FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF CODE SWITCHING BETWEEN ENGLISH AND CHINESE AMONG ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) MAJORS By JINGWEI LI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2015
Â© 2015 Jingwei Li
To everyone who has enthusiasm for teaching foreign languages
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my committee chair, Dr. Maria Coady, whose guidance, encouragement, stimulation , and valuable suggestions throughout the whole process assist me in this thesis. I am also grateful for my committee member, Dr. Este r d e Jong, whose encouragement and insightful perspectives provided me with significant information, especiall y her book , me tremendously. My sincere appreciation also goes to Dr. Gerald Murray , for helping me to narrow down the topic, and for offering various research options at the beginning of this endeavor. And thank you to Ms. Tuba Yilmaz, for offering me assistance on formatting I am especially grateful to my parents, who supported me throughout my life, comforted me, and continue to stand by me whenever I have difficulty in both study and life. Their selfless dedication has given me encouragement and power to work hard.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ............................. 6 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 11 Terminology ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 11 The Definition of Code ................................ ................................ ...................... 11 The Definition of Code switching ................................ ................................ ...... 12 switching ................................ ................................ ................ 14 Code switching and Code mixing ................................ ................................ ..... 14 Code switching and Borrowing ................................ ................................ ......... 17 Code switching and Translanguaging ................................ .............................. 17 Official Attitudes toward Classroom Code switching ................................ ............... 19 Faculty Attitudes toward Classroom Code switching ................................ .............. 20 Current Situation of Bilingual Education and the Use of Code switching in China in Higher Education ................................ ................................ ............................. 21 Proposal of the Ministry of Education and Its Implementation ......................... 21 Immersion or Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) .................... 23 English medium Instruction, Good or Not? ................................ ...................... 25 Empirical Studies of Code switching in the Foreign Language Classroom ............. 26 3 RESEARCHABLE QUESTIONS ................................ ................................ ............ 34 4 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 35 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 36 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 41
6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CLIL The term refers to Content and Language Integrated L earning, a dual focused educational method in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language CLT EFL students The term refe rs to Communicative Language T eaching The term refers to students who learn English as a Foreign Language ELL(s) The term refers to English Language L earners EMI The term refe rs to English medium I nstructio n, indicating the use of English a s a switch code to tr ansfer know ledge ESOL L1 The term refers to English to Speakers of Other L anguages This term refers to first language and native language MOE This term refers to a governmental agency, the Ministry of Education, in charge of regulating education system. TETE This term refers to a teaching method of T eaching English through English TL This term refers to target language or the language people intended to learn
7 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Education FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF CODE SWITCHING BETWEEN ENGLISH AND CHINESE AMONG ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) MAJORS By Jingwei Li May 2015 Chair: Maria Coady Major: Curriculum and Instruction (CUI) Code switching is a common and sophisticated language phen omena in college level English c lassroom among students who are learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL). In China, English language education typically followed a method of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), in which the target language (English) was the only language used as a medium of instruction to teach both content and English language . The policy meant that native language (Chinese) should be avoided as much as possible. However, resea rch conducted in China indicated that faculty teaching EFL in higher education settings may switch code , that is, use both and to save time and energy. Hence, code switching, as a prominent teaching strategy, plays an active role in English language tea ching. This paper seeks to review literatures related to the phenomena of code switching among college level E nglish language (EFL) classes in the context of mainland China . Specifically, it investigates confusing terminologies, official and faculty percep tions and attitudes to ward the use of code -
8 switchin g in English language learning. After analyzing current situations or use of code switching in China among higher education, and latest empirical studies in mainland China on code switching, the author pro pose s some inspiring questions which are valuable and researchable in the future study.
9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION switching practices in Chinese universi ties. The term code switching wa s defined as the process of alternating between two or more languages in a conversation or an utterance (Bao, 2011) . Code switching as a conversational issue has been res earched in many areas of language study, incl uding the fields of linguistics and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). In China, the study of code switching is more recent than that abroad , yet its importance is reflected in every domain, especially in the field of education. Main stream methodology in English language teaching is to stress exclusive or near exclusive use of English in classroom teaching. Therefore, the traditional grammar translation method, which focused on teacher oriented native language explanation and dominated spoon feed English classrooms, was substituted by communicative language teaching (CLT) method (Yu, 2001) . CLT is considere d a s a method of language teaching which relies on the theory of the principal goal and function of language use is communication. Most teachers are willing to adopt CLT methods in EFL teaching and acknowledge the significant of English language communicat ion. Thus, they tend to prefer exclusive or near exclusive use of English in classroom teaching. However, code switching is still unavoidable in practicality . What are the reasons? Why is there a contradiction between theories of teaching second language a nd its actual implementation in classrooms?
10 Considering these discrepancies among differing researchers, teachers and switching in university class setting is in its incipient stages, this a uthor intends to systematizing information and shed light on how faculties in universities perceive the use of code switching in EFL classrooms.
11 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Terminology I present the definition of code, code switching, and reveal the correlativity between some confusable terms, for instance, code switching and code mixing, code switching and borrowing, as well as cod e switching and translanguagin g . The Definition of Code In order to understand the concept of code switching, it is important to (Romaine, 1995) can be used for sending a message. It is a neutral term for communication between two or more people (Wardhaugh, 1998) . Verschueren views variant of a language, involving systematic sets of choices, whether linked to a specific geographical area, a social class, an assignment of functions, or a specific context of (Ver schueren, 2000 , p. 118 119 ) . Recently, Lin and Pennycook removed the idea of an exact bound ary of the and states t hat language is not static codes with solid boundaries, but rather, is composed by fluid resources , that are codes, in meaning making practices ( Lin, 2013; Pennycook, 2010) . In this study, the term code mainly refers to the two linguistic systems: English and Chinese.
12 The Definition of Code switchi ng Based on different research aims, differing research approaches and different understanding s , researchers have various opinions of what code switching actually is. Therefore, there is no unified definition of code switching. alternation, is an extremely common occurrence and a favored strategy, especially in Nilep (2000) gave an integrated definition of code switching. He believe s that switching codes is a method of d communication (Nilep, 2006 , p. 17 ) applied by language users . Code signal changes in context by using alternate g rammatical systems or subsystems, or (Nilep, 2006 , p. 17 ) . S peakers use communicative codes, switch the form or pattern, transform ways of comprehension to signal a n alternation in situation, and then to communi cate with others. Listeners may utilize their codes or shift their expectations to make sense of the communicative contributions. d e Jong argued that code conversation in one language and then switches to (d e Jong, 2011 , p. 60 ) . From a holistic (pluralist) point of view, which claims to regard bilingualism or code switching is systematic and abides by certain linguistic rules. In addition, code switching performs specific co mmunicative functions, for instance, classroom management and relationship establishment . On the contrary, f rom a fractional (assimilationi st) perspective, every language is deemed to be distinguished and detached. C ode switching is seen as f illing a lexical gap initially. T hat means that the
13 speaker lack of competence in a language is mediate by him or her inserting word ( s ) from other lang uage (s) in order to communicate. Not only have foreign researchers defined the concept of code switching, Chinese researchers also similarly attempted to do so. C hinese scholar Zhong Yang defines code her according to Bao (2011) made a functional comparison in her thesis by contrast ing code switching with monolingual principle in a TL (Target Language) classroom. As Bao sta tes, though many EFL (Bao, 2011 , p. 18 ) policy, code switching in language classes, glish language competence ( Lin, 2008; Raschka, Sercombe, & Chi Ling, 2009; Rihane, 2015 ; Romaine, 1995) . In fact, use of code switching is quite inevitable and strategic (Bao, 2011; Raschka et al., 2009) , which also implies a high level of teaching and communicative skills. Since the most frequent function of code switching is constructi ng and transmitting knowledge, teachers tend to switch to L1 to explain and emphasize the linguistic forms such as translation and highlighting. In addition, teachers often switch to L1 to give explicit classroom instructions or maintain solidarity between teachers and students is the third function of classroom code switching. In summary , there have been many attempts to define code switching, and although opinions may v switching is the alternation between two codes (language and /or dialects), between people who share
14 those particular codes. In this study, code switching will refer to the phenomena of shifting between English and Ch inese in the spoken discourse in college English classrooms. switching perceptions of code switch ing in EFL classrooms in China. It is necessary to be familiar with the concept of code switching from a pedagogical perspective (teaching and learning perspective). As noted above, in foreign language classroom, code alternations between the target language and the native language (language of the school or society) (Simon, 2001) . In China, most English language teachers are non native speakers of the target language (English) and called bilingual teachers, with Mandarin as their native (or first) language (L1), and English as the foreign language (L2). Code switching and Code mixing C ode mixing refers to (bound morphemes), words (unbound morphemes), phrases and clauses from two distinct grammatical systems within the same sentence and 1989, p. 279). Researchers held different attitudes towards the relationship between code switching and code mixing. Ziran and Guodong argued that the existing definitions of code switching can be divid ed into three categories based on their opinions of the relationship between code switching and code mixing (Ziran & Guodong, 2001) . In the first category, researchers demonstrate there is a distinction between code swit ching and code mixing (Ziran & Guodong, 2001) . These researches (Auer, 2013; Bokamba, 1989) usually use code switching to stand f or inter sentential
15 switchin g, w hile code mixing for intra sentential switching. Inter sentential switching occurs between complete sentences . (Myers Sc otton, 1993, p. 3). For example: Tianqi yuelaiyuere, henshihe youyong. Why . Intra sentential switching i Therefore, code switching appears at the clause b oundary, while code mixing occurs within the same clause. The second category abolishes difference between the two terms (Yu, 2001). These researchers (Grosjean, 1982; Gumperz, 1982; Myers Scotton, 1998; Romaine, 1995; Verschueren, 2000) never distinguish code switching and code mixing, holding the opinion that the distinction is unnecessary and easy to cau se ambiguity. Also, they believe it is superfluous to tell the difference between two terms while studying the functions of the language phenomenon. Altho ugh Li initially acknowledged the subtle diffe rences between these two terms through claiming (inter sentential) code switching and (intra sentential) code ( Li, 1996 , p. 17 ) , he discarded them and designated code switching at both inter and intra sentential leve l in practi cal usage, and argued that the term code mixing itself tends to give negative ed and banned in the in Hong Kong from 2007.
16 We can subdivide these opinions of n o explicit distinction between code switching and code mixing into two groups. One group uses code switching to summarize inter sentential code switching and intra sentential code mixing, and most scholars are in this group. For example, Verschueren (2000) believes code switching, showing the diversification of language and code, is a very common and popular tactic. Similarly, Myers Scotton, who held the opinion that there is no need to introduce another new term (code mixing) in order to distinguish code s witching and code mixing (Myers Scotton, 2006) . A second group which includes the sociolinguist Francois Grosjean (see Grosjean, 1995), uses the term code mixing to encompass the two concepts . Researchers bel onging to the third category do not take a stance on the difference between code switching and code mixing (Yu, 2001). For example, Tay, on the one hand, admits the theoretical difference between the two, and on the other hand, he also thinks there is no c lear boundary between them (Tay, 1989) . Overall, scholars mentioned above all commit the existence of both code switching and code mixing, whether there is a need to distinguish code switching and code mixing at all de pends on the research aim, perspective, and methodology. In this paper, I am to understand how teachers and faculty in China perceive the use of code switching in their English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms. I will use code switching as a cover te rm in this thesis, which contains inter sentential code switching and intra sentential code mixing, also with the aim of avoiding the negative meaning of code mixing.
17 Code switching and Borrowing Many scholars have studied the relationship between code swi tching and borrowing. Code switching was considered as the interaction of both lexicon and grammar between two different languages. However, lexical borrowing was perceived as the interaction of only lexico n, grammar was not included. Pfaff argued that cod e (Pfaff, 1979 , p. 295 ) . Borrowing always implied in monolingual speakers, while code switching was applied in bilin gual or multilingual speakers. To the contrary, Trefeers Daller disputed code switching and borrowing should (Treffers Daller, 1991 , p . 273 ) due to the acknowledgement of an excessive and radical opinion on the X bar theory put forward by Stowell in 1981. As Trefeers Daller (1991) cited, Stowell argued syntactic features stemmed from lexicon, rather than grammar. Thus, code switching (Treffers Daller, 1991 , p. 259 ) . In summary , various views regarding the differences between code swi tching and lexicon borrowing. In this study, I distinguish between them to understand multilingual speakers. Code switching and T ranslanguaging The term translanguaging was first coined by Cen Williams in1994 as planned and systematic use of two languages for teaching and learning inside the same
18 shuttle between languages, treating the diverse languages that form their repertoire as GarcÃa in which bilingual students comprehend and implement bilingually ( GarcÃa , 2011, p. 389). GarcÃa also extend ed to Palmer, MartÃnez, Mateus, & Henderson, 2014, p. 759) (such as domains of schools, homes, and other language contact situations) (Hornberger, 2012, p. 242), which changed for differing purpose. These contexts include, f or example, formal and informal, academic and daily speaking varieties of languages, even varieties deriving from (Hornberger, 2012, p. 242). Hornberger stated translanguaging refer s to bilingualism, but also a pedagogical strategy to foster language and literacy (Hornberger, 2012, p. 242). When it comes to the importance of this new term translanguaging, or the relationship between translanguaging and code switching, GarcÃa and Wei stated that translanguag ing differs from the concept of code switching, which was considered as an unsophisticated alternation or unskilled conversion between two languages. However, translanguaging was known as not only shifting between langua ges , but a process n development and construction i n a complicated system or repertoire freely and flexibly ( GarcÃa & Wei , 2013 ) . Similarly, Park concluded that code switching was applied by language curriculum developers and instructor s to support
19 language practices in multilingual/multicultural context s with various functions, with translanguaging placing emphasis on its pe dagogical practice, such as, to help and experiences, (Park, 2013, P. 50) . In addition, Wei believed that translanguaging includes multiple dimensions, such personal history, experience and environment, attitudes, beliefs and performance (Wei, 2011, p. 1223) together, to provide spaces for multilingual speakers. Official At titudes toward Classroom Code s witching In terms of the official stances to classroom code switching, Ferguson (2003) demonstrated three positions in genera l: strict separation of the two languages or a monolingual policy; concurrent but systematized and controlled utilization of L1 and L2; acceptance of code switching and awareness raising (Ferguson, 2003) . Hong Kong strictly banned the presence of L1 in E FL classrooms for the sake of sufficient TL input. As a guideline stipulated by the government in the Education ( Lin, 2000 , p. 183 ) . A same attitude was taken by the Ministry of Education (MOE) of (Littlewood & Yu, 2011 , p. 66 ) in the full time high school English classroom, but the L1 was permittable to explain abstract points. Similarly, the South Korea government (Kang, 2008 , p. 214 ; Littlewood & Yu, 2011 , p. 66 67 ) in elementary and secondary school English classes. The famous (1982) the United States for code switching and Spanish English b ilingual schooling. However, because code switching always takes place in dynamic classroom discourses, the
20 concurrent approach was criticized as infeasible, inflexible, and uncontrollable in a practical way (Faltis, 1989) . As to the most persuas ive and pervasive attitude of acceptance of code switching, it has gained approval through its practical utility and the collaboration of teacher education. Nevertheless, the issue of implementation is a main de educational authorities to confirm its legitimacy and to make adjustments of teacher curricula (Cheng, 2013) . Faculty Attitudes toward Classroom Code s witching There appears to be two opposing stances to code swi tching in the foreign language classroom worldwide : target language only, and the integration of TL and L1. Proponents of TL exclusivity consider that there is no need for learners to comprehend all words. Cummins and Swain asserted one code can facilitate the TL learning, since (Cummins & Swain, 2014 , p. 105 ) offset s the push of TL during TL learning. Chaudron ( 1988) also stated learners should be exposed to TL as frequent as possible. An overuse of the L1 may sometimes deprive their chances of TL input. Worse is that learners may ignore the TL and rely on teacher (2014) also argue d Learners (ELLs) to rec on different situation and anticipation, such as occasionally code switching in their EFL classroom in order to clarify complex concepts or grammar . I n his opinion, use of the first language (L1) disrupts TL acquisition, but TL only use provides ELLs with real and sufficient TL input . Jingxia ( 2010) provided examples of this teaching method. For example, the Direct Method, which requires a utilization of TL only in the language also put forwarded an oral based method: the Audio Lingual method, in which the TL
21 rather than L1 wa s permitted in classroom teaching and lear ning, to avoid L1 interference by the way of canceling the use of L1. In addition, a significant amount of research has confirmed the use of the L1 in second language acquisition, in other words, code switching is necessary. Cook argued (Cook, 2001 , p. 242 ) (Cook, 2013 , p. 405 406 ) in language classrooms. Sh e recommended that teachers resort to using the L1 when the TL waste time and energy. Skinner has also mentioned the disadvantages of TL only in classroom (Skinner, 1985) . Goldenberg also value L1 use in EFL classrooms and view it as an obvious instructional modification for clarification and explanation (Goldenberg, 2008) . Current Situation of Bilingual Education and the U se of C ode s witching in China in Higher Education English is one of the most widely used languages ar ound the world and has become a momentous tool for internationally academic communication and economic exchange. Conveniently , bilingual education and code switching have become overwhelming trends in Chinese English education. During the promotion of bilingualism, the Ministry of Education in mainland China conducted as a n official leader to put forth major guidelines. I list r elated policies and analyze their implementation, review the dispute on current bilingualism programme of whether immersion, or content and langua ge integrated learning, and finally view English medium instruction critically and dialectically. P roposal of the Ministry of Education and Its Implementation
22 b ilingual education involving foreign language is However, from 2001, Chinese English Bilingual educa tion at the tertiary level has been endorsed overtly by state departments, for example, the Ministry of Education (MOE) ( 2001 ) one of its twelve guidelines for improving the teaching quality at undergraduate level (Wei, 2013 , p. 186 ) . The MOE (2001c) issued Chinese university were aimed 10% (Beckett & Li, 2012, p. 47; Hu, 2014, p. 557) of major courses (for example, informational technology, bio technology, new material technology, finance, etc.) in Eng lish or other foreign languages in three years . In 2007, the MOE revised College English Curriculum Requirements, mandated that college English instruction take up as much as 10% of the total credit hours for undergraduate studies. Between 2007 and 2010, the Ministry of Education (2008) released funding to 500 bilingual model c ourses that apply English as an instructional medium (Wei, 2013, p. 187). This proposal developed smoothly and universities nationwide received the funding. With the approval and guide of the Ministry of Education, Chinese English bilingual education made stead progresses. Even through bilingual education gained MOE support, these requirements fully implemented yet. First, t hose institutions and majors (like: biology, information technology, finance, and law) have insufficient resources and qu alified teachers to teach through English verbally. Teachers in these field can only instruct with a combination of verbal Chinese interpretation and foreign medium (English) teaching materials. Second , this proposal was not precise enough and had no unifo rmity and
23 flexibility on all majors. For example, different scholar analyze the MOE proposal in different words. Hu asserted 10% of undergraduate courses in 007, p. 99). Gil & Adamson stated MOE should make polic ies discriminatory on Englis h major and non English ma jors. Third , researchers also declared that a firmly promotion of English would threaten status and (Beckett & Li, 2012, p. 50) in China. With the support of promoting teaching through foreign language (English) instruction, teachers in Chinese university were encouraged to switch code in their classes. Some (teachers in non English majors) relied on code switching to make up deficiency of their English language, other ( teachers in English major) use code I mmersion or C ontent and L anguage Integrated L earning (CLIL) All of these days, scholars and educators in China flaunted that their Chinese English bilingual education belonged to the programme of immersion. Swain and Johnson (1997) confirm ed eight characteristics of a representative immersion programme. These features included: the TL is an instruction al medium , the immersion curricul um equals the L1 curriculum, obvious support for the L1, the prog ram me with the purpose of promoting additive bilingualism, limit the TL in the classroom, students enrolled with comparable level in TL proficiency, teachers are qualified in bilingual educat L1 and TL, culture in the classroom is that in local community. actual exposure to the TL (English), progr ammes in China were not
24 Wei, 2013, p. 185 ) model. According to Cummins and Baker, partial immersion meant TL (English) should be used as an instructional medium at lowest rate of 50% in EFL classrooms of the overall teaching hours ( Cummins, 1995; Bak er, 201 1 ). However, Wei found that, even in the batch muni cipal proportion has reduced from 2.9% to 23.5% of the overall teaching hours, let alone Thus, bilingual education in mainland China cannot be categorized t o total or partial immersion. Ferguson (2003) claimed the foreign language class can be classified into language subject and content subject class. The main purpose of the language subject of the target language, for example, in the aspect s of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. However, content subject class es aim specific subject ma tter. Chinese EFL setting s pertain to a lang uage subject oriented one. Since the 1990s, t he most extensively adopted English medium programme model in these content subject classes is an approach named content and language integrated learning (CLIL) focused educational ap proach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010, p. 1; Wei, 2013, p. 185) . CLIL endowed flexibility to TL use compared to the rubric of total or partial immersion . For instance, i ts meticulous classification 15%), medium (about 15 most bilingual programmes in China find their location.
25 Engli sh medium Ins truction, Good or N ot? The term English medium instruction (EMI) was pop ular in European countries, but first emerged in China in 2009. Officially, MOE (2007a) encouraged universities to offer more EMI courses, to Hu, 2014, p. 558) experts to teach courses through English. Since EMI offered chances for international c ooperation which enhance their position in university league tables. Personally, EMI Hu, 2014 , p. 552). Faculty or students had an abundant demand for it and fel t positive about it ( Ball & Lindsay, 2013 ). While on the other hand, scholars (Graddol, 2006; Hu, 2009; Hu , 2014) c laimed that faculties felt reluctant to use it, and development. In addition, EMI take tolls on higher education in China, for example, educational inequality arose and deteriorated with the executi on of EMI. An & Wang (2013) identified three primary constraints or problems in EMI from language proficiency. First, bilingual teachers lack qualifications to teach biling ually and in bilingual context. Teachers in China can be divided into English language teacher s and subject teachers ( math ematic s, physics, chemistry, history, geography, etc. ) . In order to respond to bilingualism, these teachers became language teachers w ho received short term training in specific subject, and subject teachers who receive short term training in English. The result was that English language teachers lack specialized knowledge in target sub ject, and subject teachers were weak in English language proficiency. Even after a long term and in depth training, EMI courses have eligible ompetence or language capability is still of concern, which
26 is the second problem i n China. As EMI an existing and widespread phenomen on with divergence in China, EMI courses need plenty time and further research to demonstrate its advantages and teaching in English medium, thus, code switching is what we val ued in Chinese bilingual education. Empirical Studies of Code switching in the Foreign Language Classroom Apart from different definitions on code switching, as well as the distinction between code borrowing and code mixing, empirical studies have also bee n carried out and have attracted increasing attention. These studies have utilized observational investigations on the use of the target language and the native language (or mother tongue). These studies (Cheng, 2013; Edstrom, 2006; Jingxia, 2010; Littlewood & Yu, 2011) either calculated the amount of the target language spoken by teachers and t language use, or classified the motivations or reasons of language use and various functional uses underlying native language use mainly in the context of mainland China . One of the latest studies of Chinese college a ttitudes towards classroom code switching was conducted by Cheng (2013). Thirty two Chinese English teachers participated in a semi structured questionnaire with four multiple questions and three open ended questions, and a person to person interview with two additional questions about reasons and functions of classroom code switching .
27 English use in foreign language teaching; the functions and reasons of classroom code switch use in Chinese tertiary education settings. In the first aspect, Cheng found that participants differed vastly, ranging from 50% to 100% in terms of actual target language utili zation with the mean about 83%. In addition, there were no significant actual and perceived target language use, whic h meant themselves. In the second aspect, Cheng summarized the reasons for code switching and specified the hierarchy of effects (from high to low). teaching acti attitude, teaching method used, class size, and peer influence. The functions of native language use or the situations of code switching belonged to the pro cess of language learning (suc h as to highlight important points, and teach or explain difficult or abstract points ) and classroom management (such as : organize assignments, and maintain discipline in class) for the sake of saving time and energy. Ch tea chers equated maximal target language use with target language only use, which has been highly regarded as a significant practice due to sufficient target language input and genuine foreign language learning atmosphere it guaranteed . As we know that code switching always be used as a pedagogical method to d e Jong, 2011 , p. 61 ) , Cheng also identified that stress , which is caused by confused personal identity, or being
28 marginalized due to low languag e proficiency , attribute s to target language only in the EFL cl assroom. S (Cheng, 2013 , p. 1281 ) to switch code from TL to L1 when necessary. Only a small number of teachers language proficiency. According to Cheng, teachers should cultivate and teach students to apply E nglish as a tool to facilitate knowledge understanding in other fields or outside (Cook, 2001 , p. 403 ) of the language i tself in order to pass the exam. Finally, Cheng drew the conclusion that in the context of Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) at the tertiary level, classroom code switching should be applied in line with maximal use of the target language, and th e native language should be used judiciously to explain difficult grammar and abstract concepts. Another study conducted by Edstrom (2006) indicated quantity and functions of first language (L1) use were similar to those reported in previous research, name ly the practices, which is also a common disjunction for many teachers (Blyth, 1995) . Edstrom, as a teacher, researcher, linguist, a nd the main participant in the research, demonstrated her own pedagogical practice in a first semester Spanish course. Through audio recorded classroom language use, reflective journal entries after each e semester, Edstrom transcribed recordings and analyzed them quantitatively and qualitatively. Students confirmed
29 the pattern of the L1 use throughout the semester. Interesting is that when perceptions the data source reflected no accurate and established norm of L1 usage. For example, students perceived more L1 at the beginning or at the end of the semester, while there are no data to confirm perception like that. Reasons may rested with a blurry and obscure wording in the questionnaire, controversial norm s for acceptable L1 use worldwide, and the unpredictable or unsystematically changes in actual language practice in the classroom. In addition to the functions and reasons of L1 use assumed by Cheng (for example, grammar instruction, classroom management, compensation for a lake of comprehension in TL), Edstrom used the L1 for pre listening activities to make TL prominent, to recognize correlativity between language and reality, to equip students derstanding or inaccurate (Edstrom, 2006 , p. 285, 288 ) , as well as to establish solidarity with Edstrom, 2006 , p. 286) to students . The pre listening activi reasons of L1 use. Finally, Edstrom reported and admitted her own spontaneous laziness in TL use, which confirmed the work of Turnbull (2001) . Edstrom stated that her teaching practice was not affected by the pedagogical beliefs of maximized TL use, but influenced by realistic beliefs both positively (various purpose of TL teaching, and moral obligation to students) and negatively (laziness). Li ttlewood and Yu (2011) conducted a study to demonstrate a discrepancy between target language use and mother tongue use to demonstrate the current
30 context (like ELT in Chi context (such as ESL in the US ) (Littlewood & Yu, 2011 , p. 65 ) . Compared with other studies (Cheng, 2013; Edstrom, 2006) use of L1 and TL from the aspect of not only actual practice, but also principles and policy. Distinct from the work of Edstrom and Cheng, which were based on observati ons or self report ing , Littlewood and Yu interviewed 50 tertiary students from Hong Kong (N=20) and Mainland China (N=30) to investigate and compare the percentage of th n 10% of the whole class time. In contrast, 43% of students in mainland China revealed over 75% of class time was distributed to L1, and 23% students chose 50% 70% of time which was L1 based. Thus, Hong Kong presented TL based English Language Teaching (ELT) while mainland China is heavily L1 based. supposed to use the L1 for mainly three common purposes with other researchers (as with Cheng & Edstrom) : to establish social relationships, to ensure comprehe nsion, and to maintain classroom management. Except for these familiar reason for why teachers use L1, Littlewood and Yu as well as Butzkamn ( 2003) also believed that the use of the L1 in a predetermined and ped agogical manner as a (Cook, 2001; Turnbull, 2001) . Further, they believed that strategic L1 use support an increase in learning effic iency, such as to enable ELLs to accurately store knowledge they learn, recall and apply it efficiently and effectively in a wide variety of occasions. The most interesting
31 opinion was a framework of principles raised by Littlewood and Yu. Four domains wer e emphasized related to the strategic use of the L1: practice activ ities designed from L1 started as a planned technique to achieve core language learning goals; unplanned compensatory use of the L1 (insufficient proficiency for both teachers and students) as an aid to achieve core language learning goals; and skillful use of the L1 as a supportive source for affective and interpersonal relationship (for example, to comfort students with lower proficiency and to assure them of the relevance with their L1) (Meiring & Norman, 2002; Stables & Wikeley, 1999) ; and compensatory use of the L1 as facilitator to classroom management. This framework of principles wa s an for future studies. Jingxia (2010) conducted a study in three Chinese universities. Using both qualitative (participant observation, field notes and classroom audio recordings ) and quantitat ive methods (two questionnaires code switching from TL (English) to L1 (Chinese) and how this played a positive role in EFL classroom. There are three unique insights from this research. First, Jingxia chose has been considered as the most prevalent and typical teaching type in Chinese universities, including theme based activities and ion and refrain from misunderstanding of questionnaire to explain the term code switching. Third, she recorded the classroom on an ongoing basis for one month without interjecting t participation and observation in the classroom. The purpose of this study was not make
32 known (Ji ngxia, 2010) variation s frequency) of code switching, awareness of the use of Chinese code. The majority of subjects held a positive at titude towards code switching to Chinese. Inter sentential code switching was the dominant pattern. Functions or factors that triggered code switching including to access to curriculum and instruction, to manage classroom, to develop relationship with stud ents, and to comfort students to get rid of their stress. In summary, the research studies above have made significant contributions switching in EFL classroom , particular in the context of Chinese English . Most of the studies reviewed here were conducted in China, where Chinese is the L1 and English is the TL. However, there are still li mitations among these studies. The most obvious restriction relates to the quality and quantity of data. The sample size of each study is relatively small compared to the whole picture of EFL classroom code switching in China. Therefore, it could not fully represent the whole population of EFL teachers and students. Second, some of them were not conducted at the university level. These f indings cannot be generalized before more tests are conducted in order to portray EFL classroom code switching in the context of Chinese universities and institutes of higher education. Third, some variables are all subjective general perceptions and, in fact, may influence their attitudes towards or use of code switching. Such as the answers to
33 ief, assumptions, (Jingxia, 2010 , p. 21 ) . Fourth, depend ing heavily on the context, need, and speakers in a particular situation, there are no established standards or guidelines for optimum amount of L1 use. Turnbull ( 2001) refers to two Canadian studies conducted by Calman & Daniel in 1998, in which 95% use of TL as an acceptable level. How ever, Shapson, Durward and Kaufman (1978) established the norm as 75%. Thus, an issue of measurement was raised. It could further influence the reliabil ity and validity of researches.
34 CHAPTER 3 RES EARCHABLE QUESTIONS Based on above mentioned literature review, the following research questions could be investigated in future research. For example , w hy is there a contradiction between theories of teaching second language (by the way of TL only, or near TL only) and its actual implementation (unavoidability of code switching) in classrooms? W hat other concrete and effective set of teaching strategies ( except code swi tching and translanguaging) that can be generalized across all EFL classroom setting s ? D o all EFL teachers use teaching strategies in their EFL classrooms? If they actually use them, what are their teaching method or strategies? W hat other techniques do faculty use to teach English instead of code switching? I s code switching a trend of te aching method in EFL classroom? H ow do code switching and translanguaging di ffer in the foreign language classroom? W hat are the differences between the use of code switching in the context of Hong Kong (TL based) and mainland China (L1 based)? What are th e reasons (historical, cultural, or territorial) ? Is Eng lish medium Instruction (EMI) effective as a teaching method in China? Are there any limitations to implementing this method?
35 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION This paper investigate d code switching and concepts related to it. In this paper, I review ed the topic, provide a thorough and detailed review of both conceptual pieces and terminology related to t he topic and empirical studies. I review ed official and switchi ng, demonstrate d the utilization of code switching in mainland China. The conceptual terms in this paper differentiated definitions, characteristics, and usage of various terms (for example, code, c ode switching, code mixing, borrowing , and translanguaging ), and discussed their relationship with the topic. Moreover , I review ed the latest empirical studies, especially studies in mainland China, identified distinct research method and analyze d their limitations. Finally, I proposed several research questions related to the topic to be investigated in the future.
36 LIST OF REFERENCES An, X. H., & Wang, D. M. (2013). Bilingual education in the context of China: A review and its implication. Sino US English Teaching , 10(2), 131 136. Auer, P. (2013). Code switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity , New York, Routledge. Baker , C. ( 2011 ) . Foundation of bilingual education and bilingualism . Fifth edition. Clevedon: Multilingual M atters. Ball, P., & Lindsay, D. (2013 ). Language demands and support for English medium instruction in tertiary education. Learning from a specific context. English medium instruction at universities: Global challenges , 44 64. Bao, Y. (2011). Codeswitching in Beginning Chinese Class: An Expl oratory Investigation of Teachers' Bilingual Practices in an American University Sett ing. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Blyth, C. (1995). Redefining the boundaries of language use: The foreign language classroom as a multilingual speech community. Redefining th e Boundaries of Language Study , 145 184. Bokamba, E. G. (1989). Are there syntactic constraints on code mixing? World Englishes, 8 (3), 277 292. Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only lear n language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: Death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal, 28 (1), 29 39. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal , 95(3), 401 417. Chaudron , C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheng, X. (2013). Research on Chinese college E switching: Beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Language Teachin g and Research, 4 (6), 1277 1284. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 57 (3), 402 423. Cook, V. (2013). Second language learning and language teaching fourth edition , New York: Routledge.
37 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1995). The European schools model in relation to French immersion programs in Can ada. Multilingualism for all , 159 168. Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (2014). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research and practice , New York: Routledge. d e Jong, E. J. (2011). Foundations for multilingualism in education: From principles to practice , Philadelphia: Caslon Pub lishing . Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher's self evaluation. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 63 (2), 275 292. Ferguson, G. (2003). Classroom codeswitchi ng in post colonial contexts: Functions, attitudes and policies. AILA Review, 16 (1), 38 51. GarcÃa , O., & Sylvan, C. E. (2011). Pedago g ies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities . The modern Language Journal , 95(3), 385 400. GarcÃa , O., & We i, L. (2013). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gil, J., & Adamson, B. (2011). The English language in mainland China: A sociolinguistic profile. In A. W. Feng (Ed .), English Language Education across Grater China (pp. 23 45). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. G oldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching E nglish language learners. American Educator, 33(2), 8 44 Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism . ( pp.146). Cambridge , MA and London: Harvard University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Biliteracy Lens. Theory I nto Practice , 51(4), 239 247. Hu, G. (2007). The juggernaut of Chinese English bilingual education. In A. W. Feng (Ed.) Bilingual Education in China: Practices, policies and concepts (pp. 94 126). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
38 Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2014). En glish medium instruction in Chinese higher education: a case study. Higher Education , 67(5), 551 567. switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 3 , 10 23. Kang, D. (2008). The classroom l anguage use of a K orean elementary school EFL teacher: Another look at TETE. System, 36 (2), 214 226. Li , D. C. S. (2008). Understanding mixed code and classroom code switching: Myths and realities. New Horizons in Education , 56(3), 75 87. Li, D. (1996). Issues in bilingualism and biculturalism . New York: Peter Lang. Lin, A. (2000). Deconstructing" mixed code". Curriculum Inquiry, 16 (1), 73 86. Lin, A. (2013). Classroom code switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review, 4 (1), 195 218. Lin, A. M. (2008). Code Switching in the classroom: Research paradigms and approaches. Encyclopedia of language and education. (pp. 3464 3477). Springer US. Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign langu age classroom. Language Teaching, 44 ( 1), 64 77. Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE: the European Dimension Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. European Commission Report . Meiring, L., & Norman, N. (2002). Back on target: Repositioning the status of tar get language in MFL teaching and learning. Language Learning Journal, 26 (1), 27 35. Ministry of Education of Daxue jiaoyu zhiliang gaijin guize [Guidelines for improving the quality of undergraduate teaching]. Beiji ng: Ministry of Education. yaoqiu [College English curriculum requirements (Document No. 3)]. Beijing: Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education. Myers Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa . Oxford: Clarendon Press. Myers Scotton, C. (1998). A theoretical introduction to the markedness model. Codes and Consequences: Choosing Linguistic Varieties, 18 38.
39 Myers Scotton, C. (2006). Lexical borrowing. Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism, 208 232. Myers Scotton, C., & Jake, J. L. (1995). Matching lemmas in a bilingual language competence and production model: e vidence from intrasentential code sw itching. Linguistics , 33(5), 981 1024. Nilep, C. (2006). Code switching in sociocultural linguistics. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 19 (1), 1 22. Palmer, D. K., Mart Ã nez, R . A., Mateus, S. G., & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the debate on language s eparation: Toward a vision for translanguaging pedagogies in the dual language classroom. The Modern Language Journal , 98(3) , 75 7 772 Park, M. S. (2013). Code switching and Translanguaging: Potential Functions in Multilingual Classrooms. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics , 13(2), 50 52. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice . New York: Routledge. Pfaff, C. W. (1979). Constraints on language mixing: Intrasentential c ode switching and borrowing in Spanish/E nglish. Language, 291 318. Raschka, C., Sercombe, P., & Chi Ling, H. (2009). Conflicts and tensions in codeswitching in a T aiwanese EFL classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12 (2), 157 171. Rihane, W. M. Wh y do people code switch: A sociolinguistic approach. Retrieved 3/11/2015 from academia.edu online database. Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed ) , M alden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Shapson, S. M., Durward, M. L., & Kaufman, D. (1978). " Summary, conclusions and suggestions" chapter from BC french study : And evaluation of elementary F rench programs in British C olumbia Faculty of Education. Simon Fraser University. Burnaby, BC. Simon, D. (2001). Towards a new understanding of codeswitching in the foreign language classroom. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, 126 , 311 342. Skinner, D. C. (1985). Access to meaning: The anatomy of the lan guage/learning connection. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 6 (5), 369 388.
40 Stables, A., & Wikeley, F. (1999). From bad to worse? pupils' attitudes to modern foreign languages at ages 14 and 15. Language Learning Journal, 20 (1), 27 31. Tay, M. W. (1989). Code switching and code mixing as a communicative strategy in multilingual discourse. World Englishes, 8 (3), 407 417. Treffers Daller, J. (1991). Towards a uniform approach to code switching and borrowing. (pp. 259 279). Paper presented in ESF Network on Codeswitching and language contact, g. (ed.) Papers for the workshop on constraints, conditions and models. European Science Foundation , Strasbourg, France. Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 57 (4), 531 540. Verschueren, J. (2000). Understanding pragmatics . Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Wang, Q. (200 7). The national curriculu m changes and their effects on E nglish International handbook of E nglish language teaching (pp. 87 105) . Springer US . Wardhaugh, R. (1998). An introduction to sociolinguistics (blackwell textbooks in linguistics) Oxford/Maiden, MA : Blackwell Publishers . Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics , 43(5), 1222 12 35. Wei, R. (2013). Chinese English Bilingual Education in China: Model, momentum, and driving forces. The Asian EFL Journal . 15(4), 183 199. Yu, L. (2001). Communicative language teaching in china: Progress and resistance. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (1), 194 198. Ziran, H., & Guodong, Y. (2001). Researches on codeswitching. Modern Foreign Language, 24 (1), 86 95.
41 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jingwei Li was born in Datong, Shanxi Province, China. She completed her undergraduate degree at Linyi University in China from 2009 to 2013, and majored in Business English. From 2010 to 2013, she worked as a part time teacher in New Concept Education, which is the most famous English language teaching institution in Linyi city. During th o se three years, she gained exte nsive experience i n English language teaching and finally made the decision to pursue further education abroad. In 2013, she entered the University of Florida as a graduate student in the ESOL/Bilingual Education program in the College of Education. She t ook part in volunteer work in local middle and high schools to investigate English Language Learners i n ESOL classes. bilingual education and teaching method s for bilingual students. From her prior schooling and teaching experi ences, she found that code switching in the English language classroom is interesting but controversial. Hence, she selected this as her research topic her thesis.