Codeswitching among first-year English majored students at Hanoi National University of education and their views on this linguistic phenomenon

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE OF HNUE

DOI: 10.18173/2354ꢀ1067.2016ꢀ0102

Social Sci., 2016, Vol. 61, No. 12, pp. 18ꢀ26

This paper is available online at http://stdb.hnue.edu.vn

CODESWITCHING AMONG FIRSTꢀYEAR ENGLISH MAJORED STUDENTS

AT HANOI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION AND THEIR VIEWS

ON THIS LINGUISTIC PHENOMENON

Nguyen Thuy Nga and Nguyen Lan Phuong

Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education

Abstract. Codeswitching, a product of bilingualism, is popular among bilinguals.

Many researchers and educators consider codeswitching as a downgrading factor

to the target language learning process while others perceive them as a natural

product of bilingualism. This study investigates the frequency of codeswitching

used among students and their attitudes towards this phenomenon. The results

show that students tend to codeswitch more frequently in groupꢀworks. Moreover,

although students feel bad when they codeswitch, they have more relaxed attitudes

towards their peers’ codeswitching. In addition, the findings demonstrate that the

ease of knowledge transference is the main reason for codeswitching and the fear of

not getting progress if using too much Vietnamese in English classes is the major

concern of students.

Keywords: Codeswitching, English, attitude language learning.

1. Introduction

Not only in second language acquisition does codeswitching flourish but also in

sociolinguistics, anthropology and second language teaching. Studies on codeswitching

have drawn attention of many researchers [1ꢀ3]. Research on codeswitching among

bilinguals has been carried out to find out the mechanism underlying this language

phenomenon.

In Vietnam, English has been introduced into schools and become popular among

students since 1986. In many conversations outside classroom, we can hear English mixed

with Vietnamese; and in English classes, it is not difficult to hear quite a few Vietnamese

words. This study investigates the frequency of codeswitching and opinions of 62 first

year students at English Faculty, Hanoi National University of Education (HNUE) on

their codeswitching and others in English speaking lessons using online questionnaire,

classroom observation and inꢀdepth interview.

Received date: 11/7/2016. Published date: 25/11/2016.

Contact: Nguyen Thuy Nga, eꢀmail: thuynga.nguyen11@gmail.com

18

Codeswitching among firstꢀyear English majored students at Hanoi National University...

2. Content

2.1. Definition of codeswitching

Codeswitching is a linguistic process in which users can use two languages or

language varieties alternatively in a specific situation, such as in a single conversation.

That is, users can switch back and forth between two languages using linguistic elements

(e.g., words, phrases) of each language source without violating the syntax of either

language or variety when that language or variety is in use. In other words, the speakers

‘may switch rapidly from one [language] to another, but at any given moment they are

speaking only one, even when they resort to the other for assistance’ [1]. In this study,

codeswitching and codemixing will be regarded as one linguistic phenomenon and the

term codeswitching is used throughout the article.

2.2. Differences between codeswitching and borrowing

Borrowing and codeswitching are two products of language contact, and numerous

ways to distinguish them have been proposed. These include distinctions that are related

to language competence, degree of integration, size of linguistic item, and frequency of

occurrence. However, these distinctions may be difficult to apply in practice.

In terms of competence, borrowing requires some level of competence in only

the first language (monolingual competence) and ‘does not require complete individual

bilingual competence’ [2], whereas codeswitching requires bilingual competence so that

speaker can use two codes alternatively [3]. However, the definitions of bilingualism

and bilinguals vary greatly. Some adopt stricter definitions, while others take the wider

perspective that a bilingual is a person ‘who possess at least one of the language skills

even to a minimal degree in their second language’ [4].

In terms of degree of integration, borrowing to some extent has integrated

phonologically, morphologically, and syntactically into the host language and become

a part of the speech of monolinguals. Codeswitching, on the other hand, remains

the province of bilinguals, and no syntactic integration occurs. Poplack distinguishes

codeswitching and borrowing by stating that:

‘It is in fact reasonable to assume that as a borrowed word is more and more used,

it tends to become phonologically and morphologically integrated, to displace competing

recipient language forms, and at least eventually, to be accepted by its native speakers’

[5].

Borrowings, therefore, eventually become completely integrated into the recipient

language, whereas codeswitching tends to keep its foreign traits. Poplack believes that:

‘Codeswitching is the juxtaposition of sentences or sentence fragments, each of

which is internally consistent with the morphological and syntactic (and optionally,

phonological) rules of the language of its provenance’ [6].

Poplack proposes morphosyntactic and phonological integration into the main

language in a codeswitched utterance which makes up the majority of phonological

and morphological features of the discourse. She establishes a table to differentiate two

19

Nguyen Thuy Nga and Nguyen Lan Phuong

phenomena in terms of integration as below.

Although the criteria are clear and work well for borrowings and codeswitching in

some cases, they are not always applicable. It is not possible to draw a distinct line between

codeswitching and borrowing based on syntactic, phonological, and morphological

integration [7], [8].

Type

Levels of integration into main language

Codeswitching?

Phonological

Morphological

Syntactic

1

2

3

4

γ

X

γ

No

Yes

X

Quite a few examples of integration distinction failure are recorded in literature.

For example, Poplack demonstrates the failure of using phonological integration criteria

to distinguish the two using the example of a native speaker of Spanish who pronounces

all his English words with a Spanish accent when he codeswitches, but exactly as

in standard English when he borrows [9]. Even though many criteria have been

proposed to distinguish codeswitching from borrowing, they are slippery. In a nutshell,

codeswitching and borrowing are two interꢀrelated phenomena/acts that are difficult

to distinguish. Borrowings could have once been codeswitching and codeswitching is

potential borrowing. Hence, the general distinction of linguistic competence seems to

be more feasible; that is, bilinguals can use both codeswitching and borrowing whereas

monolinguals are normally limited to the latter.

2.3. Data collection method

This study employs online questionnaire, classroom observation and inꢀdepth

interview for data collection. The survey questions are adapted from [10ꢀ13] studies.

The questionnaire includes three parts. Part one deals with the background information

of participants and includes five questions, four out of which are multiple choices and

one is openꢀended. Part two focuses on the types of codeswitching, the frequency and

the opinions of participants on codeswitching. Part three aims at getting data about the

effects of codeswitching in classroom context. In order to collect more qualitative data

for analysis, two Speaking classes are observed and ethical clearance is provided. The

participants are unaware of the real intention of this study so that they can switch codes as

naturally as usual. The conversations carried out during Speaking classes are recorded

and transcribed, and instances of codeswitching are highlighted for detailed analysis.

During the observation, 20 students who codeswitch the most frequently are invited to

the inꢀdepth interview section later.

2.4. Findings

2.4.1. The frequency of codeswitching

20

Codeswitching among firstꢀyear English majored students at Hanoi National University...

When asked how often students codeswitch, the majority of freshmen (32.3%)

at English Faculty believed that they frequently switched back and forth between two

languages during their Speaking lessons while the percentage of ‘always’ and ‘sometimes’

were somewhat similar with 22.6% and 25.8% respectively. It can also be seen that only

4.8% of the respondents stated that they never related their Vietnamese to English (see

Figure 1).

Figure 1. The frequency of codeswitching during Speaking lessons

During the class observation, 46 students were noticed to employ codeswitching

during their group activities with 102 cases recorded. On average, each student switched

from English to Vietnamese at least twice. It is intriguing to note that codeswitching took

place most of the time during groupwork/pairwork activities with 81 times out of 102.

Interestingly, only 21 cases (1/5) of codeswitching was recorded, when students spoke

in front of the class. The reason for this difference was revealed in the interview session

that they felt comfortable codeswitching because they were surrounded by their close

group members. They felt free to joke and make mistakes or even show their weaknesses.

However, being a centre of attention when speaking in front of the whole class, students

grew tense and became more cautious about what they were going to speak; especially

when their talk might be commented and marked by both the teacher and counterparts.

Therefore, a process of careful word choices and structures was stimulated leading to the

fact that fewer cases of codeswitching occured.

It was also noticed that there was a link between groups’ competence and the

frequency of codeswitching, groups with lower competence involve Vietnamese in their

English speaking lessons more often than those of highlyꢀcompetent ones. Specifically, of

81 groupwork codewitching cases, there were 7 switches of higher competent groups, 43

to low competent and 31 to mixedꢀlevel ones.

2.4.2. The attitude towards self and peerꢀcodeswitching

The results show that when asked to choose the most relevant feeling with the

Likert scale (1ꢀ5), a majority of freshmen at English Faculty objected to the use of

codeswitching during Speaking classes. As Table 1 illustrates, none of the participants

21

Nguyen Thuy Nga and Nguyen Lan Phuong

experienced complete satisfaction while 40.3% felt terrible for using Vietnamese in their

English speaking lessons. 32.3% of students, perceiving that codeswitching is a common

phenomenon for bilinguals, they felt neither good nor bad, and the last two groups, making

up 21% and 6.5% slightly inclined their opinions towards the two ends of the scale.

During the interview section, two main reasons for their negative feelings were

revealed. For those who went through dreadfulness, they believed codeswitching meant

they were not competent in English; therefore, they had to desperately seek for the help

from their mother tongue. Secondly, in some cases where the combination of Vietnamese

and English was overused by accident, students asserted that they had treated both

languages with disrespect, which in turn, might create an impression of a clumsy speaker.

Table 1. Participants’ feelings when they codeswitch

2

1 (Terrible)

3

4

5 (Good)

40.3%

21%

32.3%

6.5%

0%

Participants who stayed neutral stated that codeswitching was fun since it was like

a word play happening among bilinguals, or even some closeꢀknit groups only.

Despite the dissenting opinions towards their own switching from English

to Vietnamese in the Speaking lessons, 62 freshmen students seemed not to take

codeswitching serious when it was utilized by their counterparts. The survey reveals

that a significant number of 48 students did not pay too much attention to their friends’

codeswitching during speaking time provided that the meaning was not disrupted. As the

matter of fact, they believed that the ultimate function of speaking was to convey their

thoughts and opinions; once the message was through, they succeeded at that stage and

their fluency or vocabulary could be improved with further practice. Surprisingly, even

two students supported their classmates in presenting a shift in their speech, they claimed

that it was impressive when their friends could swiftly alternate between English and

Vietnamese. By observing their audience’s facial expressions and constantly delivering

questions, their friends could deliberately switch to Vietnamese to clear any ambiguous

parts and confirmed that all listeners completely grasped what they had presented. This,

they believed, was an essential skill for English language teachers.

On being asked if they wish to make any attempt to correct themselves and their

friends when any unintentional codeswitching takes place, students gave responses as in

the Table 2 below:

Table 2. The percentage of participants’ wish to self-correct and peer-correct

Yes

No

Correct themselves

Correct friends

74.2% (n=46)

40.3% (n=25)

25.8% (n=16)

59.7% (n=37)

According to the finding, 16 students (25.8%) said no to selfꢀcorrection and 37

(59.7%) to peerꢀcorrection. Interestingly, it was revealed in the interview that those who

did not have an inclination towards selfꢀcorrection intentionally switched back and forth

between two languages to achieve their own purposes. 74.2% of the respondents desired

22

Codeswitching among firstꢀyear English majored students at Hanoi National University...

to adjust their speeches as a way to correct themselves; 40.3% of them interrupted

their friends during or after the conversation whenever they realized any unintentional

codeswitching.

In fact, out of 102 cases of codeswitching recorded in two Speaking lessons,

only in 4 cases (accounting for 0.3%) did students correct themselves. The number of

peerꢀcorrections was even much lower with 0 case, which could be attributed to the same

reasons which students had on hearing their friends’codeswitching. The causes of poor

records of selfꢀcorrection can be explained by Krashen’s monitor hypothesis in second

language acquisition. According to him, in order to make changes to their own speeches,

three requirements i.e. time, focus and knowledge must be met. In this situation, the fact

that students did not correct themselves could be ascribed to the above requirements.

In almost all cases of codeswitching recorded, students were speaking in front of the

whole class resulting in insufficient time for selfꢀcorrection. Unsurprisingly, in group

discussions, students did show some signs of improvement. In fact, 3 out of 4 cases of

selfꢀcorrection were noticed when students worked together. In addition, ‘what’ they were

going to speak seemed to be the central focus of their attention, rather than ‘how’ they

were going speak. Therefore, with the lack of focus on form, it is understandable that

students constantly switched between two languages without correcting themselves. Last

but not least, knowledge, especially lexical resources and complex grammar structures,

also hinders students from amending their own mistakes.

2.4.3. Reasons for codeswitching

Students gave several reasons for their codeswitching, they are: the ease of

transferring information, explaining grammar rules, understanding the lesson, and

keeping the conversation going.

a. The ease of understanding/transferring information

Most of the students participating in the study strongly agreed that codeswitching

made it easier to transfer the information. In our observation, there was an occurrence

of codeswitching when a student had to explain knowledge from Biology field, she

immediately switched to Vietnamese to ensure that her classmates could understand her

answer. Then, she received the help from the teacher, who translated the answer into

English.

T: (referring to a picture from students’ book) Which species does this animal

belong to?

S: Reptile.

T: What is the meaning of the term ‘reptile’ in Vietnamese? Why do they get such a

name?

S: Because. . . Tại vì khi mà nó bò cái bụng của nó chạm hẳn xuống đất luôn. . . Thế

nên mới gọi là bò sát ạ.

T: Ok, so when reptiles crawl, their bottom touches the ground, right?

Indeed, as most students claimed, academic knowledge, with its abstract nature

and certain sets of academic vocabulary for each field of study, should firstly be

23

Nguyen Thuy Nga and Nguyen Lan Phuong

comprehended in their mother tongue. There is a possibility that students might

acquire some academic knowledge in Vietnamese; therefore, with the assistance of the

background knowledge, the process of acquisition in the second language will definitely

less timeꢀconsuming and more effective. As a result, many students confirmed that

codeswitching was a choice to transfer the knowledge/information more easily.

b. The ease of explaining/understanding grammar rules more precisely

With regard to grammar, all students agreed that Vietnamese played an important

role in making grammar points intelligible. They insisted that in speaking, grammar was

one of the marking criteria. For that reason, it was believed that one of the responsibilities

of teachers was to make sure that students could show an accurate and wide range of

grammar structures in any kinds of speaking tests. Furthermore, Vietnamese is also

utilized effectively to give examples and make comparison in grammar between two

languages as in the following example.

T: (checking students’ answer) You said ‘families of children’? Imagine we say ‘A

man with money’. . . It means this man has some money, right?. . . It is similar. . . There are

some children in the family, so we say ‘Families with children’, not ‘families of children’.

It is true that we have the phrase ‘family of children’, but not in this case.

S1: (turning to her friends to discuss) ‘with’ kiểu như ‘có’ trong Tiếng Việt mình ấy

hả?

In this case, student compared ‘with’ in English to ‘có’ in Vietnamese to deepen

her understanding in grammar. Students also revealed that codeswitching in such situation

could save a great amount of time so that they could focus more on other speaking skills.

c. The ease of understanding the lesson correctly

As students codeswitched to clear doubts and uncertainties, they agreed that

codeswitching helped them understand the lessons more easily. In many cases recorded

during observations, Vietnamese was used to clarify meaning. For example “shortꢀsighted

là gì thế?” or “Cô nói cái gì đấy?”. On the other hand, codeswitching had compensated

for students’ lack of vocabulary; it was used to guarantee that everyone in class, even low

level ones, could keep pace with the whole class. In addition, many students assumed

that if words or phrases were repeated in Vietnamese after being presented in English,

they were important ones. By switching back and forth between two languages, students

expected to have key ideas highlighted and emphasized.

d. The ease of keeping the conversation going

The other benefit of codeswitching in speaking lessons that students claimed is

to avoid interruption caused by linguistic deficiency and keep the conversation going

smoothly. For example, when the teacher asked her students to talk about their father’s

job with the person next to them, one of them codeswitched to Vietnamese as following:

S: My father works on a farm. . . . And he raises. . . Raise đúng không hay là rise?

Nuôi là raise đúng không?

In the above example, as the student hesitated between ‘raise’ and ‘rise’, she

switched to Vietnamese to receive constructive suggestions from her friends in order to

make the correct choice of word. As a result, she successfully conveyed her intended

24