PREFERENCE ORGANISATION IN LEARNERS

Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Volume 1, 2004

PREFERENCE ORGANISATION IN LEARNERS’ LANGUAGE CHOICE FOLLOWING TEACHER-INITIATED AND TEACHER-INDUCED CODE-SWITCHING IN TURKISH EFL CLASSROOMS

EDA ÜSTÜNEL

Abstract

The study depicts the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical focus and learners’ language choice in the language teaching/learning environment of English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) at a Turkish university in İzmir. I present the organisation of code-switching (the use of more than one linguistic variety in the same conversation) which is teacher-initiated and ‘teacher-induced’ (when the teacher asks for the Turkish equivalent of an English word). Using the sequential analysis of conversation analysis (CA), two systematic preference organisation patterns are obtained from the data. First, teachers code-switch to Turkish (L1) to repair trouble when there is a delay in the learner’s reply of more than one second. Second, learners respond in English (L2) when they are in alignment with the teacher’s pedagogical focus. If learners do not align with it or invoke trouble or want to change alignment, they use Turkish. However, teacher-induced CS sequences are different from teacher-initiated CS sequences in terms of learners’ preferred language choice (i.e., Turkish).

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the language choice of learners following teachers’ code-switching (CS, hereafter) between Turkish and English in EFL classrooms at a Turkish university in İzmir. By applying a conversation analytic approach, this paper on teacher-initiated and teacher-induced CS illustrates how EFL classroom interaction can illuminate a particular interactional phenomenon and show its systematic properties.

Although few CS studies have been carried out in EFL classroom settings, the number of such researches is even fewer when the CS is between English and Turkish. In the literature, I have located one study focusing on English to Turkish CS in an EFL classroom at a Turkish high school. Eldridge (1996) researches teachers’ attitudes on CS in the classroom and provides implications for teacher training. However, in this research, the participants were university level students and the focus was on teacher-learner interaction in EFL classrooms.

I expect that recording EFL classroom interactions will yield a contextualised perspective on the phenomenon of CS, its forms, and roles in the organisation of language use in Turkish EFL classrooms. More specifically, the paper is designed to describe, on the one hand, how teachers use CS within EFL lessons; on the other hand, the paper also examines the learners’ responses to their teachers’ use of CS and what role it plays in their use of the target language. Understanding these processes will benefit teachers, curriculum developers, researchers, and learners of English.

The definition of code-switching

CS is defined in sociolinguistic (Blom & Gumperz 1972) or pedagogical (Martin-Jones 1995) perspectives, and as ordinary (Wei 2002) or classroom (Martin 1999) talk. My research is related to the pedagogical perspective of CS in classroom talk. In this paper, I adopt Valdes-Fallis’ definition of CS: “the alternating use of two languages at the word, phrase, clause, or sentence level” (1981, p.95). In the data, I notice two types of CS: teacher-initiated and teacher-induced. I define ‘teacher-initiated CS’ in this study as a type of CS in which the teacher switches to Turkish or English according to the pedagogical focus. In this study, I define the pedagogical focus as the function of language choice in the language classroom (e.g., to give L1 equivalent, to ask for L2 translation). The learner then follows the code-switched turn in Turkish or English to show his alignment or misalignment with the teacher’s pedagogical focus. On the other hand, ‘teacher-induced CS’ is defined in this study as a type of CS in which the teacher encourages learners to take a turn in Turkish, while using English (e.g., asking in English for the Turkish equivalent of an English word).

Bilingualism

The definition of bilingualism and the scope of bilingual studies of CS range from free conversation (e.g., Auer 1998) to institutional talk (e.g., Valdés-Fallis 1978). The institutional talk differs from free conversation in the sense that there is an “asymmetrical power relationship” (Markee 2000) in the institutional talk (e.g., teacher-learner, doctor-patient). In this study I regard both teachers and learners as bilingual speakers in accordance with Valdés-Fallis’ (1978, pp.3-4) definition of a bilingual (i.e., “a general term that includes varying degrees of proficiency in two languages”) and Johnson’s (1995) concept of individual bilingualism (i.e., “being even minimally competent in more than one language (quoted in Dehrab 2002, p.95)”). I also regard the participants (teachers and learners) as bilinguals in the sense that they have the ability to code-switch between Turkish and English in EFL classrooms.

Code-switching studies in second language classrooms

CS studies in L2 classrooms have expanded in the following three veins. There are several studies carried out in each category, but due to space, I introduce only one important study for each category.

1. Encourage first language use

In his study, Turnbull (2001) proposes that using the L1 in L2 classrooms is a very useful teaching and learning strategy; therefore, CS should be deliberate in L2 classrooms.

2. Avoid first language use

On the other hand, Polio and Duff (1994) argue that using the L2 as much as possible is important; thus, the use of L1 is a waste of precious opportunities to practice the L2.

3. Concurrent first and second language use

Cook (2001) suggests that CS is a natural phenomenon and the concurrent use of L1 and L2 is inevitable in L2 classrooms.

Although there are many studies that suggest either avoiding or encouraging L1 use in L2 classrooms, this study does not aim to prescribe an ‘ideal’ foreign language environment. The purpose here is to describe the sequential environment where teachers and learners integrate CS into their interactional and pedagogical work in complex and constantly evolving ways. Thus, in this study, CS is understood from an emic perspective in which “the viewpoint results from studying behaviour as from inside the system” (Pike 1967, p.37); discussions which prescribe language use inevitably involve an etic perspective in which “the viewpoint studies behaviour as from outside of a particular system” (Pike ibid.). In Markee’s term, ‘using a CA-for-SLA perspective’ (2000, pp.44-45) helps me to develop an emic perspective on how the participants display to each other their understanding of the context.

Scaffolding

Bruner (1985, pp.24-25) defines scaffolding as “the help a teacher gives to aid the learner to internalize external knowledge and convert it into a tool of conscious control”. For this study, CS may provide access to English language learning/teaching (see Ferguson, 2003 for relevant discussion). I interpret the teacher’s pedagogical focus in their code-switched turns (e.g., dealing with lack of response in L2, providing a prompt for L2 use, etc.) as a scaffolding technique (see Martin 1999 for similar conclusions). This suggests one possible way of promoting a convergence between CA and sociocultural theory (of which the notion of scaffolding is based on). In other words, the view that phenomena such as scaffolding and CS should be interpreted within their social context (L2 classrooms) and in relation to the institutional aim (the teacher teaches L2), fits within the theoretical background of sociocultural theory.

Data collection

The data for this study were collected by means of classroom observation. This consisted of audio and video-taping lessons from six beginner level English classrooms. Transcripts of the lessons were examined according to the CA method of sequential analysis (Seedhouse 2004).

Conversation analysis methodology

The research methodology I used in this paper is CA. Markee (2000, p.40) defines the four aims of CA methodology as follows:

1. “Conversation has structure.”

CA reveals how participants orient to the underlying preferential structure of conversation. Conversation analysts seek to demonstrate that conversation could not

be conversation if such universal interactional resources for making meaning as turn-taking or repair did not exist.

2. “Conversation is its own autonomous context.”

In order to demonstrate the existence of such universal interactional resources (e.g., turn-taking, repair, adjacency pairs, preference organisation), conversation analysts use prototypical examples which give discursive form to the phenomenon being analyzed. For instance, reading a turn as an invitation is cotextually warranted by an invitation-relevant presequence, i.e. presence of an invitee and a following acceptance or rejection sequence.

3. “There is no priory justification.”

Conversation analysts do not approach data with a priori hypothesis in mind. They believe that if no detail of conversation is disorderly, accidental, or irrelevant, then clearly, extremely fine-grained transcriptions will be required to capture the complexity of talk-in-interaction.

4. “The study of conversation requires naturally occurring data.”

Conversation analysts analyse naturally occurring data; thus, they do not use laboratory settings to collect data. Thus, a preference for naturally occurring data requires researchers to be extremely sensitive to the social context of data collection.”

The organisation of second language classroom interaction

Seedhouse (2004, p.228) lists the three interactional properties, which constitute part of the unique ‘fingerprint’ of L2 classroom interaction, as follows:

1. “Language is both the vehicle and object of instruction (Long 1983, p.9).”

This property (in Seedhouse’s term) “springs rationally and inevitably from the core goal”. The core goal dictates that the L2 is the object, goal, and focus of instruction. Therefore, language has a unique dual role in the L2 classroom in that it is both the vehicle and object, both the process and product of the instruction. On the other hand, in other forms of classroom education (e.g., history, engineering, etc.), language is only the vehicle of the teaching.

2. “There is a reflexive relationship between pedagogy and interaction, and interactants constantly display their analyses of the evolving relationship between pedagogy and interaction.”

Seedhouse (2004, p.229) explains the reflexive relationship between pedagogy and interaction as “the L2 classroom has its own interactional organisation which transforms the pedagogical focus (task-as-work plan) into interaction (task-in-process)”. So, “whoever is taking part in L2 classroom interaction and whatever the particular activity during which the interactants are speaking the L2, they are always displaying to one another their analyses of the current state of the evolving relationship between pedagogy and interaction, and acting on the basis of these analyses” (ibid.). In this study, this property is illustrated through the analysis of preference organisation of learners’ language choices after teacher-initiated and teacher-induced CS.

3. “The linguistic forms and patterns of interaction, which the learners produce in the L2, are potentially subject to evaluation by the teacher in some way.

In relation to this property, van Lier (1988, p.32) notes that “everyone involved in language teaching and learning will readily agree that evaluation and feedback are central to the process and progress of language learning.” However, Seedhouse (2004, p.230) highlights the fact that “this property does not (original in italics) imply that all learner utterances in the L2 are followed by a direct and overt verbalised evaluation by the teacher ... It means that all learner utterances are potentially (original in italics) subject to evaluation by the teacher”. Although an examination of the evaluation process is not within the scope of this study, in order to relate this property to my research setting, I suggest that it is possible for any of the recorded L2 teachers to avoid any explicit evaluation during observed conversation lessons altogether, and then give learners an end-of-year grade or report for their oral performance.

This study follows Seedhouse’s view that “these three properties are universal, i.e., they apply to all L2 classroom interaction” and “form the foundation of the rational architecture and of the unique institutional 'fingerprint' of the L2 classroom” (p.232). In this study, I find that learners strategically use CS to display alignment or misalignment with the teacher’s pedagogical focus. This is an important finding because it provides a way of linking the organisation of L2 classroom interaction to institutional goals.

Preference organisation in second language classrooms

The definition of ‘preference organisation’, in CA terms, is “the format for agreements, which is labelled as the ‘preferred’ action turn shape and the disagreement format is called the ‘dispreferred’ action turn shape” (Pomerantz 1984, p.64). The rationale behind ‘preference organisation’ is that there are differences in the design of adjacency pairs (e.g., offers, which can be accepted or refused; assessments, which can be agreed with or disagreed with; and requests, which can be granted or denied) between their positive and negative alternatives. In this article, I shall define and exemplify how preference organisation, which is closely related to adjacency pair sequences, is organised in the observed EFL classrooms. In the L2 classroom context, the preference organisation of repair is linked to teachers’ pedagogical focus; i.e., preferred learner responses orient to the pedagogical focus (Seedhouse 2004). In this study, I define repair in relation CS preference; that is, when the teacher does not receive an answer to his/her L2 question, s/he repeats his/her question in L1. There is a reflexive relationship between the pedagogical focus (in code-switched turns) and the organisation of repair; as the pedagogical focus varies, so does the organisation of repair. In other words, the preference organisation shows that preferred response is affiliative, while dispreferred response is disaffilative (ibid.).

In the data, I notice two recurring patterns of preference organisation in learners’ language choice after the teacher-initiated and teacher-induced CS. First, teachers code-switch to Turkish to repair trouble when there is a delay in the learner’s reply of more than one second. Second, learners respond in English when they are in alignment with the teacher’s pedagogical focus. If learners do not align with it or invoke trouble or want to change alignment, they use Turkish. However, teacher-induced CS sequences are different from teacher-initiated CS sequences in terms of learners’ preferred language choice (i.e., Turkish). I will discuss these in the following section with sample extracts.

Data analysis

The following two extracts are taken from the same EFL classroom at the Modern Languages Department. There are eleven learners in the classroom. The lesson is a teacher-directed whole-class discussion about New Year celebrations in Turkey.

Extract 1

→T:

okay .hh what is er (0.5) the best (0.5) New Year Evening for you?

(0.5)

what would be the best New Year for you?

(1.5)

en iyi yılbaşı ne olurdu sizin için?

[tr: what would be the best New Year’s Day for you?]

(2.5)

L1:

er (0.5) birthday

no no New Year

(1.0)

what would be the best New Year?

(0.5)

do you need the money to spend for the perfect New Year?

The teacher poses a question in line 1. After waiting for a second, he rewords his question in line 3. The teacher still gets no response during the one and a half second pause which follows (line 4), so he code-switches the question into Turkish in line 5. After a two and half a second pause, Learner 1 replies in line 7. The teacher repairs the learner’s reply in line 8. The teacher waits one second for Learner 1 to self-repair her reply. After the absence of such a repair turn, the teacher repeats the question that he has asked (line 3) in line 10. After a pause of less than a second, the teacher forms another question in line 12. In this extract, the length of delay after the teacher’s question turn determined the subsequent language choice of the teacher (i.e., the learner’s delay in replying suggests to the teacher which language s/he should use next). Extract 2 further exemplifies the systematic use of preference organisation pattern discussed in this section. In extract 3, however, the teacher code-switches to Turkish without any length of pauses. I analyse the extract to make this point clear.

Extract 2

→T:

ONE NIGHT

(1.0)

you are a student, you have to count how much money

(1.0)

o kadar paran var mı?

[tr: have you got that amount of money?]

(1.0)

L9:

fifty dollars.

Extract 3

1 2	T:	so so okay did anyone (.) for example do anything exciting? (1.5)
3	L5:	exciting?
4	T:	dangerous?
5	L6:	no no
6	T:	wild?
7	L5:	no
8 9 10	→T:	kimse bişey yapmadı mı? [tr: has anybody done something?] heyecan verici? [tr: exciting?] =korkutan? [tr: scary?]
11	L6:	=/ /yo:: [tr: no]
12	L7:	I was in-
13 14	L5:	I was (1.0)

In line 1, the teacher asks a question. After the one and a half second pause, Learner 5 replies to his question with another question. In lines 4 and 6, the teacher continues to ask questions related to his first question (line 1). Learners 6 and 5 reply to the teacher’s questions in lines 5 and 7. In line 8, the teacher code-switches to translate his initial question (line 1). The pedagogical function of this CS may be to engage the learners to use more than the negative replies provided (lines 5 and 7). The reason for this CS to L1 may also be to make sure that the learners understand the question and to encourage them to give more elaborate answers. Learners 7 and 5 align themselves with this pedagogical function of CS (i.e., to prompt L2 use) with more elaborate L2 replies in lines 12-13. However, Learner 6 uses Turkish in his reply turn and provides a negative answer which is not in alignment with the pedagogical focus. The following extract further exemplifies the systematic use of preference organisation pattern discussed in this section.

Extract 4

1 2 3 4 5 6	L8:	er (0.5) we visit er (1.0) in er (0.5) every er (0.5) sorry, sorry various =places
7	→T:	=/ /ºneresi mesela?º* [tr: such as?]
8	L8:	such as Çocuk Esirgeme Kurumu [tr: orphanage]
9	→T:	okay

To sum up, there are two systematic preference organisation patterns which emerge from the data. First, the teacher waits for more than a second to switch to Turkish, but s/he waits for less than a second to repeat or repair the question in English. Second, learners respond in L2 when they are in alignment with the teacher’s pedagogical focus in the code-switched utterance. If learners are not aligned with it, or if they give rise to trouble or want to change alignment, they use L1.

Conclusion

This study concludes that teachers strategically use CS as a scaffolding technique when learners show alignment with the teacher’s pedagogical focus (e.g., dealing with procedural trouble, dealing with classroom discipline, expressing social identity, giving L1 equivalents, translating into L1, dealing with lack of responses in the L2, providing a prompt for L2 use, eliciting L1 translations, giving feedback, checking comprehension in the L2, providing meta-language information, and giving encouragement to participate) at that point in the interaction.

It is found that there are two recurring patterns of preference organization in the data. The first one is the organization of CS according to the length of pause in teachers’ question turns. The preferred option in such patterns is that teachers repeat their L2 questions in English during less than one second pauses. If they receive no response from learners during more than one second pauses (the dispreferred option), teachers code-switch to Turkish to repair their L2 questions.

The second recurring pattern of preference organization is the organization of learners’ language choice after the teacher-initiated and teacher-induced CS turns. The preferred option after the teacher-initiated CS turns is that learners follow in L2 which shows their alignment with the teacher’s pedagogical focus. By responding to the teacher’s code-switch in L2, learners are not just expressing alignment with the teacher’s pedagogical focus, but also with the institutional aim; i.e., for learners to learn the L2. On the other hand, using the L1 (the dispreferred option) after the teacher-initiated CS shows their misalignment with it. Learners use the L1 after the teacher-initiated CS to raise trouble or change something. However, after teacher-induced CS turns, learners’ L1 responses (the preferred option) align with the teacher’s pedagogical focus. On the other hand, responding in the L2 (the dispreferred) shows learners’ misalignment with the teacher’s pedagogical focus (i.e., asking for the Turkish equivalent of an English word). Thus, these findings, which can only be uncovered by using CA methodology, fit neatly within the organisation of L2 classroom interaction.

About the author

Eda Üstünel has a BA from Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey (1996-2000); a MA in Languages Studies from Lancaster University, UK (2000-2001); and a PhD in Education from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (2001-2004). She is now a full-time lecturer at the Department of Teacher of English Training, Education Faculty, at Muğla University in Turkey.

eda_ustunel@hotmail.com

References

AUER, P., 1998. Code-switching in conversation. London: Routledge.

BLOM, J. AND GUMPERZ, J., 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway. In: J. GUMPERZ AND D. HYMES, ed. Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Rinehart and Winston.

BRUNER, J.S., 1985. Vygotsky: a historical and conceptual perspective. In: J.V.

WERTSCHER, ed. Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

COOK, V., 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian modern language journal review, 57 (3).

DEHRAB, B. A., 2002. A study of code-switching in four English for specific purposes (ESP) classrooms at the college of business studies in Kuwait. Thesis (PhD). Ohio State University.

ELDRIDGE, J., 1996. Code-switching in a Turkish secondary school. ELT journal, 50 (4), 303-311.

FERGUSON, G., 2003. Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts: Functions, attitudes and policies. AILA review, 16, 38-51.

JOHNSON, M. J., 1995. Discourse markers in Tejano speaking: code-switching as a resource in Spanish-English conversation. University of Texas, Austin: University of Texas.

MARKEE, N., 2000. Conversation analysis. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

MARTIN, P., 1999. Bilingual unpacking of monolingual texts in two primary classroom in Brunei Darussalam. Language and education, 13 (1), 38-58.

MARTIN-JONES, M., 1995. Code-switching in the classrooms: Two decades of research. In: L. MILROY AND P. MUYSKEN, ed. One speaker two languages: cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PIKE, K., 1967. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behaviour. Mouton.

POLIO, C. P. AND DUFF, P. A., 1994. Teacher’s language use in university foreign language classrooms: a qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. Modern language journal, 78, 311-326.

POMERANTZ, A., 1984. Pursuing a response. In: J. M. ATKINSON AND J. HERITAGE, ed. Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SEEDHOUSE, P., 2004. The interactional architecture of the language classroom: a conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

TURNBULL, M., 2001. There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but…. Canadian modern language review, 57, 531-540.

VALDES-FALLIS, G., 1978. Code-switching and the classroom teacher. Language in Education: Theory and Practice, Arlington: Centre for Applied Linguistics, 4, 22-26.

VALDES-FALLIS, G., 1981. Code-switching as deliberate verbal strategy: a microanalysis of direct and indirect requests among bilingual Chicano speakers. In: R. P. DURAN, ed. Latino language and communicative behavior. Norwood: Ablex.

VAN LIER, L., 1988. The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.

WEI, L., 2002. ‘What do you want me to say?' On the conversation analysis approach to bilingual interaction. Language in society, 31, 159-180.

Appendix: Transcription Conventions

The transcription symbols used here are common to conversation analytic research, and were a slightly adapted version of Jefferson’s (JEFFERSON, G., 1984. On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In: D. ATKINSON AND J. HERITAGE, ed. Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.).

T	Teacher
L1	Identified learner
//	the point at which a current speaker's utterance is overlapped by the talk of another, which appears on the next line attributed to another speaker.
→	Arrows in the left margin pick out features of especial interest (teacher-initiated code-switching)
=	the second speaker followed the first speaker with no discernable silence between them, or was "latched" to it.
(0.5)	Numbers in parentheses indicate silence, represented in tenths of a second. Silences may be marked either within an utterance or between utterances.
(.)	A dot in parentheses indicates a "micropause," a silence hearable but not readily measurable; ordinarily less than 2/10 of a second.
?	A question mark indicates rising intonation, not necessarily a question
::	Colons are used to indicate the stretching of the sound just preceding them. The more colons, the longer the stretching.
-	A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption
word	Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis, either by increased loudness or higher pitch.
.hh	Speaker in-breath
*evet* [tr: yes]	Turkish words are italicized, and are immediately followed by an English translation.
go to Beymen	Capitals are used only for proper nouns, not to indicate beginnings of sentences.
ºschoolº	the talk between the two degree signs is markedly softer than the talk around it.