This article was downloaded by: [THU TRANG NGUYEN]

On: 12 January 2015, At: 03:35

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asian Englishes
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20

English-Vietnamese Code-Switching
in Tertiary Educational Context in
Vietnam
Nguyen Quang Tien

University of Social Sciences and Humanities Vietnam National

University, Ho Chi Minh City VIETNAM
Published online: 11 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Nguyen Quang Tien (2012) English-Vietnamese Code-Switching

in 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 to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and 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 Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial 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/termsand-conditions

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

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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 teachers
stimulated recalls, and the students written feedback. The study found that more codeswitching (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 teacherevaluation 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 Gorbachevs 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
4

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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 (DaileyOCain & 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 longterm 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 shortterm 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-OCain, 2009) and to get around communicative stumbling blocks (Ldi,
5

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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

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-OCain, 2009), and this concept is discussed in
Vygotskys (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-OCain, 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-OCain, 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 peoples talk rather than a sign of deficiency
in either one language or another (Lie, 2000, cited in Dailey-OCain & Liebscher,
2009). Thus, CS is related to inter-language, a system which has a structurally
6

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

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).

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

3.2. Types of CS
Different researchers use different terms for types of CS. McArthurs (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

Tag-switching
A Panjai/ English bilingual says:
Tags and certain set phrases in one language Its a nice day, hana?
are inserted into an utterance otherwise in
(hana = isnt it?)
another.

Intra-sentential switching
Switches occur within a clause or sentence
boundary.

A Yoruba/ English bilingual says:

Won o arrest a single person.
(=They did not)

Inter-sentential switching
A 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 Ill start a sentence in English
y termino en espanol.
(=and finish it in Spanish)

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 Bokmlone of the two standard dialects in Norwaybut switch to
7

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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

Ranamala local Norwegian dialectto 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 transactionsan 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 CSa 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 &
8

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

Dailey-OCain, 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).

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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,
9

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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

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 study480 45-minute periods in
four years3is 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 Vietnams 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).

10

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

Table 2: Curricula in UEH and UEF

CURRICULUM

UEH (public)

Foci in the curriculum Communicative approach

UEF (private)
Communicative approach

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

Number of periods for 180 periods for four semesters

480 periods
English over the whole (45 periods per 15-week semester) (60 periods per 15-week semester)
BA program
(3 periods per class per week)
(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 Registrars 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).

11

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

Table 3: Syllabi in UEH and UEF

SYLLABUS

UEH (public)

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

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

UEF (private)

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, UEHs tuition fee set by the government is
low for mass education while UEFs 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
180,000 VND
(equal to 2.5 USD)/ period (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.
12

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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

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, teachers 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 teachers
questions; they did not ask any questions, either), the present study investigated the
teachers 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 teachers 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 CSintra-sentential and inter-sententialwere 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 Martins (2006) conclusion that intersentential CS is dominant among three types of syntactic structures (Tag CS, intrasentential CS, and inter-sentential CS) by both the teachers and the students in two
universities in Manila, the Philippines, and with Auers (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.
13

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

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

Functions
Code-switching
Intra-sentential

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

Inter-sentential

UEH
Times

UEF
CS Level

Times CS Level

To facilitate vocabulary
acquisition

Lexical: 3

To aid in L2 comprehension

N/A: 1

Sub-total

To facilitate vocabulary
acquisition

Lexical: 1

To aid in L2 comprehension

N/A: 3

N/A: 1

To check L2
comprehension

Lexical: 2 N/A: 2

Lexical: 1

To add more information

Lexical: 2

Lexical: 1

Sub-total

Total

13

Lexical: 1

N/A: 1

E-V translation
(In the form of
To facilitate vocabulary
inter-sentential CS) acquisition
To aid in L2 comprehension

Total

Lexical: 1 N/A: 5

To Facilitate Vocabulary Acquisition (UEH Session 1)

T: Look at the picture. What is it? What is it?
S: vi ba
T: Vi ba l ci g, anyone? (What is vi ba, anyone?)
S: Microwave
T: 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 l ci g, 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 l ci g (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
14

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

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:

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

T: Anyone can find the meaning of unity is (..)

S: c, thng nht. (Reading, unity)
T: Thng nht, nht qun, ngri. (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, nht qun. This was the quickest way to help the students grasp the
concept immediately.
To Aid in L2 Comprehension (UEF Session 1)
T: n gin khng cc em? c v hiu lin. c khng tri chy th khng hiu
c. l vn 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
wordsc v hiu lin (Easy to understand immediately when reading), c
khng tri chy th khng hiu c (No smooth reading means no understanding)
in Vietnamese, and then she concluded with a sentence, l vn 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? C lp, c bao nhiu m tit? (..)
(Class, how many syllables?)
Two syllables.
Ss: (Silent)
15

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

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

In a pronunciation activity in UEH Session 3, the teachers English question,

How many syllables? was followed by another one in Vietnamese, C lp, c bao
nhiu m tit? (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? Cc em bit t email ri, ng khng?
(All of you know the word email, right?)
Email l t e cng vi t mail, electric mail, electric mail, th in t.
(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? Cc em bit t email ri, ng
khng? The first question (Mail, what is it?) was in English; the second one
(Cc em bit t email ri, ng khng?) was in Vietnamese to check whether
the class understood the meaning of email. The teacher used a decomposition
strategya 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. Cc cu phi nht qun vi nhau.
N phi lien quan trc tip, nht qun vi nhau, mch lc, em thy khng?
Em vit v n phi mch lc, khng ri rc, lien h vi nhau, ngi ta gi l
mch lc. (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.

16

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

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.

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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
teachers 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 teachers 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,
17

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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

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 teachers 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 vocabular y acquisition or
comprehension. In contrast, under no time pressure in implementing UEFs 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 useto help the students
understand the lessonscould 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 teachers 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 Niveras (2003, as cited in Martin, 2006) that students prefer codeswitching in their mathematics classes.

18

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

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

OS = Observation Session

UEH

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

No. of students who wanted the teacher to explain in

Vietnamese

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

*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 teachers 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.
19

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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

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 teachers 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 teachers CS in UEH was triple that in UEF.
In the literature, Hans (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. Hans conclusion is
applicable to Vietnams 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 todays
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
teachers performance was considered the same (i.e., teachers efforts to perform
20

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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

better in class were not acknowledged; one level of teaching remuneration was
applied no matter how good ones 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 meritbased 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
UEFs 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, UEHs classroom setting was quite
different from UEFs. 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 EnglishVietnamese translation). Thus, the teachers 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
21

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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

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 Nelsons (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-OCain
(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,
22

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

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.

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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-OCain, 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-OCain (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). V sao sinh vin ra trng khng ni dc ting Anh [Why
cant 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-duoctiengAnh.html
Duy, . T., & Phuong, Q. (2008, December 24). Ting Anh s l chun du ra cho sinh vin
[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
23

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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

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). o to ting Anh trong cc trng di hc [English learning and
teaching at tertiary institutions]. The Sai Gon Giai Phong Daily. Retrieved from http://teen.
tuoitre.vn/Index.aspx?ArticleID=86563&ChannelID=13
Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of code switching in the second language classroom: Exploring
optimal use. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-OCain (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
masters 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). Dy v hc ting Anh trong trng di hc: Sinh vin km ngoi ng,
24

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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

v 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-OCain, J. (2009). Concluding reflections: Moving forward. In M.
Turnbull & J. Dailey-OCain (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 vin khng s dng dc ting Anh sau khi tt nghip
[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.

25

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

APPENDIX Data of Code-switches, English-Vietnamese Translation

UEH Session 1 (Legend: Ex = Extract)
Ex

Tape script

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

1 T: Vi ba l ci g? anyone? (Q28)
(What is vi ba, anyone?)

Types of codeswitching
Intra-sentential

2 T: Is this a place [a market] where you Inter-sentential

can buy and sell a product, a microwave
oven? (Q77)
Phi khng cc em?
(Yes, all of you?)
T target market l g? (Q78)
(What is target market?)

Inter-sentential

3 T: Can you find useful language box Inter-sentential

on page 56? (Q84)
code-switching
C lp...c tm thy ci phn y cha?
(Class...have you found that part?)

Function

CS level

To facilitate
vocabulary
acquisition

Lexical

To check L2
comprehension

Lexical

To facilitate
vocabulary
acquisition

Lexical

To aid L2
comprehension

N/A

UEH Session 2 (No code-switching occurred; no Vietnamese was spoken.)

UEH Session 3 (Legend: Ex = exchange)
Extract

26

Tape script

Types of codeswitching

Function

CS level

Translation
To aid in L2
Lexical
explaining a word comprehension

T: How many syllables? (Q12)

C lp, c bao nhieu am tit? (Q13)
(Class, how many syllables?)

T: Now look at the example, 1, 2, 3, 4 Translation

and say the word after me. All of you.
Thought.
Class: (silent) T: C lp, lp li theo c.
Thought.
(Class, repeat after me.)

To aid in L2
N/A
comprehension

T: Whats the reading about? (Q14)

Bi ny ni v ci g cc em?
(What is this reading about?)

Translation

To aid in L2
N/A
comprehension

T: C lp, just think.

(Class, just think.)

Intra-sentential

To aid in L2
N/A
comprehension

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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

Inter-sentential

To add more
information

Lexical

T: You know the word order? (Q26)

Chng ta hc bi ny ri.
(We have studied this lesson.)

Inter-sentential
T: Mail. What is it? (Q28)
Cc em bit t email ri, ng
khng?
(You all know the word email, right?)
Email l t e cng vi t mail,
electric mail, electric mail, th in
t.
(Email is made up of e and mail,
electric mail, electric mail.)

Lexical
To check L2
comprehension

T: Do they make goods? (Q37)

Translation
H c sn xut, sn phm, h c bn ra
sn phm khng?
(Do they make goods, products?)

To aid in L2
N/A
comprehension

Are they manufacturing in a factory?

H c phi l nh sn xut bn ra sn
phm khng cc em?
(Do they manufacture products?)
H c bn ra sn phm khng?
(Do they sell products?)

Translation

To aid in L2
N/A
comprehension

T: Mail order business.

C va ni xong n t hng y.
(I have just said, order business.)

Inter-sentential

To add more
information

10

T: Do they sell goods? (Q45)

C khng cc em? (Yes?)

Inter-sentential

To check L2
N/A
comprehension

11

Inter-sentential
T: Do they have shops? (Q48)
Nu bn hng, th chng ta phi c ca
hng.
(If selling goods, we have to have
shops.)

N/A
To add more
information
to aid L2
comprehension

12

T: First step. No. 1. Bc u tin phi

lm g? (What do we do in the first
step?)
Reading instruction carefully. Read the
questions. And... lm g?
(for what?)
Read the instructions...ng ri.
(right.)
Bc Ba cc em lm g?...
(What do you do in the third step?)

To facilitate
vocabulary
acquisition

Lexical

Translation
To aid in L2
N/A
giving instruction comprehension
Inter-sentential
Inter-sentential
L1 use

To aid in L2
Lexical
comprehension
To check L2
comprehension

27

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

Data of Code-switches, English-Vietnamese Translation

UEF Session 1 (Legend: Ex = Exchange)

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

Extract
1

T: Anyone can find the meaning of

unity is...(Q104)
S: c, thng nht.
(Reading, unity)
T: Thng nht, nht qun, ng ri.
(Unity, unity, right.)

Types of CS
Translation
explaining a
concept

Function

CS level

To facilitate
vocabulary
acquisition

Lexical

T: What? Ideas fit together very well, Inter-sentential

very well. (Q131)
Cc cu phi nht qun vi nhau. N
phi lien quan trc tip, nht qun
vi nhau, mch lc, em thy khng?
Em vit vn phi mch lc, khng
ri rc, lin h vi nhau, ngi ta gi
l mch lc.
(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.)

To add more
information

Lexical

T: By using transition, ng cha?

(right?)

Inter-sentential

To check L2
comprehension

Lexical

T: n gin khng cc em? c v

hiu lin. c khng tri chy th
khng hiu c. l do vn
techniques.
(Simple, class? Easy to understand
immediately when reading. When you
read, you dont understand, it means
that its not coherent. Thats a matter
of techniques.)

Use of L1
when giving
explanation.

N/A

N/A

To aid in L2
comprehension

Lexical

T: Do you think that the paragraph

was unified?
C nht qun, nht qun ht, ng
khng cc em?
(Is there unity there, right?)

Translation
explaining a
concept

To aid in L2
comprehension

N/A

28

Tape script

Intra-sentential

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

T: u c nht qun u.
Use of L1 when
N/A
(Not unified at all.)
giving instruction
OK. u c nht qun u.
OK, vy th n ch no? Which
Inter-sentential
To aid in L2
sentences?
comprehension
(OK. No unified. OK. So where is it
unified? Which sentences?)

N/A

N/A

Downloaded by [THU TRANG NGUYEN] at 03:35 12 January 2015

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

Transcription Conventions
T: Teacher
S: 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 Tien

University of Social Sciences and Humanities
Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City
VIETNAM
E-mail: nguyenquangtien@gmail.com

29