A Sampson 2012 Learner code-switching versus English only.pdf

7/28/2019 A Sampson 2012 Learner code-switching versus English only.pdf

1/11

ELT Journal Volume 66/3 July 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccr067 293 The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.Advance Access publication November 3, 2011

Learner code-switching versusEnglish only

Andrew Sampson

This article describes a study into the functions of code-switching in EF L classes ata Colombian language school. It was undertaken to decide whether the officialEnglish-only policy in place in this and other classrooms is pedagogically justified.

The results suggest that code-switching may not necessarily be connected to abilitylevel and serves multiple communicativeand learning purposes. This indicates notonly that total proscription of L1 is ill-advised, but that the mother tongue can beusefully exploited for learning, for example when performing contrastive analysis.However, factors including learners expectations, the positive motivational effectsof learning L2 strategies for dealing with communication breakdowns, theimportance of exposure to and practice of the target code,and the need to preparelearners for L2-only contextscall for a common-sense approach where exploitationof L1 is counterbalanced with efforts to teach communicative functions in L2, andsome strategies are suggested for achieving this.

Introduction The origins of English-only classroom policies, which encourage learnersto use L2 as the sole means of interaction with teachers and peers, appear todate back to the widespread discrediting of the Grammar-Translationmethod, the decline of contrastive analysis in language teaching (Atkinson1987: 242), and the rise in popularity of the Direct Method. Eldridge (1996:303) asserts that the role of exposure in language acquisition has also beencited in support of English-only policies: exclusive L2 use will presumablymaximize target code exposure and thus maximize learning.L2 only, whichwould 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-speakingteachers, with their often limited command of learners L1, seeking workabroad(Macaro 2005: 65), andalso those ofE LTpublishers mass-producingEnglish-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 studiesthat question English-onlypolicies andinstead advocate multilingual practices. Ustunel and Seedhouse (2005), intheir 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 andsequence (ibid.:302), asserting that learners language choice relatesto theirdegree of alignment or misalignment with the teachers pedagogical focus:

atN

ottinghamTrentUniversityonMay21,2013

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/


2/11

294 Andrew Sampson

learners tend to code-switch when engaging in interaction that differs fromthe teachers intended focus at that stage of the lesson, such as whenlearners need to deal with procedural issues. In Carlesss (2007) report onteacher interviews in Hong Kong secondary schools, code-switchingfunctions identified include expressing meaning, identity, and humour.

Parallels between classroom interaction and bilingual realities have beendrawn in support of multilingual practices. Cenoz (2007: 136), assertingthat bilinguals have more developed metalinguistic awareness thanmonolinguals, encourages teachers to harness L1 knowledge in order toperform contrastive analysis between L1 and English, an approach alsoadvocated by Meiring and Norman (op.cit.: 28) in their study into UK schoolteachers opinions on learners L1 use. Similarly, Macaro (op.cit.: 68) assertsthat an L1 ban reduces the repertoire of languagelearning activities availableto teachers and as an example highlights the benefits of developing theability to translate, a skill that learners need in the outside world (ibid.: 75).Such parallels also underpin Cooks (2002: 332) support for multilingualclassroom practices: noting that language learners are aiming to become

competent L2 users, and not native speakers, and that competent L2 userscode-switch in their daily practices, Cook recommends that teachersdevelop the systematic use of the L1 in the classroom alongside the L2 . . . asan aid to learning and as a model for the world outside.

Some of the recent literature, while recognizing the classroom functions ofL1, also attempts to reaffirm the benefits of encouraging L2 practice, and thefocus of the debate now tends to be not if, but how, when, and how muchlearner L1 should be encouraged. Carless (op. cit.: 331), recommending thatteachers adopt a balanced and flexible view of student use of the othertongue, claims that tasks can only develop learners interlanguage iflearners actually communicate with each other predominantly in L2 andreports on teacher strategies for encouraging target language (TL) use, suchas rehearsing tasks in L1 before producing final L2 versions. Meiring andNorman (op. cit.: 34), claiming that there is clear evidence that pupil use ofTL positively affects learning, suggest strategies for increasing learners L2output, such as presenting useful classroom language on wall posters.Levines (2003) study into the attitudes of North American universityforeign language students reveals that encouraging learners to use L2 alsoappears to positively affect motivation: although learners may feel anxietyabout 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 remainsthat even in many of todays most sophisticated learning centres, Englishonly wall signs can be found alongside the interactive whiteboards, andsystems of forfeitsfor rule breakers form part of everydayclass routines. Asrecently as 2010, for example, Jenkins (2010: 459) reports on the strictprohibition of L1 as a normal feature of Saudi Arabian classrooms,suggesting that research findings are taking a long time to filter through today-to-day classroom pedagogy.

The study described here, then, analyses the functions of learner code-switching in two EFL classes in order to decide whether the proscription ofL1 encouraged by the management of the school (and presented in its

atN



Downloadedfrom


3/11

Learner code-switching versus English only 295

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

Description of thestudy

Two monolingual groups of Spanish-speaking adult learners studyinggeneral English at a private language school in Colombia were recorded.Onewas an upper-intermediate (CEF B2)groupofsixlearnersandtheothera pre-intermediate (CEF A2) group of four learners. Two different levels

were recorded to investigate whether a link exists between proficiency leveland number of code-switches. The groups were receiving two hours of classper day from native-speaking teachers, both of whom also spoke thelearners L1.

Two lessons were observed at each level. Within each lesson, five four-minute excerpts were recorded using an MP3 recorder. Time constraints onthe subsequent transcription of the recordings meant it was not possible torecord more than 20 minutes per lesson, but it was considered that thiswould provide a representative sample of learner output. The lesson phasesto be recorded were preselected to ensure that the same task types were

observed at each level and that a variety of task types, and thereforea representative sample of learner output, was recorded. At each level, thetotal of ten four-minute excerpts included two teacher-fronted initial phases(lead-ins), two teacher-fronted final phases (lesson round-ups), oneteacher-fronted language presentation phase, one controlled writtengrammar task phase (in pairs), one pair discussion, and three whole-classdiscussions. Recordings were made for exactly four minutes from thebeginning of each phase (if a learner had begun but not completeda code-switch at the end of the four minutes, this still counted as a switch inthe data). Learners were also asked to participate in a post-lesson group

interview where they were asked if, in their opinion, L1 serves usefulpurposes 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, theresults do offer insights into code-switching functions and learnersattitudes to these.

Excerpts of thedata appear in thediscussionbelow. Code-switches appear initalics and under each switch is the English translation, in parentheses. Onthe left, T refers to the teacher and letters AF to the students. To ensureconsistency in the numerical data, one complete code-switch is considered

a switch from English to L1 and then back to English. Naturally, somelearners in each group switched more than others; while an analysis of therelationship between individual learner differencesand number of switcheswould make for interesting further research, in this study learners switchesare considered collectively.

Functions ofcode-switchingOverview of theclassification of

code-switchingfunctions

Table 1 displays the functions of the switches recorded at each level. Eachswitch appearing to serve a single function is assigned a value of 1 in themonofunctional 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). Thefunction labels are based principally on Eldridges (op. cit.) classificationsystem, not only because his is one of very few proposed in the literature but

atN



Downloadedfrom


4/11

296 Andrew Sampson

also because it appears to satisfactorily account for all the functions thatoccur in these data.

Function Upper-intermediate level Pre-intermediate level

Monofunctional Bifunctional Monofunctional Bifunctional

Equivalence 6 0.5 7 0.5

Metalanguage 4 0.5 3 0Floor-holding 2 0.5 2 0.5Reiteration 1 0.5 2 0Socializing 2 0.5 2 0.5L2 avoidance 0 0.5 0 0.5

Total switches 18 18

table 1Functions andfrequencies ofcode-switches

It is noteworthy that the total number of switches recorded at each level isthesame (18), suggesting that no relationshipexists between the proficiencylevel of the learners observed and the number of switches: switchingappears to derive from communicative objectives common at all levels,rather than linguistic deficit. This mirrors the findings 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 higherachieving learners (or faster learners) feeling more at home with L2exclusivity. It does, however, contradict the common assumption that sincemore advanced learners are able to perform more classroom functions inL2, they switch codes less frequently. Further research could usefully focuson determining whether there is, as Eldridge (op. cit.: 304) suggests,a code-switching curve, and if so, at which level of proficiency the incidenceof switches begins to decrease.

Classifying code-switching functions is challenging since there exista number of plausible reasons for switches and a degree of subjectivity intheir interpretation. This is evident in exchanges such as:

T: For example Yopal, where is it? In Cundinamarca?

F: Er no, its in Meta.

C: S, Yopal esta en Meta.

[Yes, Yopal is in Meta.]

T: Okay, so heres a map.

Cs switch could be classed as reiteration in L1, in order to ensure themessage has been understood by everyone, an expression of groupmembership with fellow Colombian classmates, or a combination of both.Similarly:

T: How was your morning?

B: Er I went to, er how do you say matricularse?

[enrol]

T: Um . . . Im not sure.

atN



Downloadedfrom


5/11


B: Fui a matricularme en la Alianza Francesa.

[I went to enrol at the French Alliance.]

While the first switch in this example is a request for equivalence in L1, thesecond could be classed as either another request for equivalence, or rathera floor-holding technique used to finish conveying the message.

Code-switchingfunctionsEquivalenceEquivalence code-switches are those that appear to be triggered by theabsence of the lexical item in the learners interlanguage. This functionaccounts 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: Er . . .

F: Its like a border, or a boundary.

D: (to C) I thought frontera was frontier?

C: (to D) Yes, I think frontier and boundary are the same.

Here, using an L1 equivalent is not only quicker and less ambiguous thanattempting to paraphrase in L2, but is essential for the contrastive analysisthat occurs, where learners examine the difference in connotations betweensemantically similar L2 lexical items for which there is a single L1equivalent. While contrastive analysis usually requires teachers to havesome knowledge of learners L1, and is therefore not always an option for NSteachers or multilingual classes, Harmer (2007: 134) reasons that, whether

we encourage it or not, all learners tend to contrast L1 with L2, and thatteachers with no knowledge of learners L1 can still draw on the mothertongue by asking questions such as Do you have an expression for this inyour language? or Can you translate it back into English? Such an exerciseclearly represents useful classroom exploitation of L1.

MetalanguageIn the data, while learners usually perform tasks in English, discussionaboutthe tasks and other procedural concerns are often articulated in L1.This is the second most common code-switching function in theupper-intermediate group, for example:

A: Okay, faltara la ultima pregunta, where were you born?

[Okay, well do the last question, . . .]

B: In Cacativa.

and also in the pre-intermediate group, for example

D: (arriving) Louisa? Ay, penseque bamos a estar en otra aula.

[Oh, I thought wed be in another room.]

T: Okay, dont worry, come in and sit down.

atN



Downloadedfrom


6/11

298 Andrew Sampson

Such switches function to maintain a distinction between metalanguage orprocedural concerns and language practice itself. However, it could beargued that in EFL classrooms, where a great deal of language practice canfeel artificialbecause it either makes reference to or simulates eventsoutside the classroomthen discussion abouttasks and language couldalso be considered ideal opportunities for teachers to encourage learners touse L2 for real, immediate purposes.

Floor holdingThis code-switching function is used by learners wishing to continuewithout pausing or being interrupted, and so a switch from L2 to L1 occursbecause the item can be retrieved more quickly in L1. The floor-holdingfunction occurs in equal measure at each level. In this pre-intermediateexample, the learner knows the L2 item booking, but retrieves the L1equivalent more quickly and therefore uses it to hold the floor:

T: Okay, in what situations would you use the telephone?

B: When you are not at the home.T: Good, what else?

A: Er, to make a reservacion, er booking?

[reservation, booking]

T: Good. . .

A similar example occurs in the upper-intermediate group:

E: Do you take breakfast before the class?

F: 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 fromlexical deficit but from a desire to continue communicating withouthesitation, 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 ispossible, then, that if L1 were proscribed entirely, these L1 utteranceswould be replaced with silence, to the detriment of the fluency of the

exchanges.ReiterationL1 is used when messages have already been expressed in L2, yet arehighlighted or clarified in L1, particularly in cases where they are perceivedto have not been understood. Reiteration occurs in the pre-intermediategroup, for example:

T: So homework for tomorrow is to write a paragraph about two of yourmost important memories. Can you write that down please?

C: (to D) A ver, quees lo que tenemos que hacer?

[Er, what have we got to do?]

atN



Downloadedfrom


7/11


D: (to C) Dos cosas importantes.

[Two important things.]

B: (to C) Dos recuerdos en el pasado.

[Two memories in the past.]

Herethe learners requestfor andrepetitionoftheinstructioninL1 ensuresthat

the message is conveyed in a code that is more easily understood. It is alsonoteworthy that in the pre-intermediate group, there are two instances whenthe teacher does not hear (or does not understand) the learners utterancesand requests repetition. This in turn appears to affect the confidence of thelearners, who immediately reiterate their utterance in L1, in the hope thatthis will be better understood:

T: So, some ways to communicate?

D: Adverts.

T: What?

D: Anuncios.

[Adverts.]

T: Ah right, adverts.

T: Okay, so the verb get, its one of the most common verbs, but themeaning differs depending on context.

B: Its like a joker verb?

T: Sorry?

B: 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 withsomething like Okay, but tell me again in English rather than simplyaccepting the switch into Spanish, this would not only have given learnerspractice in the repair strategies of repetition and/or paraphrase,butassumingthat the repair was successfulmay have also hada positive

motivational effect on the speakers.

SocializingThese switches appear to develop a sense of group solidarity, oftenoccurringin gossip and jokes:

T: And what about drinking?

C: So-so,somedrinkingisnotsobad,youcanrelaxverymuchifyou,er,drink a beer.

E: Ay, este borracho.

[Oh, what a drunk.]

F: (laughing) But not too much, if its too much its bad for you.

atN



Downloadedfrom


8/11

300 Andrew Sampson

Such switches may also function to initiate and maintain friendships:

A: Where were you born?

B: In Cacativa.

A: Tienes familia all?

[Do you have family there?]

B: S, mis padres.

[Yes, my parents.]

A: Ah, yo tambien!

[Oh, me too!]

T: Right, lets hear some ideas.

Auerbach (1993: 16) supports learner use of L1 for socializing on affectivegrounds, arguing that when L1 is discouraged, particularly by NS teachers,

this may impede language acquisition precisely because it mirrorsdisempowering relations. It could also be argued that teachers wishing toincrease learner L2 output can avoid creating any sense ofdisempowerment by taking a genuine interest in learners; encouraginglearners to chat or make simple jokes in L2 also constitutes a valid andpotentially motivating language practice task.

L2 avoidance

These switches occur when a learner appears to have the linguisticresources 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 morecommonly represents divergence from the lesson focus. Such instancesaccount for only one switch in each group, and in both cases, the switch alsoappears to serve a socializing function:

C: So maybe Thursday is . . .

D: . . . is the . . .

C: . . . yes is el da que nacio?

[the day he was born?]

D: Spuede ser.[Yes, it could be.]

C: Queda naciste tu?

[What day were you born?]

D: No se. Tu?

[I dont know. You?]

T: Okay, so what do you think?

C: Er, this is good idea. Hay muchos lugares para caminar aqu.

[There are many places to go walking here.]

atN



Downloadedfrom


9/11


Post-lessoninterviews

Seven of the ten learners claimed that they thought L1 served a usefulpurpose in class, although none identified any functions beyond lexicalequivalence. This suggests that teachers could discuss the possiblefunctions of code-switching with learners and together decide which touseor, perhaps, find L2 alternatives toin class. One upper-intermediatelearner recognized the usefulness of L1 for equivalence but also mentionedthat hislong-termlearning goals needed consideration: Iuse Spanishin mynotebook to write down meanings of new words, but I try not to use it toomuch when I speak because in theinternationalexamsyourenot allowed touse 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 inorder to make informed judgements regarding how much L1 to encourage.

The three learners who claimed they would prefer an English-onlyclassroom all alluded to the positive motivational effects of being able tosuccessfully communicate and overcome communicative breakdowns inL2. One pre-intermediate learner commented that I like doing everythinginEnglish,itforcesyoutousethelanguageandthinkofhowtosaythings,itis not important if you dont know or make mistakes. In the past, I hadclasses where if you didnt know, you just spoke in Spanish. Anotherupper-intermediate learner claimed Ive come here to study English, so

I want to do things in Englishotherwise Im wasting my time. This desireto get things done in English seems particularly strong given that for manylearners, the few hours a week they spend in their English class representtheir only exposure to L2. The third learner spoke of her frustration ina previous learning context in which L1 had been used excessively:[The teacher] was American but she obviously wanted to improve herSpanish, so we spoke lots of Spanish . . . it was great for her but wewanted tospeak in English. This would appear to be an example of a class that hasgone past what Macaro (op. cit.: 72) terms the threshold, beyond which L1use ceases to be a communication or learning strategy and interaction

becomes simply a discourse carried out entirely in L1 with only a marginalreference to the L2. These observations also echo the results of Levines (op.cit.) study and suggest a positive relationship between encouraging learnersto communicate in L1 and increased learner motivation.

Classroomimplications

All the instances of code-switching recorded function as communicativestrategies, and only two appear to have been used to avoid speaking L2. Themost common function, equivalence, necessarily involves the use of L1 ifthere is to be a focus on contrastive analysis, which is clearly a usefulclassroom activity. The other functions identified in this study (L1 formetalanguage, floor holding, reiteration, and socializing) are also linked tocommunicative and learning objectives, and so to prohibit L1 use herewould appear to be detrimental to classroom communication and,

D: S . . .Tu hacesalgun ejercicio?

[Do you do any exercise?]

C: Nada!I do nothing.

[Nothing!]

atN



Downloadedfrom


10/11

302 Andrew Sampson

classroom interactionto take place in L2, otherwise it may negatively impacton their motivation.

If one of our goals is for learners to be linguistically independent inmonolingual settings, we need to encourage learners to develop alternativestrategies to code-switching so that they can communicate with speakerswith no knowledge of their L1. This is also true in multilingual classes,where teachers and learners cannot be expected to speak everyones L1, andso L2 must function as the sole means of communication. A furtherconsideration for exam classes is that the speaking papers ofIELTS,TOEFL, and the Cambridge English exams (including the low-level Key andYoung Learner exams) do not permit switching as a communicativestrategy, so alternative strategies must be taught. And if we accept thatexposure 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 tomaximize learners exposure by creating L2-rich environments. Takingthese considerations into account, it would appear that teachers need to tryto strike the balance between L1 and L2 use called for by Meiring andNorman (op.cit.), Macaro (op.cit.), and Carless (op.cit.).

In terms of equivalence and reiteration in L1, teachers of learners preparingfor non-L1-speaking contexts can help them by encouraging paraphrase,definition and description, or making educated guesses at what the itemmight be in the target code, for example by using affixes or cognates. Meiringand Norman (op.cit.: 30) suggest encouraging learners to employ copingstrategies whereby they use their existing interlanguage to expressthemselves, albeit inaccurately: this develops a crucial process ofexperimentation . . . which is essential to language progression. And when itcomes to floor holding, devices such as Whats the word Imlooking for . . . orHang on a moment can also be taught to learners as alternatives to L1 fillers.These strategies can be taught at all levels: they may in fact be more necessaryat lower levels, where learners limited linguistic resources require them tomake 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 tocommunicate in L2, but rather serves communicative classroom functionssuch as expressing equivalence, discussing procedural concerns, floorholding,reiteratingconcepts, andforminggroup relationships. This suggeststhat any attempt to ban L1 use in the classroom would be detrimental to theamount of communication and learning taking place. It is, however, usefulfor teachers to find out and consider the future needs oflearnersparticularly of those preparing for non-L1-speaking contextsandthe possible motivational effects of being able to perform communicativefunctions in thetarget code, in order tomake informed judgements regarding

when to encourage L1 and when to promote the use of L2 coping strategies.Final revised version received August 2011

potentially, language acquisition. However, teachers can help learners byteaching them to perform these functions in L1, not because doing them inL2 is detrimental to their learning, but because many learners are preparingfor monolingual contexts, and learners may expect the majority of

atN



Downloadedfrom


11/11


Auerbach, E. R. 1993. Re-examining English only inthe ESL classroom. TE S O L Quarterly27/1: 932.

Butzkamm, W. 2003. We only learn language once.The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms:death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal28/1:2939.Carless, D. 2007. Student use of the mother tonguein the task-based classroom. E LTJournal62/4:3318.Cenoz, J. 2007. The acquisition of pragmaticcompetence and multilingualism in foreignlanguage contexts in E. Alcon Soler and M. P. SafontJorda (eds.). Intercultural Language Use and Language

Learning. Dordrecht: Springer.Cook, V. J. 2002. Language teaching methodologyand the L2 user perspective in V. J. Cook (ed.).Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.Eldridge, J. 1996. Code-switching in a Turkishsecondary school. E LTJournal50/4: 30311.Harmer, J. 2007. The Practice of English LanguageTeaching. (Fourth edition). London: Longman.Jenkins, S. 2010. Monolingualism: an uncongenialpolicy for Saudi Arabias low-level learners. E LT

Journal64/4: 45961.Levine, G. 2003. Student and instructor beliefs andattitudes about target language use, first language

References

Atkinson, D. 1987. The mother tongue in theclassroom: a neglected resource?. ELTJournal41/4:2417.

Liebscher, G. and J. Dailey-OCain. 2005. Learnercode-switching in the content-based foreignlanguage classroom. The Modern Language Journal89/2: 23447.Macaro, E. 2005. Codeswitching in the L2

classroom: a communication and learning strategyin E. Llurda (ed.). Non-Native Language Teachers:Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to theProfession. New York, NY: Springer.Meiring, L. and N. Norman. 2002. Back on target:repositioning the status of target language in MFLteaching. Language Learning Journal26/1: 2735.Ustunel, E. and P. Seedhouse. 2005. Why that, inthat language, right now? Code-switching andpedagogical focus. International Journal of AppliedLinguistics15/3: 30225.

The author

Andrew Sampson has worked as a teacher, teachertrainer, Director of Studies, and Director in Ecuador,Colombia, and most recently, Spain. He is currentlythe Directorof International House Palma, where healso leads the Cambridge Exams team and tutorsCELTA courses. His research interests include theeffects on second language acquisition of individualdifferences, corrective feedback, and learner use ofL1 and L2.

Email: [email protected]

use,andanxiety: report of a questionnaire study.TheModern Language Journal87/3: 34364.

atN



Downloadedfrom

Documents

A Sampson 2012 Learner code-switching versus English only.pdf