DOI: 10.55804/jtsuSPEKALI-16-18

1) Literature Review

While the term ‘code-switching’ is widely used in the fields of sociolinguistics, linguistics, linguistic anthropology, sociocultural studies, and bilingual education, there is no singular understanding of the concept. While some scholars discuss code-switching from a sociolinguistic perspective (Wardaugh 1998), others emphasize the structural characteristics of using code-switching (Myers-Scotton 1993). Finally, another group of scholars (Arifin 2011) consider context to be the primary determinant of code-switching behaviour.

According to R. Wardaugh, “code-switching is a conversational strategy, which aims to establish, overcome, or invalidate group boundaries; to create, encourage or change human relations by protecting their rights and responsibilities; Metaphorical code-switching occurs when there is a change in the perception, purpose, and topic of the conversation" [Wardaugh, 1998:100]. C. Myers-Scotton, on the other hand, offers a more general definition: "the use of two linguistic varieties in one communication act" [Myers-Scotton, 1993:47]. Code-switching differs from several other terms that express the phenomenon of linguistic communication: calque, borrowings, pidgin,¹ creole, transfer, and interference. According to the same definition, not only the contextual factor determines the choice of code, but also such factors as social identity, education and the speaker’s language choice. Lastly, K. Arifin argues that "when switching codes, three contextual factors should be taken into account: 1. The relationship between speakers; 2. Environment and situation of conversation; 3. Topic of conversation" [Ariffin, 2011: 220].

Based on the above definitions, code-switching - a common feature of bilingual and multilingual societies – can be considered a natural phenomenon that facilitates both communication and learning [Eldridge, 1996]. A speaker may intentionally switch codes to establish, overcome, or negate group boundaries. Moreover, context is one of the main determinants of defining code-switching.

Scholars are further divided when it comes to the classification of different types of code switching. In the first group, Sh. Poplack [1980], C. Myers-Scotton [1993] and  P. Muysken [2005], propose different structural or linguistic typologies of code-switching.The second group of scholars employs a more sociolinguistic classification, which will be discussed later in the article.

In the process of studying the speech of a Norwegian village, Hamnesberget, J. P. Bloom and J. J. Gumpertz [Bloom... 1972] distinguished between situational and metaphorical code-switching behaviours. Situational code-switching concerns the change of interests and duties of the conversation participants [Bloom... 1972: 87], For instance, when a Georgian lecturer gives a lecture (formal setting) in English and switches into Georgian to encourage discussion among students. For the lecturer and the students, this switch, depending on their interests, indicates a switch from a formal lecture situation to an informal discussion. It is also important to mention that the situational code-switching may not be caused by a change in the content of the conversation. Instead, the code-switching itself may lead to this change.

J. J. Gumperz also singles out the term metaphorical code-switching, which indicates a change in the relationship between the speakers and not in the situation [Gumperz, 1982: 61]. For example, a student talks to the lecturer in a formal tone, but when it comes to personal problems, he or she may switch into Georgian in order to establish a more familiar and close relationship. Metaphorical code-switching for J. J. Gumpertz is also called conversational code-switching.

Code-switching in the foreign language teaching classroom has been studied in many ways from both sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics, as well as from the methodological perspective of teaching foreign language.

Code-switching can help to create both a conducive and comfortable environment in EFL teaching-learning process. For example, as a result of a study on secondary school students involved in EFL teaching-learning process in Turkey, it was found that code-switching meets goals of general education [Eldridge, 1996: 303]. M. K. O. Braga's research, conducted in a general educational setting, was primarily focused on teachers’ attitudes toward code- switching. Examining humor in EFL beginner level, Braga’s study revealed that teachers employed code-switching whilst correcting their students as a way to address mistakes in a more humorous, and thus light-hearted, manner [Braga, 2000]. J. M. Bergslithner’s research further illustrated that students in the EFL teaching-learning process at the A2 (Pre-intermediate) level used code-switching to better communicate ideas when discussing grammatical forms and meanings [Bergsleithne, 2002].

While some researchers focus on the positive aspects of code-switching in the classroom, other scholars study the frequency and functions of using the target language. Through a study of foreign language teachers across six French universities, Guthrie [1984] found that five out of six teachers used the target language approximately 83-98% of their lecture time. G. Ferguson, on the other hand, studied the different functions of code-switching by French language teachers across five different classrooms in post-colonial Africa. Based on the analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies, three functions of code-switching were identified: 1. Translation - the teacher uses code-switching for students to better understand the content; 2. Metalinguistic use – switching from the foreign language to the native language to discuss the foreign language itself; 3. Communicative use - switching from foreign to native language for communicative purposes.

According to the results of G. Ferguson's research, the functions of the teacher's use of code-switching in the classroom are united under the category of micro-functions and are divided into three broad categories: the first category shows the function of code-switching for curriculum access, the second category refers to the management of the classroom/lesson process, and the third, taking the human factor into account, reflects the relationship between a student and a teacher.

The above three broad classifications are divided into subcategories:

1. Curriculum access (teaching lesson topic and language skills written in the curriculum)

• parallel translation (e.g., in native language).
• definition (e.g., of a word).
• explanation (e.g., lesson material: grammatical issues).
• clarifying an incomprehensible topic
• expressing cultural relevance.
• checking what students’ understanding.
• focusing students' attention on correct pronunciation in English.

2. Classroom management

• organizing classroom tasks for students (giving instructions).
• maintaining discipline and structure of an educational process.

3.Interpersonal relations

• strengthening interpersonal relationships between a teacher and a student (pair or group work with students).
• relieving anxiety among students.
• increasing the student's motivation and self-confidence in the process of learning English.
• encouraging (students).
• praising (students).
• giving feedback to students.
• increasing students’ engagement.

The above-given examples are grouped according to the following criteria: studies on code-switching behavior: at school - university; Effectiveness and/or frequency of using CS, teachers’ attitude and/or pupil/student’s attitude.

This paper is based on a modified version of G. Ferguson's [Ferguson, 2003] functional classification of code-switching behavior. In our questionnaire, several functions of Ferguson's classification (with school content) are used and adapted to university context. In addition, our study is also close to L. F. Guthrie’s work [Guthrie, 1984], although in our case the foreign language is English.

Research on code-switching behaviour in the process of teaching English as a foreign language in the Georgian educational context is rare and requires both sociolinguistic and structural perspectives. Studies on code-switching in Georgia usually focus on the example of Tsovatushuri and Georgian languages (Gigashvili, 2016) and there are very few studies comparing the usage of English and Georgian languages. This is the novelty of this paper. This research is focused on the frequency and functional characteristics of teachers switching from English into Georgian in the process of teaching English as a foreign language. Moreover, the results of this quantitative study are interesting and significant for those students who, in the future, plan to conduct linguistic or pedagogical research on code-switching behavior. Also, more broadly, this research will be useful for foreign language teachers and English language teaching trainers.

2) Empirical research

For the present study, quantitative research, a method taken from the field of sociolinguistics, was conducted using an online questionnaire (via Google Forms). With the help of university administrations and platforms (lms.tsu.ge; Argus.iliauni.edu.ge) the questionnaire was sent to almost every EFL lecturers and their students. Out of which 92 lecturers’ and 220 students’ responses were collected at different universities in Tbilisi.  Limitation of the research – due to restrictions caused by the corona virus, structural analysis, systematic attendance at lectures and observation could not be done. In addition, remote teaching is different from face-to-face teaching. It is related to completely different challenges and online classroom factors.

The questionnaire is a modified version of Ferguson's classification [Ferguson, 2003]. Three functional categories of the teacher's code-switching are distinguished in the classroom: the first category shows the function of the teacher's code-switching while working on the curriculum, the second category refers to the classroom management, and the third - the relationships between teacher and student(s).

General Characteristics of Lecturer Respondents

The age of the lecturers was divided across certain intervals. The percentage, according to their age groups, was distributed as follows: 26-30 – 35%, 31-35 – 12%, 36-40 – 12%, 41-45 – 20%, 46-50 – 5%, 51-55 – 3 %, 56-60 – 13%. 26-30 year-old lecturers were the largest number - 35%. According to the results, the age of the youngest interviewed lecturers was defined as 26-30.

As for the gender of the interviewed lecturers, the majority of them were female - 95%, only 5% were male lecturers participating in the study. The surveyed lecturers teach at the following universities: Ilia State University - 62%, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University - 27%, Black Sea International University - 3%, St. Andria Georgian University - 1%, Caucasus University - 3%, Georgian-American University - 3% and American College of the Middle East - 1%. As for the nationality of the respondents, most of them were Georgian (97%), 2% were Azerbaijani, 1% are Armenian.

Even though the majority of interviewees were Georgian, their conversational language with family members was different, for example: 87% of lecturers use only Georgian, 2% only Russian, 2% Georgian and Russian, 3% English and Georgian, Azerbaijani and Georgian. - 2%, only English - 1%, Georgian, English, Turkish and sometimes Russian - 1%, Georgian, Turkish, English, Russian - 1%, Georgian, rarely Russian or English - 1%. Based on the data, we can assume that 10% of the interviewed lecturers use two languages to communicate with their family members.

The teaching experience of EFL lecturers was determined in 5-year intervals: 10% of interviewed lecturers have 0-5 years of teaching experience, 6-10 - 36%, 11-20 - 29%, 21 and more - 25%. The educational level and profession of the lecturers participated in the study were distributed as follows: out of the total number of respondents, 60 (about 65%) indicated their educational level, of which 38 lecturers have a master's degree, 14 - a doctorate, 7 lecturers - a 5-year graduate, and 1 has a bachelor's degree. As for their profession, out of 92 respondents, 50 (54%) teachers indicated their profession: teacher education - 17 lecturers, education management - 2, English philology - 27, English language and literature specialist - 1, translator-interpreter - 2, international law – 1.

Based on the research, we identified the 3 most common levels of English language teaching, namely: Intermediate B1 (43%); Upper-Intermediate B2 (32%); Pre-Intermediate A2 (16%). Also, a small number of respondents indicated Elementary A1 (4%) and Advanced C1 (5%).

Most of the interviewed lecturers of different universities located in Tbilisi have the appropriate competence and level of education to teach the general module of English language. The age group of the majority (35%) of lecturers with 6-10 years of teaching experience was defined as 26-30.

General Characteristics of Student Respondents

As for the students, their age was also divided into certain intervals. The percentage according to their age groups was distributed as follows: 18-20 - 71%, 21-25 - 26%, 26-30 - 3%. The largest number - 71% - were students aged 18-20. As for the gender of the interviewed students, the majority of them are female - 74%, only 26% are male students participating in the research. The surveyed students study at the following universities: Ilia State University - 72%, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University - 28%, Black Sea International University - 1%. As for the nationality of the respondents, most of them are Georgian - 91%, Azerbaijani - 4%, Armenian - 3%, Yezidi - 1%, Ukrainian - 0.5%, half-Georgian, half-Romanian - 0.5%.

Despite the fact that the majority of the interviewees are Georgian, the language they speak with their family members is different, for example: 92% of students use only Georgian, 3% only Azerbaijani, only 3% Russian, only 2% Armenian. Based on the data, we can assume that only 1% of the surveyed students use two languages to communicate with their family members, although it is probable that 9% of students have to use two languages for learning and communication purposes in the university space.

Students of the general English language course, who study English as a foreign language for 0-5 years, are 18%, 6-10 years - 32%; 11-20 - 45%; 21 and over – 6%. The majority of surveyed students (97%) are undergraduate students, only 3% are master's students. Based on the research, we identified 3 levels of English language courses that the students passed, namely: Intermediate B1 (52%); Pre-Intermediate A2 (24%); Upper-Intermediate B2 (16%); Also, a small number of respondents indicated Elementary A1 (6%) and Advanced C1 (2%).

The majority of surveyed students of different universities located in Tbilisi have the necessary competence in the English language to establish daily communication, their level was determined in the B2-B1 interval. The majority of respondents are undergraduate students.

2.1 Results and Discussions

The results of the quantitative research will be discussed in two ways, based on the comparison of the lecturers’ and their students’ responses.

Table 1 

According to the first question of the above table, through the theory of statistical inferences, using the square criterion of the homogeneity hypothesis, we found that the responses (in percentages) of the interviewed lecturers (L.) and students (S.) are statistically homogeneous (2.65 coefficient), and the answers to the second question are heterogeneous. Therefore, it can be said that approximately 50-60% of the lecturers also use the Georgian language when teaching the general English course (15.45 coefficient).

The following two tables represent the functions of code-switching in the Georgian educational discourse. The responses of the following two questions were collected using a Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree), which, in addition to the homogeneity of responses, also allowed us to determine the lecturers' (lecturers' and students') attitudes toward code-switching. In terms of the reliability of the answers, both sides (lecturers and students) filled out the questionnaire with the same questions.

Table 2

Table 2 aims to compare the arithmetic mean of lecturers' and students' responses to determine the respondents' attitudes. For example, lecturers' code-switching "when reviewing previous lecture material" -  the arithmetic mean of lecturers’ answers on this function is 1.5, and students’ - 2.1. The Likert scale is presented in the database as: 1- completely disagree, 2 - disagree, 3 - agree, 4 - completely agree. Therefore, students agree more (average - 2.1) that the EFL lecturer switches into Georgian language when reviewing the previous lecture material, than the lecturers themselves, since their average is 1.5. The average of lecturers' and students' responses to the following function - switching into Georgian by lecturers "to give a Georgian definition of a word" - is relatively positive (average - 2.80), while lecturers (average - 2.25) - negative.

The purpose of Table 3 is to determine the homogeneity of respondents' answers. If the significance is Sig < 0.05, then the difference between the estimates is statistically reliable, that is, the estimates are heterogeneous and different from each other. Students of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University and Ilia State University evaluate all these parameters in the same way and no differences were found in their evaluations. Therefore, the answers of students from both universities, in terms of attitude, are homogenous. 

Table 3  

The homogeneity of the respondents' answers to the functions allows us to make a classification of lecturers' code-switching functions the Georgian educational discourse is characterized. According to the table, in the case of only one function when working on the lecture material, the evaluations are homogeneous, students and lecturers equally evaluate that the lecturer switches from English into Georgian language in order to express the relevance of the cultural difference.

Table 3  

The following tables refer to the functions during lecture time, the attitude of the interviewees towards them and the homogeneity of the answers. Table 4 establishes the level of dependence based on a comparison of the arithmetic mean of the participants' responses. As can be seen from the table, students' attitude towards lecturers’ code-switching behavior is more positive than the lecturers themselves.

For example, students’ most positive answer refers to the following function: "When asking for help." As for the lecturers, their attitude towards switching into Georgian is positive when "talking with students about a non-lecture topic". 

Table 4  

Thus, based on this table we can conclude that the lecturers have the most positive attitude towards switching into the Georgian language when talking to students on a non-lecture topic, and the most negative are the use of the Georgian language when praising students. The negative attitude of students and lecturers to praise students is homogenously shown in their answers. 

Table 5 

Table 5 shows the homogeneity of the answers of the respondents, therefore, the evaluations on the statement “when talking to students about a non-lecture topic” are homogeneous, that is, statistically the average evaluations written by lecturers and students do not differ from each other.

3. Conclusion

This research has shown that approximately 50-60% of lecturers also use the Georgian language when teaching general English courses. As for the functions of code-switching in the Georgian educational context, when working on lecture material and in the process of teaching, switching from English into Georgian is characterized by various functional, namely, communicative and cultural features.

The data shows that the majority of lecturers negatively evaluate lecturers using of L1 in the (1) process of working on the lecture material, for example, when reviewing the previous lecture material; and (2) in the process of conducting lectures, for example, when praising students. Most of the students positively evaluate the lecturers’ code-switching behavior when (1) reviewing the previous lecture material, in the process of explaining the lecture material and (2) while reviewing a previously explained material.

In conclusion, it can be said that according to the research conducted in the Georgian academic context, code-switching is a common characteristic of the process of teaching English as a foreign language. According to the results of the research, we were able to classify the functions of code-switching or code-mixing in the Georgian educational discourse.The functions mainly serve the purpose of presenting communicative and intercultural difference. Moreover, the research also examines the differences in attitudes torwards code-switching between lecturers and students. While students evaluate all types of code-switching positively, lecturers, on average, looked less favorably on the practice of code-switching. Most student respondents surveyed have studied at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University and Ilia State University. We can undoubtedly say that Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University and Ilia State University students evaluate all these parameters in the same way and no differences were found in their evaluations. Therefore, in terms of attitude, their responses are homogeneous.

If students, consider code-switching as a positive thing but lecturers see it as a negative thing it shows that lecturers believe in a conventional view (using only one language) of teaching a language. Surprisingly, although lecturers have a negative attitude towards using Georgian, 50-60% of participants use Georgian.

Interestingly, majority of the students surveyed had B1-B2 level of English language course completed, however considered lecturer’s use of L1 favorable.

Research recommendation - The obtained results highlight the need for systematic observation of EFL lecturers, which is the subject of further qualitative research.

[1]Pidgin – a hybrid language consisting elements of two or more different languages, which is used for communication between speakers of different languages, although it is not the native language of any language group.