Code-switching is one of the controversial topics in English Language Teaching (ELT) practice. It has been studied from different perspectives and has received much critical attention from researchers worldwide. This paper aims at providing critical reflections on two selected articles from the course core readings. The first article is Learner code-switching versus English only by Andrew Sampson (2012) and the second one is Metrolingualism: fixity, fluidity, and language in flux by Emi Otsuji and Alastair Pennycook (2010). This paper begins by investigating how the writers position themselves regarding the theory and practice and how the articles inform my knowledge in the area of language teaching. Then, it will identify and discuss particular quotes from each article which likely relate to my teaching context. Finally, a couple of questions for further discussion will be generated in the conclusion.
The position of Author: Andrew Sampson (2012)
Sampson (2012) addresses a debatable issue regarding the use of code-switching in EFL classroom contexts. While many previous findings arguing whether code-switching or English only is more effective than one another, some recent research on learners’ code-switching show a shifting goal focusing on finding out the proper procedure, timing and ideal proportion of L1 use in order to make it more valuable for teachers’ pedagogical practices (Sampson, 2012, p. 294). Sampson’s (2012) substantiates that it is pedagogically injudicious to totally ban L1 in an EFL classroom since the students’ mother language can be practically useful for learning the target language. In this research, Sampson positioned himself as an “insider” since he worked as a teacher and teacher trainer in Colombia. As argued by Padgett (2008), this position will give the researcher benefits among others being familiar with the researched site and the participants of the study. Thus, with this position, he had an informed knowledge of the EFL classroom environment and learners that he observed.
Critical Reflections
Sampson’s (2012) article has broadened my insight into learners’ code-switching which is not merely negative for learners’ language development but it can positively serve as communicative functions in the classroom. He also suggests that in order to make an effective decision of the ideal proportion of L1, the teachers are expected to have informed knowledge of the learners’ learning goals. This suggestion is relevant to my previous teaching context back in the province of Aceh, Indonesia, where I did my internship program as an English teacher for one semester at a public senior high school. There was a regulation made by the English teachers in the school where the classroom language (English subject) has to be at least 80% English. The school is located in an urban area and the learners were expected to receive a high exposure and frequent practice of the target language. This regulation might not be found in rural schools where English subject is likely to be instructed in the local language.
During my internship, I found out that not all of the learners could use English communicatively as expected by the classroom language rule, while some higher achievers could not even reach 80% use of English during classroom interaction. Most of the time they code-switched their talk between English and Bahasa Indonesia. I felt somewhat frustrated at that time and thought that I would not be able to help them much. After reading this article, I am aware that learner’s code-switching cannot always be seen as detrimental, but it can be useful for learning.
In relation to the usefulness of code-switching, it is crucial for the teachers to take the learning goals into consideration. As substantiated by Sampson (2012), if the learning goal is to enable learners to use English in full English speaking context, the teacher is expected to propel learners to apply other alternatives for code-switching such as paraphrasing, describing and defining the context (Sampson, 2012, p. 302). I am in favor of this notion since these kinds of code-switching alternatives can develop students’ strategic competence in order to keep the conversations going. Moreover, they can develop the learners’ communication ability when interacting with people who have no knowledge of their first language.
From this article, I would like to comment on the result of the article which is relevant and might contribute to my teaching practice as follows: “….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. (Sampson, 2012, p. 293)
I found this statement significant because it informs English teachers that they need to be broad-minded in making a decision related to classroom language standard, either English only or code-switching. Instead of saying the latter is less contributive to promote learners’ L2 development and generally assume that all students have similar interests and needs of the former one, the teachers should be able to provide a mediating solution which can be accommodating for the learners’ learning goals and expectations.
The position of Author: Emi Otsuji and Alastair Pennycook (2010)
Unlike Sampson’s (2012) article where code-switching is seen as the fulfillment of gaps by using L1 when practicing the target language, Otsuji and Pennycook (2010, p.214) perceive that code-switching, which they refer to their own term called ‘metrolingualism’. This mix of codes which occur in the researched area has little to do with communicative strategies in a way to negotiate meanings, but rather as an urban or modern communicative style (a different way of how a group of people uses language/s) used by staff in the workplace where Japanese and English are unconsciously code-switched as a means of communication. Otsuji and Pennycook (2010, p. 245) substantiate that metrolingualism stems from upper-class interaction style among people in the city. This definition is drawn from Maher’s (2005, p. 83) view of metroethnocity which demonstrate multi-culture-oriented lifestyle. He takes the teenagers in Japan for example, who refuse the concepts of monoculturalism and conservatism.
In this article, Otsuji and Pennycook positioned themselves as the originators of the notion of metrolingualism. They aimed at introducing the term metrolingualism which they refer to innovative language practices that occur as a product of cross-cultural, historical and political scopes, and it goes further than just “multilingualism and multiculturalism” (Otsuji and Pennycook, 2010, p. 244).” They emphasized that metrolingualism primarily concerns about the ideological and practical concepts of language. Therefore, this ideological language focus might propose a broad linguistic awareness that we need to view the languages on the basis of the local users’ viewpoints in order to understand what the languages serve in interaction.
This paper has informed my thinking that different circumstances and places likely determine how language users interact with each other. In other words, people have the ability to manage their linguistic patterns in such a creative way “across borders of culture, history, and politics” (Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010, p. 240). The concept of metrolingualism, to some extent, reflects the existence of multiple cultures and languages, where people commonly speak in two or more languages, in Indonesia. This phenomenon is also happening in many multinational workplaces located in the urban areas where the employees are likely to mix their codes between English and Bahasa Indonesia as a common medium of communication.
Bringing the notion of metrolingualism to the context of ELT, it might be helpful for the teachers to foresee and design future-oriented learning goals. It also facilitates the teachers to determine what methods and approaches which can best prepare the learners for their future careers. For instance, if a group of learners is projected to join an international company where English and Indonesian are spoken, then the teachers are expected to introduce several functions of code-switching to the learners in order to enable them not only to code-switch effectively during the classroom interaction but also to prepare for their future working conditions. Nonetheless, it is quite difficult to find a group of learners with similar interests or future orientations. At least such awareness suggests that teachers have to be flexible and broad-minded in their teaching practice.
From this article, I would like to comment on a statement which is quite interesting as follows: “People of different backgrounds now ‘play with ethnicity (not necessarily their own) for aesthetic effect. Metroethnicity is skeptical of heroic ethnicity and bored with sentimentalism about ethnic language’ (Maher, 2005, p. 83).” (Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010, p. 240)
The statement above may not be much relatable to my teaching experience since the context where I used to teach was not as multilingually and multiculturally rich as that of the workplace in this article looks like. However, it has extended my insight in the area of seeing what the future goals of English learning should be by taking the shifting of culture and language into account. From the perspective of an English teacher, this notion makes English Language Teaching much more challenging, particularly if the students come from varied linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This challenge is in line with the previous article (Sampson, 2012) which questions English only or code-switching classroom. It might also create a dilemma in which teachers who are the followers of Krashen’s (1987) comprehensible input theory probably think that they to increase the portion of the target language since exposure to the target language is what the learners need to receive language input. As a result, they prefer to employed English only policy in their classrooms. While some others who think code-switching can trigger the language learning might apply alternative strategies to draw benefits from that condition. Thus, as teachers, we need to be aware of the development of the linguistic and cultural world in order to make an informed and purposeful decision toward their pedagogical practice. The notion of metrolingualism also broadens my view of how to address today’s language practices and how the dynamic use of languages should be accommodated in teaching and learning practice.
Conclusion
To sum up, it can be seen that the articles present two different uses of code-switching; the first one serves as communicative functions and the second one serves as a communicative style and as a product of urban interaction. Studying the code-switching along with the metrolingualism has extended my perspectives on pedagogical knowledge, reminded me to reflect on my teaching practice and context and allowed me to rethink open-mindedly. As a language learner and teacher, I view code-switching as one of the steps in learning a second language. It means that it is a phase that a language learner needs to go through and a springboard to move forward as they are progressing. Therefore, the teacher need to be aware of how to organize the learners’ code-switching to be worthwhile in the teaching and learning process. With regard to this, a few questions which may need to be taken into consideration are: how might EFL teachers accommodate the variety of learners’ learning goals in conjunction with the implementation of English only or code-switching as classroom language?; What methods and approaches might the teacher employ to anticipate the learners’ code-switching? And, what are the implications of metrolingualism on the learners’ learning strategy?
References
Krashen, S. (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Englewood cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall International.
Maher, J. (2005). Metroethnicity, language, and the principle of Cool . International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2005(175-176), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2005.2005.175-176.83
Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2010). Metrolingualism: fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(3), 240-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710903414331
Padgett, D. K. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sampson, A. (2012). Learner code-switching versus English only. ELT Journal, 66(3), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr067