english-vietnamese code-switching in tertiary educational context in vietnam

This article was downloaded by: [THU TRANG NGUYEN]On: 12 January 2015, At: 03:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asian EnglishesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20

English-Vietnamese Code-Switchingin Tertiary Educational Context inVietnamNguyen Quang Tiena

a University of Social Sciences and Humanities Vietnam NationalUniversity, Ho Chi Minh City VIETNAMPublished online: 11 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Nguyen Quang Tien (2012) English-Vietnamese Code-Switchingin Tertiary Educational Context in Vietnam, Asian Englishes, 15:2, 4-29, DOI:10.1080/13488678.2012.10801328

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2012.10801328

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13488678.2012.10801328

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2012.10801328

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

4

English-Vietnamese Code-Switching

in Tertiary Educational Context in Vietnam

NGUYEN Quang Tien

Abstract: The use of English has rapidly been growing in the Expanding Circle of world Englishes. This situation is especially true in Vietnam. In order to know what affects the use of English, including its role in code-switching in classrooms in Vietnam, a case study was conducted to address the main question, “What is the impact of the tertiary education context on code-switching in classrooms in Vietnam?” The subject was one teacher of two English classes (one in a public university and the other in a private one). The data for this study include document analysis, classroom observations, the teacher’s stimulated recalls, and the students’ written feedback. The study found that more code-switching (CS) happened in the public school than in the private school due to (1) the in-class time budget, (2) the students’ English levels, (3) cultural factors, (4) the teacher-evaluation system, and (5) teacher cognition. The study also found that inter-sentential CS was dominant compared to intra-sentential CS.

1. Introduction: English in Vietnam

The use of foreign languages in Vietnam is determined by the political context of the country. Vietnam became re-unified and entirely independent on April 30, 1975. After this time, the English and French languages, seen as carriers of two decadent cultures, gradually disappeared from the educational system and from Vietnamese learners’ linguistic repertoire (Wright, 2002). Isolating itself from other countries from 1975, Vietnam developed a stagnant economy, as well as a backward educational system of foreign languages.

In 1986, influenced by Russia and Gorbachev’s economic reform, Vietnam opened its door with a “DoiMoi” (“Open-door”) policy. Then Vietnam was admitted into the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), into the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), and into the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC). Afterwards, a new pragmatic view of language emerged; the instrumental purposes of use of foreign languages were recognized in the process of establishing diplomatic relationships with Asian countries and even with the United States of America. The role of foreign languages, especially English, has been given more and more attention since then.

As with other neighboring countries in the region such as Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos, Vietnam belongs to the Expanding Circle in the world Englishes paradigm where English is spoken as a foreign language (B. B. Kachru, 1998, 2005; Kirkpatrick, 2007). In the majority of English classrooms in Vietnam, both teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

English-Vietnamese Code-Switching in Tertiary Educational Context in Vietnam

and learners are Vietnamese and share the same L1, Vietnamese. It is undeniable that Vietnamese teachers in varying degrees use Vietnamese in English classrooms, and this practice much relates to code-switching (CS). Though CS has many functions especially in second-language (L2) classrooms, relatively little has been studied, reported, or written about it in the learning process of second language learners (Gardner-Chloros, 2009). Similarly, CS in English classrooms in Vietnam has never been reported in the literature, and no study on the impacts of contextual factors on CS in tertiary level classrooms in Vietnam has been reported either. The study presented in this paper tries to fill these gaps. The literature review below on L1 use in L2 classrooms, code-switching, and English language teaching in Vietnam provides the fundamental background upon which the study is built.

2. Using the First Language (L1) in the Second Language (L2) Classroom

In the English language teaching (ELT) literature, it is advised that L2 learners should be exposed to an L2 environment as much as possible (Cook, 2001), and learning and practicing L2 is the primary goal in language classrooms (Dailey-O’Cain & Liebscher, 2009). Some researchers say that the first language (L1) is considered unnecessary to acquisition and that there is no evidence of benefits of L1 use in the classroom (Macaro, 2009).

However, the English-only teaching practice in the classroom, where both the teacher and the students share the same L1, may make the learners alienated from the learning process (Pachler & Field, 2001, cited in Miles, 2004). Next, the role of L1 in L2 learning can be recognized in relation to a cognitive process involving analogical reasoning. Ellis (2005) argues that in the learning process, the more abstract the schemata the learners encounter are, the more conscious they are of the processes of analogical reasoning, and this process works on the basis of the working long-term memory. In L2 learning, the input to the L2 system comes via the echoes and abstractions of learners’ long-term memories stored in L1 and represented as their prior experience of the world. These long-term memories in L1 contribute to short-term memory representations in L2. Thus, L1 use can serve as an important cognitive tool in L2 learning (Swain & Lapkin, 2000). Due to the analogical reasoning process, as Macaro (2009) advocates, language learners can make an increasing number of connections in the mental lexicon to support the language learning processes. As a result, the lexical items in both languages are activated in long-term memory.

The obvious benefits of L1 use in L2 classrooms are identified as follows. First, a certain and judicious amount of L1 use may help provide L2 learners with a tool to facilitate their L2 learning and use (Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009) and to get around communicative stumbling blocks (Lüdi,

5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

Asian Englishes, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2012

6

2003, as cited in Gardner-Chloros, 2009). In other words, without resort to the L1 use, the task assigned to L2 learners may not be accomplished in a desired way, or not accomplished at all (Swain & Lapkin, 2000). In addition, students can make connections between the target language and prior knowledge already gained and ideas and developed in L1 (Skinner, 1985). L1 use is also supported by the concept of scaffolding (Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009), and this concept is discussed in Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86).

Second, L1 use helps learners to recall second language vocabulary by reducing working memory constraints, to consolidate meaning in the long term memory, to convert the input into more familiar terms, and to clarify the usage of certain lexical terms (Macaro, 2009). Some research concludes that some vocabulary items might be easier to learn in L1 equivalents, which can trigger deeper semantic processing than in L2 definition. Thus, eliminating L1 use in the L2 classroom may in fact reduce the cognitive and metacognitive opportunities for learners (Macaro, 2009).

For classroom teachers, L1 use helps them achieve many language and pedagogical functions like communicating message-oriented information to L2 students in a very short time (Macaro & Mutton, 2002, as cited in Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009; Macaro, 2009) as well as promoting L2 proficiency (Macaro, 2009). L1 use is also needed in the context where L2 learners are challenged to do many heavy cognitive tasks while their target-language skills are limited (Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009).

3. Types and Functions of Code-Switching (CS)3.1. Definition

Code-switching (CS) is defined as a combination of two or more linguistic varieties which bilingual people use in the same conversation or sentence (Gardner-Chloros, 2009; Zheng, 2009) or as a movement from one language to another (McArthur, 1996). As a result, items, phrases and longer strings of speech in two or more languages or codes defined as “dialects or languages” (Mesthrie & Bhatt, 2008) appear in individual speakers’ utterances (Y. Kachru & Nelson, 2006). In this sense, CS is seen as a communicative strategy and act (Tay, 1993a, cited in Y. Kachru & Nelson, 2006), a “state phase transition” from language A to language B (Bot, Broersma & Isurin, 2009), and as a characteristic of bilingual people’s talk rather than a sign of deficiency in either one language or another (Lie, 2000, cited in Dailey-O’Cain & Liebscher, 2009). Thus, CS is related to inter-language, a system which has “a structurally

6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15


intermediate status between the native and target languages” (Brown, 2007), and it can be thoroughly studied from varied interdependent perspectives (linguistic, sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, and pragmatic) in order to know how languages are comprehended, organized in the brain and produced (Gardner-Chloros, 2009).

3.2. Types of CS

Different researchers use different terms for types of CS. McArthur’s (1996) inter-sentential CS (p. 211) is “switching” which refers to “alternations of codes across sentences” (Y. Kachru & Nelson, 2006, p. 257). Intra-sentential CS (McArthur, 1996, p. 211) is “mixing within sentences” (Y. Kachru & Nelson, 2006, p. 257). Sometimes code-switching is a term which encompasses “the alternative use of two languages either within a sentence or between sentences” (Clyne, 2000, p. 242). Table 1 summarizes the classification of CS by McArthur (1996, p. 211).

Table1: Four Major Types of Switching (McArthur, 1996, p. 211)

Type Definition Example

1 Tag-switching Tags and certain set phrases in one language are inserted into an utterance otherwise in another.

A Panjai/ English bilingual says: It’s a nice day, hana? (hana = isn’t’ it?)

2 Intra-sentential switchingSwitches occur within a clause or sentence boundary.

A Yoruba/ English bilingual says: Won o arrest a single person. (=They did not)

3 Inter-sentential switchingA change of language occurs at a clause or sentence boundary, where each clause or sentence is in one language or the other.

A Spanish/ English bilingual says: Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en espanol. (=and finish it in Spanish)

4 Intra-word switching A change occurs within a word boundary.

Shoppa (Shop – English) (a – Panjabi plural ending) Kuenjoy (Ku – “to” in Swahili) (enjoy – English)

CS is also divided into two different types (Blom & Gumperz, 1972, cited in Mesthrie & Bhatt, 2008). The first is situational switching which involves change in social setting to serve a certain function (e.g., teachers deliver formal lectures in Bokmål—one of the two standard dialects in Norway—but switch to

7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15


8

Ranamal—a local Norwegian dialect—to encourage open discussion). The second one, metaphorical switching, occurs when topic rather than situation is changed (e.g., a Filipino teacher speaks Tagalog when talking about Philippine local vernaculars but switches to English when talking about Philippine English in relation to World Englishes). Sometimes situational switching occurs with metaphorical switching (e.g., local dialect used for greetings between clerks and residents in the community, but the standard dialect used for business transactions—an example of both situational and metaphorical functions).

CS is also distinguished in terms of levels (Bot et al., 2009). At the word level, CS occurs when words, cognates acting as triggers, share the same form and meaning in two languages. For example, “artist” in English means “artiste” in French. Sometimes a form in two languages is the same and it also means the same in two languages. For example, “avalanche” in both English and French means a large mass of snow that falls down the side of a mountain. A concept might co-activate another and might trigger a CS. In other words, words in different languages which are semantically similar or have a level of semantic overlap activate each other. For example, “maar” in Dutch and “but” in English are semantically similar and used in the same pattern, so they might co-activate each other. The lexical concept level is found to be commonly focused on in classroom CS, and content words are usually CS triggers (Macaro, 2009). CS at the syntactic level happens when triggers come from shared syntactic knowledge and compromise forms similar in two languages. CS at the discourse and gesture level takes place when the set of regularities (sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic patterns) is shared by different languages and when shared gestures in different languages might be triggers. CS at the last level, syllable and articulation, relates to adaptation to accents and pronunciation, and tones.

3.3. CS in the Classroom

L1 use in the L2 classroom leads to CS—a natural practice in a class where the teacher and the students share or know the L1 (Cook, 1991). For language teachers, the mixing of language serves as a tool to communicate the exact semantic message to be conveyed. This is in many cases especially true for non-native English teachers teaching English classes in which both teachers and students share the same L1.

One concern in CS is that to what extent CS is beneficial. The term optimal use (Macaro, 2009, p. 38) is used to refer to the use of CS which can communicatively enhance second language acquisition or proficiency better than the exclusive use of L2. Technically, optimal L1 use will serve as a cognitive and meta-cognitive tool such as a strategic organizer and a scaffold for language development (Turnbull &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

9


Dailey-O’Cain, 2009). However, the L1 use depends on the conversation setting (Bot et al., 2009). For example, Kharma and Hajjai (1989, as cited in Macaro, 2009) report that 66% of teachers use L1 to explain grammatical points. Sometimes the explanation in L1 comes after a considerable period of explanation in L2, and sometimes before. The CS in the first case is seen as communicative CS while the CS in the second does not put across content information. Thus, optimal CS needs to be taken into consideration within a particular context (Macaro, 2009).

4. English Language Teaching (ELT) in Vietnamese Tertiary Education

Vietnamese researchers have recently reviewed ELT in Vietnam. First, the class size in nationwide universities ranges from 50 to 60, making it impossible for English teachers and students to carry out the best English teaching and learning practices (Duy & Phuong, 2008). Second, the present low tuition fee for mass education implies the low teaching remuneration and does not guarantee good quality English learning and teaching practices (Duy & Phuong, 2008). Third, the present amount of time for English learning over a four-year BA program in class set by the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) is not sufficient: In the latest curriculum, the total amount of time for English learning in a four-year program is from 150 to 180 45-minute periods. This number of periods is not enough to upgrade students’ elementary level to pre-intermediate level, the level required to complete BA programs. Fourth, there are a variety of English proficiency levels in individual classes ranging from elementary to intermediate levels (Doan, 2008; Thu, 2005). In general, students with different English levels study English together in the same class with the same syllabus and textbooks (Linh, 2007; Vu, 2007). Last, in public universities, English learning and teaching generally focuses on grammar and reading, not listening and speaking (Linh, 2007). Until now, students’ English levels are still assessed mainly in grammar and reading (Vu, 2008).

5. The Present Study

This study aims to answer the two following questions: (1) What types of CS occur in the tertiary level classroom in Vietnam? And (2) what conditions influence CS in the classroom? A single case was analyzed. One volunteer Vietnamese English teacher (hereafter called “Teacher A” or “the teacher”) was chosen. She was a holder of an MA in TESOL and had 20 years of English teaching experience. She taught two English classes in two different universities, namely, (1) a second-year class of 44 students, named KT 79, in the University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City (UEH,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15


10

a public university), and (2) a third-year class of 16 students, named SE 2.3, in the University of Economics and Finance, Ho Chi Minh City (UEF, a private university). To get more data about the context, some interviews were conducted with one teacher in UEH (hereafter called Teacher B) and with another one in UEF (hereafter called Teacher C). The context of the two schools is also described in this paper through the interviewed teachers’ remarks in Vietnamese translated into English.

In both schools, English is taught as a foreign language subject; other content subjects are taught in Vietnamese. In UEH, the total time budget for English study set by the MOET is 180 45-minute periods in four semesters1 for BA programs2. In each 15-week semester, the students study 45 periods: 3 periods per class, per week. In UEF, the total time budget for English study—480 45-minute periods in four years3—is much bigger compared to that of UEH. These 480 periods set by the school itself are allocated for four years: 60 periods per 15-week semester; four periods per class per week (see Table 2). Teacher B said:

At present, there are only 180 45-minute periods4. Compared to the international standard, this number of periods is not enough because if we want to increase one point in the TOEIC5 score, we need to spend one period. In reality, we are just able to get 180 points, but the exit entrance level requires 450 or 500 points. As such, we lack almost 300.

The context reveals that 180 periods (135 hours) of English study in UEH is not enough to upgrade its students’ English elementary level to pre-intermediate. Teacher A added that according to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) standard, at least 467 in-class periods (equal to 350 hours set by CEFR) are required to finish the elementary level while the UEH students have only about 180 hours in-class periods, one-third of 467 periods. In contrast, UEF can provide more periods for English study since it sets its own curriculum.

1 In Vietnam’s educational system, there are only two regular semesters, fifteen weeks each, in an academic year.

2 The UEH students study English just for two years, starting from the second year of BA programs.3 The UEF students study English for four years, starting from the first to the last year of BA programs.4 In Vietnam, class time is measured by period which lasts for 45 minutes.5 The exit English test the UEH students have to take for the BA program completion is the Test of English for

International Communication (TOEIC), and the score they have to achieve is 450 (Pre-Intermediate English level).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

11


Table 2: Curricula in UEH and UEF

CURRICULUM UEH (public) UEF (private)

Foci in the curriculum Communicative approach Communicative approach

Number of periods for English over the whole BA program

180 periods for four semesters(45 periods per 15-week semester)(3 periods per class per week)

480 periods(60 periods per 15-week semester)(4 periods per class per week)

Number of years for English

2 years (2nd and 3rd years) 4 years

English class size 40 – 50 students 15 – 20 students

Materials Market Leader (Cotton, Falvey & Kent, 2002) - Elementary

Market Leader (Cotton et al., 2002) - Intermediate

Placement test YES YES

Exit English test TOEIC 450 IELTS 5.0

Though the students in both schools take English placement tests, only the UEF students are placed into English classes according to their existing levels. In UEH, according to Teacher A, an English class has varied levels of English due to the fact that English teachers do not want to design different syllabi and tests for different levels, and the Registrar’s Office is not able to manage 8,000 students (4,000 sophomores and 4,000 juniors) per academic year. If teachers did so, they would not get extra remuneration for the additional work.

The class size in UEH (from 40 to 50 students) is larger than that in UEF (from 16 to 20). Teacher B said that the present UEH class size exceed the ideal number for quality English learning and teaching, and as a result, the quality of education is definitely unsatisfactory; it affects teachers’ decision-making regarding teaching methods. Next, the differences in the time budget for English study in UEH and UEF affect the teaching content. In UEH, four units (lessons) are taught in 45 periods while in UEF three are taught in 60 periods. The general objectives of the syllabi in the two schools are the same; (1) to improve the students’ English communication skills using a communicative approach, and (2) to prepare the students for the exit English exam to complete the BA programs. The lesson plans for the two classes closely follow the textbook Market Leader by Cotton et al. (2002). Next, the syllabi in the two schools do not forbid the use of Vietnamese in the classrooms; neither do they give explicit permission for its use (Table 3).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15


12

Table 3: Syllabi in UEH and UEF

SYLLABUS UEH (public) UEF (private)

No. of periods 45 periods/ 15-week semester

60 periods/ 15-week semester

Time frame 15 weeks (3 periods/ week/ session)

15 weeks (4 periods/ week/ session)

No. of units/themes to be taught 4 units 3 units

General objectives (The same in two schools)

(1) to improve the students’ English communication skills using a communicative approach, and (2) to prepare the students for the exit English exam to complete BA programs.

Lesson plans The teacher usually does not make any lesson plans in either school. Her teaching in every class session just follows the textbook.

In UEH, there is a quality assurance office; however, there are no classroom observations, no merit-based teacher evaluation systems, no teachers’ meetings, and no feedback obtained from students. Next, UEH’s tuition fee set by the government is low for mass education while UEF’s is about six times higher (Table 4).

Table 4: Teaching Quality Assurance and Administrative Matters

QUALITY ASSURANCE UEH (public) UEF (private)

Classroom observations NO YES

Periodical teacher evaluation & student feedback

NO YES

Teachers’ meeting NO REGULARLY

Quality Assurance Office YES, but not working as expected

YES

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS UEH (pubic) UEF (private)

Tuition fee 8 Million VND (equal to 400 USD)/ year

60 Million VND (equal to 3,000 USD)/ year

Teaching remuneration 54,000 VND (equal to 2.5 USD)/ period

180,000 VND (equal to 9 USD)/ period

Based on the students’ self evaluation of their English ability, the listening and speaking skills of Class SE 2.3 in UEF were better than those of Class KT 79 in UEH. Next, most students in both schools thought that their reading skills were average. It was understandable because in English learning and teaching in high school, reading is focused on while listening and speaking are not.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

13


The data for the study collected between March and August in 2010 came from six 90-minute classroom observations (three in each university) with video-taping and audio-taping, teacher’s stimulated recall interviews, and students’ written feedback obtained right after each observation session. Classroom observation was carried out from the fifth week to the seventh week of the 15-week semesters in both schools, where the semester started and ended at the same time. In UEH, the students had one 3-period English session per week; in UEF, the students had two 2-period English sessions per week. Teacher A was in charge of one session; another teacher was in charge of the other. Since CS was done most of the time by the teacher in both schools (the students most of the time did not respond to the teacher’s questions; they did not ask any questions, either), the present study investigated the teacher’s CS only. The main teaching practice the present study aimed to investigate is CS (see Appendix). All the extracts in which the teacher switched from English to Vietnamese were transcribed and used as aids for the teacher’s stimulated recall interviews. The transcriptions of the conversations are provided in the appendix.

6. Findings

Table 5 shows that the teacher employed CS and English-Vietnamese translation (a form of inter-sentential CS). The number of times of CS in UEH (19 times: 16 for CS and 3 for English-Vietnamese translation) is more than triple that in UEF (6 times: 4 for CS and 2 for English-Vietnamese translation).

Two types of CS—intra-sentential and inter-sentential—were employed. About four-fifths of the CS occurrences (20 times) were used at the inter-sentential level while about one-fifth (five times) was intra-sentential CS. Given the different conditions in different teaching contexts, inter-sentential CS was more dominant than intra-sentential. This finding is consistent with Martin’s (2006) conclusion that inter-sentential CS is dominant among three types of syntactic structures (Tag CS, intra-sentential CS, and inter-sentential CS) by both the teachers and the students in two universities in Manila, the Philippines, and with Auer’s (2000) conclusion that CS is most frequent at sentence boundaries. The most common type of CS level in the two schools was at the lexical level.

The functions of CS in two schools also varied. First, while intra-sentential CS was used 3 times in UEH to facilitate vocabulary acquisition, it was not used that way in UEF at all. Second, the occurrence of all three functions of CS in UEH (comprehension aid, comprehension check, and information addition)—were higher than those in UEF. The following section will present the functions of CS at the lexical level in the two schools. The English equivalents of Vietnamese sentences or words are in italics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15


14

Table 5: Description of the Data (Code-switching and L1 Use)

Functions UEH UEF

Code-switching Times CS Level Times CS Level

Intra-sentential To facilitate vocabulary acquisition

3 Lexical: 3 0

To aid in L2 comprehension 1 N/A: 1 1 Lexical: 1

Sub-total 4 1

Inter-sentential To facilitate vocabulary acquisition

0 0

To aid in L2 comprehension 3 N/A: 3 1 N/A: 1

To check L2 comprehension

4 Lexical: 2 N/A: 2 1 Lexical: 1

To add more information 2 Lexical: 2 1 Lexical: 1

Sub-total 9 3

Total 13 4

E-V translation

(In the form of inter-sentential CS)

To facilitate vocabulary acquisition

0 1 Lexical: 1

To aid in L2 comprehension 6 Lexical: 1 N/A: 5 1 N/A: 1

Total 6 2

To Facilitate Vocabulary Acquisition (UEH Session 1)T: Look at the picture. What is it? What is it?S: “vi ba”T: “Vi ba” là cái gì, anyone? (What is “vi ba,” anyone?)S: MicrowaveT: Very good, “microwave,” “microwave oven.”

This exchange happened in a speaking activity. The teacher asked the class to name an object in the textbook in English. Asked in English, a student answered in Vietnamese. Then the teacher asked the second question, “‘Vi ba’ là cái gì, anyone?” (What is “vi ba,” anyone?) In this question, intra-sentential CS occurred to facilitate the acquisition of a vocabulary item, “microwave”. The main part of the question, “vi ba là cái gì” (What is “vi ba”) was used to provide the students with the L1 equivalent as well as to elicit the students’ response; of course, the teacher expected to get a response in English and the student actually used English to answer her question. The part, “anyone,” was in English partly because it was an unimportant part of the question, and partly because every student in class knew this word

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

15


already since they had learnt it in high school. This intra-sentential CS at the lexical level aimed to facilitate vocabulary acquisition.

Sometimes the teacher employed English-Vietnamese translation as a form of CS to facilitate vocabulary acquisition. Take an example as follows:

T: Anyone can find the meaning of “unity” is (..)S: Đọc, thống nhất. (Reading, unity)T: Thống nhất, nhất quán, đúngrồi. (Unity, unified, right)

In the above extract taken from her instruction for a writing activity, she did not explain the meaning of “unity” in English. Instead, she gave a Vietnamese equivalent, “nhất quán.” This was the quickest way to help the students grasp the concept immediately.

To Aid in L2 Comprehension (UEF Session 1)T: Đơn giản không các em? Đọc vô hiểu liền. Đọc không trôi chảy thì không hiểu

được. Đó là vấn đề techniques. (Simple, class? Easy to understand immediately when reading. No smooth reading means no understanding. That is a matter of techniques.)

Ss: (Silent)

This exchange in a writing activity in UEF focused on “unity” and “coherence.” The teacher asked the class to work on a cloze summary in pairs by filling in the gaps with provided transition words. After correcting the exercise, the teacher got the students’ feedback with a question. There was only one English word, “techniques,” in her utterance; the rest was in Vietnamese. She expressed the functions of the transition words—“Đọc vô hiểu liền” (Easy to understand immediately when reading), “Đọc không trôi chảy thì không hiểu được” (No smooth reading means no understanding)—in Vietnamese, and then she concluded with a sentence, “Đó là vấn đề techniques” (That is a matter of techniques). The term “technique” is not a loan word in the Vietnamese language since it is not used in either written and spoken Vietnamese. With the CS from Vietnamese to English, the teacher helped the students understand the meaning of the vocabulary item “technique” in English.

The function of aid in L2 comprehension can sometimes be seen in the form of English-Vietnamese translation. Take an example of an extract in UEH Session 3.

T: How many syllables? Cả lớp, có bao nhiêu âm tiết? (..) (Class, how many syllables?) Two syllables.Ss: (Silent)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15


16

In a pronunciation activity in UEH Session 3, the teacher’s English question, “How many syllables?” was followed by another one in Vietnamese, “Cả lớp, có bao nhiêu âm tiết?” (“Class, how many syllables?”) This English-Vietnamese translation is also a form of inter-sentential CS which aimed to help the students understand what her English question meant, especially the word “syllables” since the other words such as “class” and “how many” were familiar with the students who studied them in junior high school and senior high school. In this extract, CS can be seen as a tool to clarify or emphasize a message so that a concept conveyed in this message can be expressed in both languages in order to aid the students’ comprehension of that concept. This CS is at the lexical level.

To Check L2 Comprehension (UEH Session 3)T: Mail, what is it? Các em biết từ “email” rồi, đúng không? (All of you know the word “email”, right?) “Email” là từ “e” cộng với từ “mail,” “electric mail,” “electric mail,” “thư điện tử.” (“Email” is “e” plus “mail,”) (“e-mail”)Ss: (Silent)

In a reading activity, the teacher asked the class whether or not they knew what “email” meant with a question, “Mail, what is it? Các em biết từ “email” rồi, đúng không?” The first question (“Mail, what is it?”) was in English; the second one (“Các em biết từ “email” rồi, đúng không?”) was in Vietnamese to check whether the class understood the meaning of “email.” The teacher used a decomposition strategy—a strategy in which an initial question is decomposed into two or more parts so that an answer may be obtained (Wu, 1995)— to explain the meaning of “email” in Vietnamese.

To Add More Information or Explanation (UEF Session 1)T: What? Ideas fit together very well, very well. Các câu phải nhất quán với nhau.

Nó phải lien quan trực tiếp, nhất quán với nhau, mạch lạc, em thấy không? Em viết văn ý phải mạch lạc, ý không rời rạc, lien hệ với nhau, người ta gọi là mạch lạc. (All the sentences must be unified. They must be directly relevant to each other, unified, coherent, you see? You have to write coherently; the ideas should not be irrelevant, must be connected, they call it coherence.) How can you maintain coherence? How can you? By using transition: First, next, the next point is. Anything else?

S: Logical order.T: Logical order. First, then, next, finally.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

17


This extract comes from a writing activity in UEF session 1 which focused on coherence. The first sentence, “What? Ideas fit together very well, very well,” was in English. Then the three successive sentences were in Vietnamese. The rest of her utterance was in English again. The teacher switched to Vietnamese to give more explanation as well as aid in the comprehension of the concept “unity” or “coherence.” This CS was at the lexical level.

7. Discussion: Five Influential Factors in the Application of CS

Table 5 shows that CS occurred in both schools at the same lexical level with the different frequencies and functions such as vocabulary acquisition facilitation, comprehension aid, comprehension check, and information addition. In other words, CS in the two schools did not happen at random but was subject to pragmatic conditioning. As shown in Table 5, the number of times of CS in UEH (19 times) was more than triple that in UEF (6 times). The similarities and differences in the teacher’s CS are influenced by five factors presented below.

Teaching content in relation to time constraint: Regarding the in-class time budget, the subject teacher explained:

In UEF, firstly, students were taught at their own learning pace; teaching and learning was not under the pressure of the contents to be covered. I actually wanted them to understand, afterwards I could move on. In UEH, I felt constrained with the load of contents to be taught or covered in a class session in order to follow the syllabus. As a consequence, I thought my explanation was limited to some extent and I knew that I could use Vietnamese as a “savior.” In UEH, the use of Vietnamese could solve all the problems. In UEF, I did not do so. I used English to help them understand the lessons.

UEH, in contrast, made teachers commit to a different thing; to finish the contents in the syllabus set up by the department. So to deal with this difficult task, teachers use Vietnamese to finish a certain section on time so that they could move on to another. The use of Vietnamese was the fastest way for them [the students] to understand. In UEF, teachers used Vietnamese: they could be a little behind the schedule for the sake of English communication in class.

The teacher’s L1 use in UEH had two inter-related purposes; (1) to save time, and (2) to help the students understand the lessons. An inverse relationship between the time constraint and the teaching load was found: In order to cope with the teaching content, she used Vietnamese as a “savior” to finish the syllabus on time. In addition,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15


18

after five or ten minutes spent on explaining something in English, if the teacher felt that the students still did not understand it based on their quizzical-looking and frowning faces, she would use Vietnamese. This finding is consistent with one subject teacher’s remark in Copland and Neokleous’ (2011) study that she decided to employ English-Greek translation after having failed many times to explain in English the meaning of a word to Greek students.

The statistics in Table 5 show that CS occurred 13 times and English-Vietnamese translation 6 times in UEH in order to aid in vocabulary acquisition or comprehension. In contrast, under no time pressure in implementing UEF’s English syllabus, the teacher could follow the students’ learning pace by trying to explain the lesson using as much English as possible, meaning she could explain a vocabulary item again and again in English, not code-switching as often as she did in UEH (6 times in UEF but 19 times in UEH; more CS at the lexical level in UEH than in UEF).

Students’ levels of English: The above reason for L1 use—to help the students understand the lessons—could also be explained by the fact that the UEH students were not placed into English classes suitable for their existing English levels. According to the teacher, lack of proper placement made it difficult for most students with varied English levels in UEH to understand the lessons explained exclusively in English. Thus, to help them understand a vocabulary item, she would have had to keep explaining it several times in English or go through a long explanation, which would have consumed a lot of limited class time. Next, there was no guarantee that they would have understood what had just been explained then. As a result, she switched from English to Vietnamese to facilitate comprehension. This shows that it was the students’ limited target language skills in processing unfamiliar concepts that triggered the teacher to code switch.

The teacher’s CS practice also matched the students’ feedback (Table 6); in OS1, six students out of 44 (13.6%) wanted her to speak Vietnamese, and seven (15.9%) did not understand what she explained in English exclusively. These figures indicate that some students were sometimes puzzled when she spoke English only; thus they preferred a bilingual approach to enhance their comprehension. This finding is consistent with Nivera’s (2003, as cited in Martin, 2006) that students prefer code-switching in their mathematics classes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

19


Table 6: Students’ Feedback on the Use of L1 in the Classroom

OS = Observation SessionUEH UEF

OS1 OS2 OS3 OS1 OS2 OS3

No. of students present in class* 44 44 43 17 15 16

No. of students who did not understand when the teacher explained in English

7 1 1 2 0 0

No. of students who wanted the teacher to explain in Vietnamese

6 1 0 0 0 0

*Number of students present in class varies due to the absentees.

The purpose of L1 use to facilitate the students’ L2 comprehension in UEH indicates that the teacher provided the students with comprehensible input. In other words, she tried to convert the L2 input into more familiar terms in L1 to activate the students’ long-term memory in L1, which facilitated an analogical reasoning process of making connections with lexical items in both L1 and L2. Sometimes she translated from English into Vietnamese. This act could be seen as a communicative CS strategy to help the students get around communicative stumbling lexical blocks.

Another reason for her CS was that she tried to make the students feel more comfortable, secure, and less likely to be lost in her explanations or instructions; she did not want a particular activity to be halted just because of comprehension problems; she wanted to move the lessons along. In brief, CS and L1 use were meant to scaffold the students and activate their long term memory to facilitate their interlanguage process and help them learn better in a less-stressful environment.

Table 5 shows that in UEF the teacher code-switched four times and used English-Vietnamese translation two times. Here she was well aware that she did not want to use much Vietnamese in class since she wanted her students to understand the lessons in English given the following favorable conditions; (1) the total amount of class time in UEF was adequate for the teaching content, so there was no rush in class, (2) the UEF students were placed into English classes suitable for their existing English levels, thus (3), the teacher found it easy to maximize the use of English in a class of homogeneous students and not to code-switch to Vietnamese as often as she did in UEH.

The teacher’s CS and L1 use in the two teaching contexts indicate that in UEH she was more challenged to fulfill her duty (making the students understand the lessons) than in UEF. In UEH, she was determined to make more efforts and consumed more energy to provide more comprehensible input with more CS and with more L1 use than she did in UEF, where her teaching was less challenged given the conditions there.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15


20

Cultural factors: As observed, there was no discourse initiation from the students in either school, that is, they did not ask questions. Sometimes they just responded to the teacher’s questions very briefly in English or in Vietnamese. Thus, the interaction was initiated solely by the teacher. The finding confirms the dominance of the IRF (initiation, response, follow-up) pattern of the teacher-student discourse in which initiatives lie largely with the teacher. It was the dominance of IRF that partly caused the teacher to resort to CS to make sure that the students would understand what was being explained. The study also found that the teacher did dominate classroom discourse in terms of the teacher-student talk time ratio (5:1 in UEH and 2:1 in UEF) and that the teacher’s CS in UEH was triple that in UEF.

In the literature, Han’s (2007) study found that it was cultural and educational backgrounds of Asian students coming from Japan, Thailand, China, and Korea that blocked their classroom participation and discourse initiation. Han’s conclusion is applicable to Vietnam’s context. Under Chinese rule for almost 1,000 years, Vietnam has been influenced by Confucianism with two key concepts guiding human relationships: hierarchy and obedience. In Confucianism, students totally obey teachers; asking or challenging teachers is considered impolite. Thus, transmission of knowledge is the only teaching method. As a result, students keep silent in learning at all times (Na, Lin-Yao & Yi-wei, 2008). These Confucius values strongly influence learners’ characteristics (Kim, 2002) and to a certain degree affect today’s Vietnamese students in general and UEH and UEF students in particular. According to the teacher, when the students did not ask questions, but looked quizzical with frowning faces, she speculated that they were not able to understand the lessons, and she utilized CS to move the lessons along and to help the students overcome communicative stumbling blocks.

Teacher evaluation system: The teacher additionally remarked as follows:

The working environment in UEF was a competitive one where teachers competed with each other, and I knew that teachers tried their best to perform better than others. Then it caused me to perform better, try more and make more efforts. There was competition in UEF, but not in UEH. In UEH, they considered individual teachers’ performance the same, no interest/merit-based evaluation existed… In UEF, teachers had more responsibility. When teaching in UEF, I felt I was responsible and more enthusiastic. In UEH, I just relaxed.

In UEH, there was an office of quality assurance but it did not operate as expected. There was no merit-based teacher-evaluation system, and individual teachers’ teaching efforts were considered the same due to a policy that every teacher’s performance was considered the same (i.e., teachers’ efforts to perform

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

21


better in class were not acknowledged; one level of teaching remuneration was applied no matter how good one’s teaching performance was). This evaluation system affected teachers’ attitudes. They were “relaxed” in their teaching and did not bother to make efforts and consume more energy trying to explain lessons in English until students would understand them. It is undeniable that explaining a learning point again and again in English partly made the teacher tired. Thus, in order to save time and energy and solve the students’ comprehension problems, the best and fastest way was to apply CS, as admitted by the teacher.

In contrast, since UEF conducted regular classroom observations and a merit-based teacher evaluation, the teacher felt more motivated and patient toward the UEF students. As she admitted, she tried to maximize the English use in her lesson explanations because she knew that her efforts would be recognized by the evaluation system. This led to her less frequent CS in UEF than in UEH. Additionally, it was UEF’s favorable conditions that challenged the teacher to provide the utmost by providing the students with as much exposure to the L2 as possible.

Teacher cognition: As analyzed above, UEH’s classroom setting was quite different from UEF’s. Despite the differences in the setting of the two places, the teacher was able to subconsciously apply her knowledge of general pedagogy and of principles of language learning and teaching defined as teacher cognition (Woods, 1996) by providing scaffolding and comprehensible input (using CS and English-Vietnamese translation). Thus, the teacher’s CS was influenced not only by the context but also by her own knowledge of general pedagogy.

8. Conclusion

This study on the application of CS by the same teacher teaching in two different tertiary educational contexts revealed that the use of CS is influenced by contextual factors such as the in-class time budget in relation to amounts of teaching content, the students’ English levels, cultural values, teacher evaluation systems, and teacher cognition. The use of CS in these contexts was seen as a communicative and facilitative tool to aid in and check L2 comprehension and vocabulary acquisition and to add more information. In addition, CS was used in particular situations to elicit the students’ responses either in English or in Vietnamese. English-Vietnamese translation (a form of inter-sentential CS) occurred as the teacher anticipated the students’ difficulties in comprehension of vocabulary items explained exclusively in English. This practice could be interpreted as scaffolding to accommodate to the students’ preferred language for comprehension in the language learning process.

The present study once again confirmed the role of CS as well as of L1 use in the second language learning environment: CS is used in the L2 learning process to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15


22

help learners activate their long term memory in the L1 in order to process L2 input, to convert L2 input into more familiar L1 terms, to clarify the messages conveyed in lexical terms in L2, to help learners overcome communicative stumbling blocks when their L2 skills are limited, and to facilitate their interlanguage development. This confirmation is compatible with Y. Kachru and Nelson’s (2006) observation that most teachers in a majority of Outer- and Expanding-Circle contexts teach English through the bilingual method, meaning that they use the students’ primary language in the classroom to teach English. In other words, it is an effective strategy to use the familiar local language to teach the unfamiliar language, English.

In a multilingual environment, the mixed codes of a variety of languages have become “the normal and unmarked choice for interaction,” and “monolingual communication is a marked choice” (McLellan, 2010, p. 435). In other words, a bilingual approach needs to be seen as “a normal, rather than a special condition” (Graddol, 2006, p. 117). Thus, the use of CS in Vietnam can be seen as the unmarked choice and, to a certain extent, paves the way for the development of Vietnamese English once called Vietlish by Do (1999), which contributes to the development of World Englishes defined as code-mixed varieties by McLellan (2010), and integrates World Englishes into the paradigms of SLA.

9. Implications and Recommendations for Further Studies

As found in the study, CS can be viewed from acquisitional and pragmatic perspectives. In a learning condition where the students dare not to speak English due to their limited English proficiency and timidity, the use of CS can be seen as scaffolding so as to provide a less tense learning environment and to avoid in-class communication breakdown as commonly found in an Asian learning context. In the tertiary educational context with students’ various English levels and in-class time pressure, CS can be seen as a solution to help teachers fulfill their teaching duties (to help students learn and to increase learners’ English proficiency). Thus, not only can non-native English teachers try to maximize the students’ English use in the classroom, but also make space for a bilingual practice to facilitate students’ interlanguage development and make them aware of the usefulness of CS in language learning so that they will not feel guilty when code-switching, given their limited English proficiency. This idea is also supported by Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain (2009).

As mentioned earlier, no research on CS in ELT in Vietnam has been reported to date. Thus, there is a need for further studies and reports to discover the extent of CS used by both teachers and students and to see whether other types, functions, and levels of CS happen in the Vietnamese context. In a multilingual environment,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

23


it should be acknowledged that not all types of topics like knitting, marriage, and physics are discussed in the same languages. In other words, “no one...code is appropriate in all domains” (Y. Kachru, 1994, p. 798, as cited in Y. Kachru & Nelson, 2006). This is true for the Vietnamese context, where CS has begun to be used in some other domains such as the press and the media. Thus, there is a call for research on CS in these fields.

References

Auer, J. C. P. (2000). Conversational analysis, code-switching and transfer. In L. Wei (Ed.), The

bilingualism reader (pp. 154-174). London: Routledge. Bot, K., Broersma, M., & Isurin, L. (2009). Sources of triggering in code switching. In I.

Ludmila, D. Winford & K. D. Bot, Multidisciplinary approaches to code-switching (pp. 85-102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th Ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Clyne, M. (2000). Constraints on code-switching: How universal are they? In W. Li (Ed.), The

bilingualism reader (pp. 241-264). London: Routledge.

Cook, V. (1991). Second language learning and language teaching. New York, NY: Edward Arnold.

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language

Review/ La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 57(3), 402-423.

Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2011). L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions. ELT

Journal, 65(3), 270-280. Cotton, D., Falvey, D., & Kent, S. (2002). Market leader. Harlow: Longman.

Dailey-O’Cain, J., & Liebscher, G. (2009). Teacher and student use of the first language in foreign language classroom interaction: Functions and applications. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 131-144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Do, H. T. (1999, October 13-15). Foreign language education policy in Vietnam: The emergence of English and its impact on higher education. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Language and Development, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Doan, H. N. (2008, December 8). Vì sao sinh viên ra trường không nói dược tiếng Anh [Why can’t students speak English upon graduation?]. The Tuoi Tre [The Tuoitrenews]. Retrieved from http://tuoitre.vn/Giao-duc/291136/Vi-sao-sinh-vien-ra-truong-khong-noi-duoctieng-Anh.html

Duy, Đ. T., & Phuong, Q. (2008, December 24). Tiếng Anh sẽ là chuẩn dầu ra cho sinh viên [English will be an exit requirement for students]. The Tuoi Tre [The Tuoitrenews]. Retrieved from http://tuoitre.vn/Giao-duc/294198/Tieng-Anh-se-la-chuan-dau-ra-cua-sinh-vien.html

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15


24

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352.

Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: The British Council.Han, E. (2007). Academic discussion tasks: A study of EFL students’ perspectives. Asian EFL

Journal, 9(1), 8-21. Kachru, B. B. (1998). English as an Asian language. Links & Letters, 5, 89-108.

Kachru, B. B. (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the cannon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (2006).World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Kim, J. P. (2002). Korea. A cross cultural communication analyzed. Paper presented at Conference of Asian EFL Forum.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and

English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Linh, N. (2007, January 24). Đào tạo tiếng Anh trong các trường dại học [English learning and

teaching at tertiary institutions]. The Sai Gon Giai Phong Daily. Retrieved from http://teen.

tuoitre.vn/Index.aspx?ArticleID=86563&ChannelID=13Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of code switching in the second language classroom: Exploring

‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and

foreign language learning (pp. 35-49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, I. P. (2006). Language in Philippine classrooms: Enfeebling or enabling? Asian

Englishes, 9(2), 48-66.

McArthur, T. (1996). The concise Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McLellan, J. (2010). Mixed codes or varieties of English? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge

handbook of World Englishes (pp. 425-441). Oxon: Routledge.

Mesthrie, R., & Bhatt, R. M. (2008).World Englishes: The study of new linguistic varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miles, R. (2004). Evaluating the use of L1 in the English language classroom (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Birmingham, Birmingham.

Na, L., Lin-Yao, W., & Ji-wei, J. (2008). Relations network in the interactive ESL class: Analysis of individuals, groups, and a whole classroom network. The Asian EFL Journal,

10(3), 78-108. Skinner, D. C. (1985). Access to meaning: The anatomy of the language learning connection.

Journal of Multicultural Development, 6(2), 369-389.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 253-276.

Thu, L. (2005, January 4). Dạy và học tiếng Anh trong trường dại học: Sinh viên kém ngoại ngữ,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

25


vì sao? [Teaching and learning English: Why are students bad at English?]. The Sai Gon Giai Phong Daily. Retrieved from

http://www.sggp.org.vn/giaoduc/nam2005/thang1/31009/Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009). Concluding reflections: Moving forward. In M.

Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language

learning (pp. 182-186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vu, T. P. A. (2007, October 10). Dao tao tieng Anh bac dai hoc: 4 cai thieu [English language

education at tertiary level: Four lacks]. The Tuoi Tre [The Tuoitrenews]. Retrieved from http://tuoitre.vn/Giao-duc/224381/Dao-tao-tieng-Anh-bac-dai-hoc-4-cai-thieu.html

Vu, T. P. A. (2008, December 4). Sinh viên không sử dụng dược tiếng Anh sau khi tốt nghiệp [Students are not able to use English upon graduation]. The Tuoi Tre [The Tuoitrenews]. Retrieved from http://www.baomoi.com/Home/GiaoDuc/www.thanhnien.com.vn/SV-khong-su-dung-duoc-tieng-Anh-sau-khi-tot-nghiep/2240428.epi

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wright, S. (2002). Language education and foreign relations in Vietnam. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 225-244). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Wu, K. (1995). Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. RELC Journal, 24(2), 49-68.

Zheng, L. (2009). Living in two worlds: Code-switching amongst bilingual Chinese-Australian children. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 1-18.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15


26

APPENDIX Data of Code-switches, English-Vietnamese Translation UEH Session 1 (Legend: Ex = Extract)

Ex Tape script Types of code-switching

Function CS level

1 T: “Vi ba là cái gì?” anyone? (Q28) (What is “vi ba”, anyone?)

Intra-sentential To facilitate vocabulary acquisition

Lexical

2 T: Is this a place [a market] where you can buy and sell a product, a microwave oven? (Q77) Phải không các em? (Yes, all of you?)

Inter-sentential To check L2 comprehension

Lexical

Từ “target market” là gì? (Q78) (What is “target market”?)

Inter-sentential To facilitate vocabulary acquisition

Lexical

3 T: Can you find “useful language” box on page 56? (Q84) Cả lớp...có tìm thấy cái phần đấy chưa? (Class...have you found that part?)

Inter-sentential code-switching

To aid L2 comprehension

N/A

UEH – Session 2 (No code-switching occurred; no Vietnamese was spoken.)UEH – Session 3 (Legend: Ex = exchange)

Extract Tape script Types of code-switching

Function CS level

1 T: How many syllables? (Q12) Cả lớp, có bao nhieu am tiết? (Q13) (Class, how many syllables?)

Translation – explaining a word

To aid in L2 comprehension

Lexical

2 T: Now look at the example, 1, 2, 3, 4 and say the word after me. All of you. “Thought.” Class: (silent) T: Cả lớp, lập lại theo cô. “Thought”. (Class, repeat after me.)

Translation To aid in L2 comprehension

N/A

3 T: What’s the reading about? (Q14) Bài này nói về cái gì các em? (What is this reading about?)


N/A

4 T: Cả lớp, just think. (Class, just think.)

Intra-sentential To aid in L2 comprehension

N/A

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

27


5 T: You know the word “order”? (Q26) Chúng ta học bài này rồi. (We have studied this lesson.)

Inter-sentential To add more information

Lexical

6 T: “Mail”. What is it? (Q28) Các em biết từ “email” rồi, đúng không? (You all know the word “email”, right?) Email là từ “e” cộng với từ “mail”, “electric mail”, “electric mail”, thư điện tử. (“Email” is made up of “e” and “mail”, “electric mail”, “electric mail”.)



Lexical

7 T: Do they make goods? (Q37) Họ có sản xuất, sản phẩm, họ có bán ra sản phẩm không? (Do they make goods, products?)


N/A

8 Are they manufacturing in a factory? Họ có phải là nhà sản xuất bán ra sản phẩm không các em? (Do they manufacture products?) Họ có bán ra sản phẩm không? (Do they sell products?)


N/A

9 T: Mail order business. Cô vừa nói xong “đơn đặt hàng” đấy. (I have just said, “order business.”)


Lexical

10 T: Do they sell goods? (Q45) Có không các em? (Yes?)


N/A

11 T: Do they have shops? (Q48) Nếu bán hàng, thì chúng ta phải có cửa hàng. (If selling goods, we have to have shops.)

Inter-sentential To add more information to aid L2 comprehension

N/A

12 T: First step. No. 1. Bước đầu tiên phải làm gì? (What do we do in the first step?) Reading instruction carefully. Read the questions. And...để làm gì? ( for what?) Read the instructions...đúng rồi. (right.) Bước Ba các em làm gì?...(What do you do in the third step?)

Translation – giving instruction

Inter-sentential

Inter-sentential

L1 use



To check L2 comprehension

N/A

Lexical

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15


28

Data of Code-switches, English-Vietnamese TranslationUEF – Session 1 (Legend: Ex = Exchange)

Extract Tape script Types of CS Function CS level1 T: Anyone can find the meaning of

“unity” is...(Q104)S: Đọc, thống nhất. (Reading, unity)T: Thống nhất, nhất quán, đúng rồi. (Unity, unity, right.)

Translation – explaining a concept


Lexical

2 T: What? Ideas fit together very well, very well. (Q131)Các câu phải nhất quán với nhau. Nó phải lien quan trực tiếp, nhất quán với nhau, mạch lạc, em thấy không? Em viết vắn ý phải mạch lạc, ý không rời rạc, liên hệ với nhau, người ta gọi là mạch lạc. (All the sentences must be unified. They must be directly relevant to each other, unified, coherent, you see? You have to write coherently; the ideas should not be irrelevant, must be connected, they call it coherence.)


Lexical

3 T: By using transition, đúng chưa? (right?)


Lexical

4 T: Đơn giản không các em? Đọc vô hiểu liền. Đọc không trôi chảy thì không hiểu được. Đól à do vấn đề techniques. (Simple, class? Easy to understand immediately when reading. When you read, you don’t understand, it means that it’s not coherent. That’s a matter of techniques.)

Use of L1 when giving explanation.

Intra-sentential

N/A


N/A

Lexical

5 T: Do you think that the paragraph was unified?Có nhất quán, ý nhất quán hết, đúng không các em? (Is there unity there, right?)

Translation – explaining a concept


N/A

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

29


6 T: Đâu có nhất quán đâu. (Not unified at all.) OK. Đâu có nhất quán đâu. OK, vậy thì nó ở chỗ nào? Which sentences? (OK. No unified. OK. So where is it unified? Which sentences?)

Use of L1 when giving instruction

Inter-sentential

N/A


N/A

N/A

UEF – Sessions 2 & 3 (No CS or Vietnamese used)

Transcription ConventionsT: TeacherS: Student(.) For short pauses within one or two seconds(..) For long pauses more than two seconds? To signal rising or falling intonation in questions. To signal final falling intonation of an utterance( ) Translations from English to Vietnamese

NGUYEN Quang TienUniversity of Social Sciences and HumanitiesVietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh CityVIETNAM

E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TH

U T

RA

NG

NG

UY

EN

] at

03:

35 1

2 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

english-vietnamese code-switching in tertiary educational context in vietnam

Documents