Revisiting Code-Switching Practice in TESOL: a Critical Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Asia-Pacific Edu Res (2017) 26(6):407–415 DOI 10.1007/s40299-017-0359-9 REGULAR ARTICLE Revisiting Code-Switching Practice in TESOL: A Critical Perspective 1 2 Hao Wang • Behzad Mansouri Published online: 23 October 2017 Ó De La Salle University 2017 Abstract In academic circles, the English Only view and debate about code-switching, and provide some tangible Balanced view have established their grounds after vol- pedagogical implications in ELT classrooms. umes of work on the topic of code-switching in TESOL. With recent development in Critical Applied Linguistics, Keywords Code-switching Á Criticality Á Pedagogy Á poststructural theory, postmodern theory, and the emer- Identity Á Capital gence of multilingualism, scholars have begun to view ELT as a constantly shifting dynamic approach to questions of language in multiple contexts, rather than a method, a set Introduction of techniques, or a fixed body of knowledge (Lin in Appl Linguist Rev 4(1):195–218, 2013). Therefore, this paper With the rise of global travel, immigrants, economic, and represents a crucial step in addressing the paucity of military contact, multilingualism is a phenomenon that has research on the criticality and sociopolitical nature of code- been observed in many societies. In these societies, hun- switching in TESOL by drawing from the constructs of dreds of languages and varieties are used in daily com- identity (Peirce in TESOL Q 29(1):9–31, 1995), capital munications. This sign of multilingualism is however (Bourdieu in Soc Sci Inf 16(6):645–668, 1977), and critical viewed as a problem from nationalism and monolingualism pedagogy (Freire in Pedagogy of the oppressed, The perspectives because it is claimed to cause ‘‘civil unrest, Continuum Publishing, New York, 1970). The purpose of social segregation, family breakdown, educational failure this article is to draw connections between code-switching, and financial burden to the state’’ (Blackledge and Creese constructs of identity, and capital and reveal the power 2010, p. 5). Both nationalism and monolingualism are dynamics embedded in language learning process. We ideologies that use language as a tool of communication to suggest that language teachers be cognizant of the serve interest groups in our society. Bourdieu (1991) for sociopolitical aspect of code-switching and pay more example discussed how a standardized and monolingual attention to the multiple, fluid, and contradictory identities ideology marginalized other linguistic variants and speak- that are assigned, claimed, and negotiated by students in ers and bestowed power upon those who were able to speak classrooms. In this paper, we elaborate on studies that view the standard language. Thus, standard language ideology classroom codes-witching as social indexicality and iden- could be seen as the force of nation-state in support of tity construction, discuss the missing gap in the ongoing nationalism discourse. As a result, there is tension between multilingualism practice and the forces that discourage its development. Recently, influenced by poststructural, post- modern, and multilingual turn that foreground social & Hao Wang injustice, inequality, and oppression, and problematize the [email protected] orthodoxy in the way research and knowledge is concep- 1 School of Applied Foreign Languages, Zhejiang International tualized, scholars in Critical Applied Linguistics (CALx) Studies University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China have challenged a positivistic view of language as an 2 The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA enclosed system and embraced notions of heterogeneous 123 408 H. Wang, B. Mansouri language practice that recognizes the discourse of multi- ongoing debate about code-switching and provide some lingualism and the plurality of languages in everyday life. tangible pedagogical implications for TESOL profession. These scholarly contributions, fueled by the paradigmatic shifts, include alternative and more critical understanding English Only View of language practice as translanguaging (Lin 2013), heterography (Blommaert 2008), codemeshing (Canagara- As its name suggests, in an English Only perspective the jah 2006), metrolingualism (Otsuji and Pennycook 2010), medium of instruction in any TESOL contexts should be and multiliteracies (Cope and Kalantzis 2000). English language. Pedagogically and ideologically, one of In ELT classrooms, the phenomenon of using more than the main reasons of arguing for this view is the belief that one language has been documented in the ‘‘code-X’’ ter- exclusive use of the target language (TL) will significantly minology (Lin 2013) such as code-switching, code-mixing, increase learners’ TL exposure, thus developing compre- code-meshing, and code-alternation. Researchers in TESOL hensible input (Krashen 1985), which would then facilitate have pointed out the detriment of English only or maximal learners’ understanding of and production in TL. A similar English language use in language classrooms and illumi- view prevalent in the discussion of the English only nated the potential role of code-switching in learner identity movement is L2 maximum, which considers maximizing development, because both the students’ native languages L2 use to be effective in providing learning opportunities and English language are important for the maintenance of and experiences for learners (Kim and Elder 2005). This their memberships in different communities (Ellwood 2008; English Only view is reflective of a linguistic purism (Lin Liang 2006). While this body of work certainly touches on 2013) that could impact on learners’ linguistic practices the construct of identity in relation to learners’ second lan- and potentially be norm setting in TESOL. Take the guage acquisition in classrooms, there is a scarcity of the- communicative language teaching (CLT) method for oretical research that prominently features critical example, this is a center-based method as in Kachruvian engagement with code-switching practice in TESOL. sense that places salience mostly on L2 use in classrooms, Additionally, a recent survey of code-switching practice in which could potentially privilege language and culture TESOL suggests that researchers are still engaged in open produced by speakers from inner circle countries, debates regarding the extent and form of teacher-led code- marginalizing linguistic and cultural resources practiced by switching (Dailey-O’Cain and Liebscher 2015). Closer nonnative English speakers (Kumaravadivelu 2016). At the examination of the debates indicates that most discussions policy level, many Asian countries have adopted the frame language as skills instead of repertories and there is a rhetoric of CLT despite the fact that there is a gap between dearth of research that foregrounds code-switching practice this rhetoric and reality (Nunan 2003). In China for from a critical pedagogy informed perspective. A critical example, although no written guidelines regarding class- view of code-switching practice is needed because language room code-switching is materialized, teachers especially at use in classroom and beyond is identity positioning, ideo- tertiary level, are expected to adopt the maximum L2 logical, and invested in inequalities and injustices (Kubota approach in their teaching (Guo 2007). 2014). Such a perspective asks researchers to question and In its implementation, the coercive nature of an English challenge ‘‘naturalized and normalized assumptions and only view to ELT becomes more visible as it sets out to practices…….power and inequality……..[and] fixed regulate language use in classrooms and create a mono- knowledge’’ (Kubota and Miller 2017, p. 4). Thus, to enrich lingual language learning environment for students. To the ongoing dialogue about code-switching in TESOL pro- echo our introduction on criticality of code-switching, the fession and inform language teachers with theoretical languages that students are capable of articulating are not framework and principles in guiding their pedagogy, this bounded and fixed; instead, they are meshed together in article addresses the theoretical and pedagogical aspects of nonlinear fashion. If only English is allowed, then the code-switching using constructs of identity (Peirce 1995), students will have to peel off the multiple layers of lan- capital (Bourdieu 1977), and critical pedagogy (Freire guages together with the linguistic and sociocultural iden- 1970). For the purpose of discussion, we use code-switching tities that they possess and present themselves with the as an umbrella term in denoting the practice of channeling remaining English language layer. Interestingly though, between languages in classroom. We begin by briefly research has shown that teachers who believe in English reviewing the two stances towards code-switching practice: only or L2 maximum approach are engaging code- English only and Balanced view of English, being aware switching practice in classrooms, with the emotional dis- that as teaching practices they are not mutually exclusive to tress of guilt due to language policy police (Copland and each other. We then elaborate our critical theoretical Neokleous 2010). Similarly, language teachers who sup- framework and its relationship to code-switching practice in port a balanced view of language teaching are being rep- TESOL. In what follows, we discuss the missing gap in the rimanded for not using English only approach (Li 2017). 123 Revisiting Code-Switching Practice in TESOL: A Critical Perspective 409 Thus, there is a disparity