Learner code-switching versus English only

Andrew Sampson

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

This article describes a study into the functions of code-switching in E F L classes at a Colombian language school. It was undertaken to decide whether the ofcial English-only policy in place in this and other classrooms is pedagogically justied. The results suggest that code-switching may not necessarily be connected to ability level and serves multiple communicative and learning purposes. This indicates not only that total proscription of L1 is ill-advised, but that the mother tongue can be usefully exploited for learning, for example when performing contrastive analysis. However, factors including learners expectations, the positive motivational effects of learning L2 strategies for dealing with communication breakdowns, the importance of exposure to and practice of the target code, and the need to prepare learners for L2-only contexts call for a common-sense approach where exploitation of L1 is counterbalanced with efforts to teach communicative functions in L2, and some strategies are suggested for achieving this.

Introduction

The origins of English-only classroom policies, which encourage learners to use L2 as the sole means of interaction with teachers and peers, appear to date back to the widespread discrediting of the Grammar-Translation method, the decline of contrastive analysis in language teaching (Atkinson 1987: 242), and the rise in popularity of the Direct Method. Eldridge (1996: 303) asserts that the role of exposure in language acquisition has also been cited in support of English-only policies: exclusive L2 use will presumably maximize target code exposure and thus maximize learning. L2 only, which would also become a central premise in communicative language teaching (Meiring and Norman 2002: 27; Butzkamm 2003: 29), has conveniently met the needs of the increasing numbers of native English-speaking teachers, with their often limited command of learners L1, seeking work abroad (Macaro 2005: 65), and also those of E LT publishers mass-producing English-only coursebooks for use in a range of international contexts (Butzkamm ibid.: 30). A review of the recent literature on the functions of learner code-switching, however, reveals a number of studies that question English-only policies and stu nel and Seedhouse (2005), in instead advocate multilingual practices. U their study into code-switching in a Turkish university E F L class, identify that L1 use is orderly and related to the evolution of pedagogical focus and sequence (ibid.:302), asserting that learners language choice relates to their degree of alignment or misalignment with the teachers pedagogical focus:
ELT Journal Volume 66/3 July 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccr067  Advance Access publication 3, 2011 Press; all rights reserved. The Author 2011. PublishedNovember by Oxford University The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. E LT Journal; doi:10.1093/elt/ccr067 293 1 of 11

learners tend to code-switch when engaging in interaction that differs from the teachers intended focus at that stage of the lesson, such as when learners need to deal with procedural issues. In Carlesss (2007) report on teacher interviews in Hong Kong secondary schools, code-switching functions identied include expressing meaning, identity, and humour. Parallels between classroom interaction and bilingual realities have been drawn in support of multilingual practices. Cenoz (2007: 136), asserting that bilinguals have more developed metalinguistic awareness than monolinguals, encourages teachers to harness L1 knowledge in order to perform contrastive analysis between L1 and English, an approach also advocated by Meiring and Norman (op.cit.: 28) in their study into UK school teachers opinions on learners L1 use. Similarly, Macaro (op.cit.: 68) asserts that an L1 ban reduces the repertoire of language learning activities available to teachers and as an example highlights the benets of developing the ability to translate, a skill that learners need in the outside world (ibid.: 75). Such parallels also underpin Cooks (2002: 332) support for multilingual classroom practices: noting that language learners are aiming to become competent L2 users, and not native speakers, and that competent L2 users code-switch in their daily practices, Cook recommends that teachers develop the systematic use of the L1 in the classroom alongside the L2 . . . as an aid to learning and as a model for the world outside. Some of the recent literature, while recognizing the classroom functions of L1, also attempts to reafrm the benets of encouraging L2 practice, and the focus of the debate now tends to be not if, but how, when, and how much learner L1 should be encouraged. Carless (op. cit.: 331), recommending that teachers adopt a balanced and exible view of student use of the other tongue, claims that tasks can only develop learners interlanguage if learners actually communicate with each other predominantly in L2 and reports on teacher strategies for encouraging target language (TL) use, such as rehearsing tasks in L1 before producing nal L2 versions. Meiring and Norman (op. cit.: 34), claiming that there is clear evidence that pupil use of TL positively affects learning, suggest strategies for increasing learners L2 output, such as presenting useful classroom language on wall posters. Levines (2003) study into the attitudes of North American university foreign language students reveals that encouraging learners to use L2 also appears to positively affect motivation: although learners may feel anxiety about predominant L2 use, most agree that it is a rewarding and worthwhile challenge to have to communicate in L2 (ibid.: 351). Despite these calls for a balanced view of learner L1 use, the reality remains that even in many of todays most sophisticated learning centres, English only wall signs can be found alongside the interactive whiteboards, and systems of forfeits for rule breakers form part of everyday class routines. As recently as 2010, for example, Jenkins (2010: 459) reports on the strict prohibition of L1 as a normal feature of Saudi Arabian classrooms, suggesting that research ndings are taking a long time to lter through to day-to-day classroom pedagogy. The study described here, then, analyses the functions of learner codeswitching in two E F L classes in order to decide whether the proscription of L1 encouraged by the management of the school (and presented in its
2 of 11 294 Andrew Sampson

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

promotional literature as part of its methodology) has pedagogical value and discusses practical classroom implications for teachers.

Description of the study

Two monolingual groups of Spanish-speaking adult learners studying general English at a private language school in Colombia were recorded. One was an upper-intermediate (C E F B2) group of six learners and the other a pre-intermediate (C E F A2) group of four learners. Two different levels were recorded to investigate whether a link exists between prociency level and number of code-switches. The groups were receiving two hours of class per day from native-speaking teachers, both of whom also spoke the learners L1. Two lessons were observed at each level. Within each lesson, ve fourminute excerpts were recorded using an MP3 recorder. Time constraints on the subsequent transcription of the recordings meant it was not possible to record more than 20 minutes per lesson, but it was considered that this would provide a representative sample of learner output. The lesson phases to be recorded were preselected to ensure that the same task types were observed at each level and that a variety of task types, and therefore a representative sample of learner output, was recorded. At each level, the total of ten four-minute excerpts included two teacher-fronted initial phases (lead-ins), two teacher-fronted nal phases (lesson round-ups), one teacher-fronted language presentation phase, one controlled written grammar task phase (in pairs), one pair discussion, and three whole-class discussions. Recordings were made for exactly four minutes from the beginning of each phase (if a learner had begun but not completed a code-switch at the end of the four minutes, this still counted as a switch in the data). Learners were also asked to participate in a post-lesson group interview where they were asked if, in their opinion, L1 serves useful purposes in their English class, and if so, what these purposes might be. While the relatively small sample of output recorded (80 minutes in total) and learners interviewed (10) represents a limitation of this study, the results do offer insights into code-switching functions and learners attitudes to these. Excerpts of the data appear in the discussion below. Code-switches appear in italics and under each switch is the English translation, in parentheses. On the left, T refers to the teacher and letters AF to the students. To ensure consistency in the numerical data, one complete code-switch is considered a switch from English to L1 and then back to English. Naturally, some learners in each group switched more than others; while an analysis of the relationship between individual learner differences and number of switches would make for interesting further research, in this study learners switches are considered collectively.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

Functions of code-switching Overview of the classication of code-switching functions

Table 1 displays the functions of the switches recorded at each level. Each switch appearing to serve a single function is assigned a value of 1 in the monofunctional column. Where switches appear to serve two functions, a value of 0.5 is assigned to each of these in the bifunctional column (this is so that the sum of all the switches is the real total of 18 in each group). The function labels are based principally on Eldridges (op. cit.) classication system, not only because his is one of very few proposed in the literature but
Learner code-switching versus English only only 3 of 11 295

also because it appears to satisfactorily account for all the functions that occur in these data.
Function Upper-intermediate level Monofunctional Equivalence 6 Metalanguage 4 Floor-holding 2 Reiteration 1 Socializing 2 L2 avoidance 0 Total switches 18 Bifunctional 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Pre-intermediate level Monofunctional 7 3 2 2 2 0 18 Bifunctional 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

table 1 Functions and frequencies of code-switches

It is noteworthy that the total number of switches recorded at each level is the same (18), suggesting that no relationship exists between the prociency level of the learners observed and the number of switches: switching appears to derive from communicative objectives common at all levels, rather than linguistic decit. This mirrors the ndings of Eldridges (op. cit.) study into code-switching in a Turkish secondary school, and Macaros (op. cit.: 70) claim that there is no evidence pointing in the direction of higher achieving learners (or faster learners) feeling more at home with L2 exclusivity. It does, however, contradict the common assumption that since more advanced learners are able to perform more classroom functions in L2, they switch codes less frequently. Further research could usefully focus on determining whether there is, as Eldridge (op. cit.: 304) suggests, a code-switching curve, and if so, at which level of prociency the incidence of switches begins to decrease. Classifying code-switching functions is challenging since there exist a number of plausible reasons for switches and a degree of subjectivity in their interpretation. This is evident in exchanges such as: T: F: C: For example Yopal, where is it? In Cundinamarca? Er no, its in Meta. , Yopal esta en Meta. S [Yes, Yopal is in Meta.] T: Okay, so heres a map.

Cs switch could be classed as reiteration in L1, in order to ensure the message has been understood by everyone, an expression of group membership with fellow Colombian classmates, or a combination of both. Similarly: T: B: How was your morning? Er I went to, er how do you say matricularse? [enrol] T: Um . . . Im not sure.

4 of 11 296

Andrew Sampson

B:

Fui a matricularme en la Alianza Francesa. [I went to enrol at the French Alliance.]

While the rst switch in this example is a request for equivalence in L1, the second could be classed as either another request for equivalence, or rather a oor-holding technique used to nish conveying the message.

Code-switching functions

Equivalence Equivalence code-switches are those that appear to be triggered by the absence of the lexical item in the learners interlanguage. This function accounts for over a third of all the switches recorded in the data, for example: E: So how do you say frontera? [border/boundary/frontier] T: F: D: C: Er . . . Its like a border, or a boundary. (to C) I thought frontera was frontier? (to D) Yes, I think frontier and boundary are the same.
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

Here, using an L1 equivalent is not only quicker and less ambiguous than attempting to paraphrase in L2, but is essential for the contrastive analysis that occurs, where learners examine the difference in connotations between semantically similar L2 lexical items for which there is a single L1 equivalent. While contrastive analysis usually requires teachers to have some knowledge of learners L1, and is therefore not always an option for NS teachers or multilingual classes, Harmer (2007: 134) reasons that, whether we encourage it or not, all learners tend to contrast L1 with L2, and that teachers with no knowledge of learners L1 can still draw on the mother tongue by asking questions such as Do you have an expression for this in your language? or Can you translate it back into English? Such an exercise clearly represents useful classroom exploitation of L1. Metalanguage In the data, while learners usually perform tasks in English, discussion about the tasks and other procedural concerns are often articulated in L1. This is the second most common code-switching function in the upper-intermediate group, for example: A: a la u ltima pregunta, where were you born? Okay, faltar [Okay, well do the last question, . . .] B: . In Cacativa

and also in the pre-intermediate group, for example D: que (arriving) Louisa? Ay, pense bamos a estar en otra aula. [Oh, I thought wed be in another room.] T: Okay, dont worry, come in and sit down.

Learner code-switching versus English only only

5 of 11 297

Such switches function to maintain a distinction between metalanguage or procedural concerns and language practice itself. However, it could be argued that in E F L classrooms, where a great deal of language practice can feel articialbecause it either makes reference to or simulates events outside the classroomthen discussion about tasks and language could also be considered ideal opportunities for teachers to encourage learners to use L2 for real, immediate purposes. Floor holding This code-switching function is used by learners wishing to continue without pausing or being interrupted, and so a switch from L2 to L1 occurs because the item can be retrieved more quickly in L1. The oor-holding function occurs in equal measure at each level. In this pre-intermediate example, the learner knows the L2 item booking, but retrieves the L1 equivalent more quickly and therefore uses it to hold the oor: T: B: T: A: Okay, in what situations would you use the telephone? When you are not at the home. Good, what else? n, er booking? Er, to make a reservacio [reservation, booking] T: Good. . .

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

A similar example occurs in the upper-intermediate group: E: F: Do you take breakfast before the class? Ay no, muy temprano! Too early for me. [Oh no, too early!] In these examples, it is evident that the code-switch does not derive from lexical decit but from a desire to continue communicating without hesitation, a process akin to that observed by Liebscher and Dailey-OCain (2005: 239) in native speakers when we perform audible word searches, listing related words until we locate and produce the desired item. It is possible, then, that if L1 were proscribed entirely, these L1 utterances would be replaced with silence, to the detriment of the uency of the exchanges. Reiteration L1 is used when messages have already been expressed in L2, yet are highlighted or claried in L1, particularly in cases where they are perceived to have not been understood. Reiteration occurs in the pre-intermediate group, for example: T: C: So homework for tomorrow is to write a paragraph about two of your most important memories. Can you write that down please? es lo que tenemos que hacer? (to D) A ver, que [Er, what have we got to do?]

6 of 11 298

Andrew Sampson

D:

(to C) Dos cosas importantes. [Two important things.] (to C) Dos recuerdos en el pasado. [Two memories in the past.]

B:

Here the learners request for and repetition of the instruction in L1 ensures that the message is conveyed in a code that is more easily understood. It is also noteworthy that in the pre-intermediate group, there are two instances when the teacher does not hear (or does not understand) the learners utterances and requests repetition. This in turn appears to affect the condence of the learners, who immediately reiterate their utterance in L1, in the hope that this will be better understood:
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

T: D: T: D:

So, some ways to communicate? Adverts. What? Anuncios. [Adverts.]

T: T: B: T: B:

Ah right, adverts. Okay, so the verb get, its one of the most common verbs, but the meaning differs depending on context. Its like a joker verb? Sorry? Er, es como un verbo que se puede utilizar de muchos modos. [Its like a verb you can use in many ways.]

T:

Oh right, yes, it is.

In such instances, if the teacher had replied to the L1 utterance with something like Okay, but tell me again in English rather than simply accepting the switch into Spanish, this would not only have given learners practice in the repair strategies of repetition and/or paraphrase, butassuming that the repair was successfulmay have also had a positive motivational effect on the speakers. Socializing These switches appear to develop a sense of group solidarity, often occurring in gossip and jokes: T: C: E: And what about drinking? So-so, some drinking is not so bad, you can relax very much if you, er, drink a beer. Ay, este borracho. [Oh, what a drunk.] F:

(laughing) But not too much, if its too much its bad for you.
7 of 11 299

Learner code-switching versus English only only

Such switches may also function to initiate and maintain friendships: A: B: A: Where were you born? . In Cacativa ? Tienes familia all [Do you have family there?] B: , mis padres. S [Yes, my parents.] A: n! Ah, yo tambie [Oh, me too!]
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

T:

Right, lets hear some ideas.

Auerbach (1993: 16) supports learner use of L1 for socializing on affective grounds, arguing that when L1 is discouraged, particularly by NS teachers, this may impede language acquisition precisely because it mirrors disempowering relations. It could also be argued that teachers wishing to increase learner L2 output can avoid creating any sense of disempowerment by taking a genuine interest in learners; encouraging learners to chat or make simple jokes in L2 also constitutes a valid and potentially motivating language practice task. L2 avoidance These switches occur when a learner appears to have the linguistic resources to convey the message in L2, but instead chooses to do so in L1. While the resulting utterance may be loosely related to the task, it more commonly represents divergence from the lesson focus. Such instances account for only one switch in each group, and in both cases, the switch also appears to serve a socializing function: C: D: C: So maybe Thursday is . . . . . . is the . . . a que nacio ? . . . yes is el d [the day he was born?] D: puede ser. S [Yes, it could be.] C: d a naciste tu ? Que [What day were you born?] D: . Tu ? No se [I dont know. You?] T: C: Okay, so what do you think? . Er, this is good idea. Hay muchos lugares para caminar aqu [There are many places to go walking here.]
8 of 11 300 Andrew Sampson

D: S . . .Tu hacesalgu n ejercicio? [Do you do any exercise?]

[Do you do any exercise?]C:

C: Nada! I do nothing. . . . Tu haces algu n ejercicio? D: S [Nothing!] Nada! I do nothing. [Nothing!]

Post-lesson interviews

Seven of the ten learners claimed that they thought L1 served a useful purpose in class, although none identied any functions beyond lexical equivalence. This suggests that teachers could discuss the possible functions of code-switching with learners and together decide which to useor, perhaps, nd L2 alternatives toin class. One upper-intermediate learner recognized the usefulness of L1 for equivalence but also mentioned that his long-term learning goals needed consideration: I use Spanish in my notebook to write down meanings of new words, but I try not to use it too much when I speak because in the international exams youre not allowed to use Spanish, and when I go to England I am obligated to use English only. Clearly, teachers need to be aware of their learners reasons for studying in order to make informed judgements regarding how much L1 to encourage. The three learners who claimed they would prefer an English-only classroom all alluded to the positive motivational effects of being able to successfully communicate and overcome communicative breakdowns in L2. One pre-intermediate learner commented that I like doing everything in English, it forces you to use the language and think of how to say things, it is not important if you dont know or make mistakes. In the past, I had classes where if you didnt know, you just spoke in Spanish. Another upper-intermediate learner claimed Ive come here to study English, so I want to do things in Englishotherwise Im wasting my time. This desire to get things done in English seems particularly strong given that for many learners, the few hours a week they spend in their English class represent their only exposure to L2. The third learner spoke of her frustration in a previous learning context in which L1 had been used excessively: [The teacher] was American but she obviously wanted to improve her Spanish, so we spoke lots of Spanish . . . it was great for her but we wanted to speak in English. This would appear to be an example of a class that has gone past what Macaro (op. cit.: 72) terms the threshold, beyond which L1 use ceases to be a communication or learning strategy and interaction becomes simply a discourse carried out entirely in L1 with only a marginal reference to the L2. These observations also echo the results of Levines (op. cit.) study and suggest a positive relationship between encouraging learners to communicate in L1 and increased learner motivation.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

Classroom implications

All the instances of code-switching recorded function as communicative strategies, and only two appear to have been used to avoid speaking L2. The most common function, equivalence, necessarily involves the use of L1 if there is to be a focus on contrastive analysis, which is clearly a useful classroom activity. The other functions identied in this study (L1 for metalanguage, oor holding, reiteration, and socializing) are also linked to communicative and learning objectives, and so to prohibit L1 use here would appear to be detrimental to classroom communication and, potentially, language acquisition. However, teachers can help learners by teaching them to perform these functions in L1, not because doing them in Learner code-switching versuslearning, English only 301 L2 is detrimental to their but because many learners are preparing for monolingual contexts, and learners may expect the majority of

metalanguage, oor holding, reiteration, and socializing) are also linked to communicative and learning objectives, and so to prohibit L1 use here would appear to be detrimental to classroom communication and, potentially, language acquisition. However, teachers can help learners by teaching them to perform these functions in L1, not because doing them in L2 is detrimental to their learning, but because many learners are preparing for monolingual contexts, and learners may expect the majority of classroom interaction to take place in L2, otherwise it may negatively impact on their motivation.
Learner code-switching versus English only

If one of our goals is for learners to be linguistically independent in 9 of 11 monolingual settings, we need to encourage learners to develop alternative strategies to code-switching so that they can communicate with speakers with no knowledge of their L1. This is also true in multilingual classes, where teachers and learners cannot be expected to speak everyones L1, and so L2 must function as the sole means of communication. A further consideration for exam classes is that the speaking papers of I ELT S, TOEFL, and the Cambridge English exams (including the low-level Key and Young Learner exams) do not permit switching as a communicative strategy, so alternative strategies must be taught. And if we accept that exposure is critical for learners in terms of receiving language input, some of which we hope will be acquired, then one of our roles as teachers is to maximize learners exposure by creating L2-rich environments. Taking these considerations into account, it would appear that teachers need to try to strike the balance between L1 and L2 use called for by Meiring and Norman (op.cit.), Macaro (op.cit.), and Carless (op.cit.).

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

In terms of equivalence and reiteration in L1, teachers of learners preparing for non-L1-speaking contexts can help them by encouraging paraphrase, denition and description, or making educated guesses at what the item might be in the target code, for example by using afxes or cognates. Meiring and Norman (op.cit.: 30) suggest encouraging learners to employ coping strategies whereby they use their existing interlanguage to express themselves, albeit inaccurately: this develops a crucial process of experimentation . . . which is essential to language progression. And when it comes to oor holding, devices such as Whats the word Im looking for . . . or Hang on a moment can also be taught to learners as alternatives to L1 llers. These strategies can be taught at all levels: they may in fact be more necessary at lower levels, where learners limited linguistic resources require them to make greater use of repair strategies when in non-L1-speaking contexts.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that code-switching is not necessarily connected to learners ability level and rarely signals an unwillingness to communicate in L2, but rather serves communicative classroom functions such as expressing equivalence, discussing procedural concerns, oor holding, reiterating concepts, and forming group relationships. This suggests that any attempt to ban L1 use in the classroom would be detrimental to the amount of communication and learning taking place. It is, however, useful for teachers to nd out and consider the future needs of learnersparticularly of those preparing for non-L1-speaking contextsand the possible motivational effects of being able to perform communicative functions in the target code, in order to make informed judgements regarding when to encourage L1 and when to promote the use of L2 coping strategies. Final revised version received August 2011

References 302

Andrew Sampson

Atkinson, D. 1987. The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource?. E LT Journal 41/4: 2417.

64/4: 45961. to encourage L1 andJournal when to promote the use of L2 coping strategies. rget code, in order to make informedwhen judgements regarding Levine, G. 2003. Student and instructor beliefs and ge L1 and when to promote the use of L2 coping Final revised strategies. version received August 2011 References Atkinson, E. D.R. 1987. The mother tongue in the Auerbach, 1993. Re-examining English only in classroom: a neglected resource?. E LT Journal 41/4: E SL classroom. TES OL Quarterly 27/1: 932. the 2417. Butzkamm, W. 2003. We only learn language once. Auerbach, R.mother 1993. Re-examining English only in The role ofE. the tongue in FL classrooms: 10 of 11 Sampson E SL classroom. T E S OLAndrew Quarterly 27/1: 932. the death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal 28/1: Butzkamm, W. 2003. We only learn language once. 2939. The role of2007. the mother tongue in FLmother classrooms: Carless, D. Student use of the tongue death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal 28/1: 62/4: in the task-based classroom. E LT Journal 2939. 3318. Carless, 2007. Student use of the mother tongue Cenoz, J. D. 2007. The acquisition of pragmatic Journal 62/4: in the task-based classroom. E LT in competence and multilingualism foreign 3318. contexts in E. Alco n Soler and M. P. Safont language Cenoz, J. 2007. The acquisition of pragmatic ` (eds.). Jorda Intercultural Language Use and Language competence and multilingualism in foreign Learning . Dordrecht: Springer. teaching language in E. Alco n Soler and M. P. Safont Cook, V. J. contexts 2002. Language methodology ` Jorda (eds.). Intercultural Language Use and Language and the L2 user perspective in V. J. Cook (ed.). Learningof . Dordrecht: Portraits the L2 UserSpringer. . Clevedon: Multilingual Cook, V. J. 2002. Language teaching methodology Matters. and the L2 user perspective in V. J. (ed.). Eldridge, J. 1996. Code-switching inCook a Turkish Portraits ofschool. the L2 User . Journal Clevedon: Multilingual E LT 50/4: 30311. secondary Matters.J. 2007. The Practice of English Language Harmer, Eldridge, (Fourth J. 1996. edition). Code-switching a Turkish Teaching. London:in Longman. E LT Journal 50/4: 30311. secondary school. Jenkins, S. 2010. Monolingualism: an uncongenial Harmer, 2007. The Practice of English Language E LT policy forJ. Saudi Arabias low-level learners. Teaching. (Fourth edition). London: Longman. Journal 64/4: 45961. Jenkins, S.2003. 2010.Student Monolingualism: an uncongenial Levine, G. and instructor beliefs and E LT policy for Saudi Arabias low-level learners. attitudes about target language use, rst language Journal 45961. use, and64/4: anxiety: report of a questionnaire study. The Levine, Language G. 2003. Student and instructor Modern Journal 87/3: 34364. beliefs and attitudes about target language use, rst language use, and anxiety: report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal 87/3: 34364.

on received August 2011

attitudes about target language use, rst language use, and anxiety: report of a questionnaire study. The Atkinson, D. 1987. The mother tongue in the Modern Language Journal 87/3: 34364. classroom: a neglected resource?. E LT Journal 41/4: Liebscher, G. and J. Dailey-OCain. 2005. Learner 2417. code-switching in the content-based foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal Liebscher, G. and J. Dailey-OCain. 2005. Learner 89/2: 23447. code-switching in the content-based foreign Macaro, E. 2005. Codeswitching in the L2 language classroom. The Modern Languagestrategy Journal classroom: a communication and learning 89/2: 23447. in E. Llurda (ed.). Non-Native Language Teachers: Macaro, E. 2005. Codeswitching in the to L2 Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions the classroom: a communication and learning strategy Profession . New York, NY: Springer. in E. Llurda (ed.). Language Meiring, L. and N. Non-Native Norman. 2002. BackTeachers: on target: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to in theM F L repositioning the status of target language Profession.Language New York, NY: Springer. teaching. Learning Journal 26/1: 2735. Meiring, L. and and P. N.Seedhouse. Norman. 2002. Back on target: nel, E. U stu 2005. Why that, in repositioning status of target language in M F L that language, the right now? Code-switching and teaching. Language Learning Journal 26/1: 2735. pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied U stu nel, E. and P. Seedhouse. 2005. Why that, in Linguistics 15/3: 30225. that language, right now? Code-switching and The author focus. International Journal of Applied pedagogical Andrew Sampson has worked as a teacher, teacher Linguistics 15/3: 30225. trainer, Director of Studies, and Director in Ecuador, The author Colombia, and most recently, Spain. He is currently Andrew Sampson has worked as a teacher, teacher the Director of International House Palma, where he trainer, Director of Studies, and Director intutors Ecuador, also leads the Cambridge Exams team and Colombia, and most recently, interests Spain. He is currently C E LTA courses. His research include the the Director of International House Palma, where he effects on second language acquisition of individual also leads the Cambridge Exams team and tutors differences, corrective feedback, and learner use of Learner code-switching versus English C E LTA courses. His research interests include the L1 and L2. effectsandrewesampson@yahoo.co.uk on second language acquisition of individual Email: differences, corrective feedback, and learner use of L1 and L2. Email: andrewesampson@yahoo.co.uk
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

effect differ L1 an Email

Learner code-switching versus English only

303

Learner code-switching versus English only

11 of 11