Theoretical Background

This paper theorizes that code switching is reflective in the critiques of Dewaele/ Housen/ Wei,
Gumperz/ Romaine/ Sridhar, Julianne E. Hammink, Mattson/ Burenhult and Eldridge.

Everything we do never fails to give us the positive and negative effects, code- switching
for example. Code- switching gives out its positive and negative effects. It affects us positively
in the sense that code- switching in an English class makes comprehension easier and faster. It
also affects us negatively in the sense that frequent use of code- switching limits our knowledge
on our first language thus reducing our interactional skills. But then many concluded that code-
switching affects them more negatively.

“It is believed that code- switching negatively affects language learning and academic
Achievements (Dewaele, Housen, & Wei, 2003)”

People differ in many ways so as our perception on things, code- switching in particular.
Just like the effects we have mentioned earlier, we could also have negative and positive
perceptions towards the use of code- switching. Some say that code- switching is helpful in the
second language acquisition while some also say that code- switching is the strategy of lower-
level learners.

“Code- switching is helpful for L2 acquisition (Gumperz, 1982; Romaine, 1995; Sridhar, 1996)”
“Julianne E. Hammink, It is often considered a low prestige form, incorrect, poor language, or a
result of incomplete mastery of the two languages.”

Code- switching just like other machines has its certain functions, to teachers as well as
to learners. We might have seen code- switching negatively but still we could not deny the fact
that it could also be beneficial to us. To teachers, it functions as topic switch; a teacher can
exploit students’ previous L1 learning experience to increase their understanding of L2.
Affective function; code switching is used by the teacher in order to build solidarity and intimate
relations with the students. And repetitive functions; the teacher uses code switching in order to
transfer the necessary knowledge for the students for clarity. To students, for equivalence; the
student makes use of the native equivalent of a certain lexical item in target language and
therefore code switches to his/her native tongue. Floor- holding; during a conversation in the
target language, the students fill the stopgap with native language use. Reiteration; the message
in target language is repeated by the student in native tongue through which the learner tries to
give the meaning by making use of a repetition technique. Conflict- control; the student tends to
avoid a misunderstanding or tends to utter words indirectly for specific purposes, code switching
is a strategy to transfer the intended meaning.

“Code- switching functions to teachers as topic switch, affective functions, and repetitive
functions by Mattson and Burenhult (1999)”
“To students, it functions as equivalence, floor-holding, reiteration, and conflict control
(Eldridge 1996)”

Within the matrix of these theoretical and second language acquisition trends, this paper
is created.