and the responses of the students mattered with regard to their preference, it is clear that the students in the academic discourse integrated their linguistic codes more during vocabulary building and affective discourse than in the comprehension stage.
There were more inquiry and giving information functions of code-switching in the three parts of the academic discourse, namely, vocabulary building, comprehension and affective discourse. This was attributed to the nature of the discourse which was academic. As the class progressed, the students created statements in question form and these questions were answered with statements that gave information to everyone. With the social responsibility of the multilingual speaker to be understood in the communication process, they were expected to make use of whatever language they had which sometimes resulted in their switching of available codes.
The survey on the reasons why students switched codes revealed that the topic, the setting and the students’ relationship with the participants influenced the students to switch linguistic codes in the academic discourse. The top three reasons involved in different factors marked by the students are reflected below.
Table 2 Top Reasons Why Students Switch Codes
Factor Statements Rank
Topic
I have the ideas in using the English grammar but sometimes I get confused
particularly in oral discussions. 1st
I do not have enough English vocabulary making it difficult for me to explain
my ideas to the class. 2nd
The topics are difficult to understand because of its allegorical meaning giving
me a hard time expressing my ideas in one language only. 3rd
Setting
The camera is placed in the classroom during class discussions making me feel
uncomfortable when sharing my ideas in English language only. 1st
The seat plan makes me feel comfortable to share my ideas using any of the languages I know because I feel like I have my own territory in my assigned
seat. 2
nd
I am not comfortable using English only in class discussions especially when I
know that someone is better than me. 3rd
Relationship
My teacher does not tell me to use English language only in discussions making
me feel free to use whatever language in giving my answers. 1st
My teacher does not prevent me to use English only in giving my ideas in the
class. 2nd
My classmates tease me when I use English in class discussions thus forcing me
With regard to the Topic Factor, the study showed that the problem was on mastery of the English language, which also includes vocabulary and their difficulty in expounding on the deeper meaning of the lesson. Their deficiency in grammar and insufficient vocabulary in the language resulted in the use of any available language for them to convey their message. Faltis(in Shin, 2009) said that multilinguals who are in contact with others mostly face a quandary of which available codes to use for them to best communicate with peers, family and teachers in school. Because there was not enough vocabulary, students opted to use any available language just to complete the message.
As regards the Setting Factor, the study revealed that the camera installed in the room made students become conscious in the discussion, making them feel like someone was always observing them and their discomfort in using the English language. However, this consciousness was suppressed because of the seat plan which was arranged in a circular position. According to Nilep (2006), speakers employ code choices rationally as a way of establishing their social position. Often, when feeling uncertain of being understood, switching is utilized. Though the seat plan gave them comfort to share insights, the camera pushed them to use code-switching, believing that it is better to be understood than mocked after using a single language without authentically conveying the message. In this case, code-switching was utilized by the students in the class to make sure that their answers cut across everyone’s mind, making them feel superior over the others.
With respect to the Relationship with the Participants Factor, the study showed that this was caused by the pre-conceived notions of not having rules in using an official language as medium of communication and the co-participants’ influence on the speaker. Students opted to code-switch in discussing the lessons, believing that they were not forced by their teacher to use English and were bullied if they communicated using English only. This is supported by Bhatia and Ritchie (in Kim, 2006) when they said that participant roles and relationships play a very important role in bilinguals’ unconscious agreement and disagreement on language choice. The friendly relationship between the students and the teacher and pressure from peers gave way to an unconscious agreement and disagreement on language choice.
Local Solution to National Challenges
The results are merely evidences that after grade 2, Filipino and English are not enough to facilitate learning in the rest of the academic life of a non-Tagalog learner.Alternative languages found in the Philippines are tools for the Filipinos in meeting the needs of the country in the community of nations. The switching from English to Cebuano-Visayan instead of Filipino never strips them of their Filipino identity.In fact, because language shows the character of a speech community, the switching from English to Cebuano reveals their true identity, Cebuanos, not Tagalog nor Americans.
Thus, non-Tagalog members of the academic community must regard code-switching as a rich resource for teaching and learning, specifically in a literature class resulting in a full understanding of the literary pieces. Code-switching should be used for learners to express their authentic ideas about the lesson. It must be noted that language should be used as a medium to get understood, not a barrier resulting in a possible conflict of ideas. Imposing English only as the language of communication and instruction will prevent the learners from participating in processing knowledge, a reason why educators must take advantage of this linguistic phenomenon to facilitate learning.
With this, I concur with Gonzalez’s words (in Gunigundo, 2010) that we cannot design an entire educational system for the intellectual and economic elite. There has to be maximum flexibility in the medium of instruction and curriculum. Not everything in Philippine education has to be uniform; in fact, even if we have policies geared toward uniformity; we never accomplish enough to be able to attain uniformity in results. Thus, I believe that existing laws on language of instruction and communication must be free from the chains of personal political reasons and focus instead on how language becomes a great tool in making the learners true citizens of the state, a local solution to the national challenge of making this nation a progressive one.
LITERATURE CITED
Auer, P. (1998). Code-Switching in Conversation. Great Britain. Biddles Ltd.
Bautista, ML. (1996). Readings in Philippine Sociolinguistics 2nd Edition.
Manila. De La Salle University Press, Inc.
Bani-Shoraka, H. (2005). Code-Switching and Preference Marking: Disagreement in Persian/Azerbaijani Bilingual Conversation Uppsala University. ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, ed. James Cohen, Kara T. McAlister, Kellie Rolstad, and Jeff MacSwan, 186-198. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Bautista, M. (2009). Why Do We Code-Switch?: News Article. Manila Bulletin.
Bonvillain, N. (2003). Language, Culture and Communication: The Meaning of Messages 4th& 5thEdition. New Jersey. Prentice Hall.
Choi, J & J Kuipers. (2003). Bilingual Practices in a Science Classroom: Bilingual Hispanic Students' Ways of Constructing School Science.
Retrieved last March 28, 2006, from http://www.gwu.edu/~scale-up/ EQRE.doc.
Gunigundu, M. (2010). Language in Education: Policy Making in the Philippines. Speech. First Philippine Conference-Workshop on Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education.
Kim, E. (2006). Reasons and Motivations for Code-Mixing and Code-Switching. EFL TESOL 5th semester, 4(1): 43.
Lipski, JM. (2004). Is “Spanglish” the Third Language of the South?: Truth and Fantasy about U. S. Spanish. The Pennsylvania State University.
Nilep, C. (2006). Code Switching in Sociocultural Linguistics: Colorado Research in Linguistics. University of Colorado, 19.
Poplack, S. (1980). Code Switching (Linguistics): University of Ottawa, Canada.
