“What’s pavement? — Chodník.” Code-switching in Upper-Secondary EFL Classrooms

“What’s pavement?— Chodník.” Code-switching in Upper-Secondary EFL Classrooms Nikola Kupčíková ABSTRACT: The role of the mother tongue in English language teaching has always been acontentious issue. English teachers, prospective teachers, teacher educators, language learners and researchers in the field are divided into two opposing factions over the matter. One advocates for the occasional use of the mother tongue because it has its role and significance in alanguage classroom, the other promotes the idea of English-only classrooms. That is why this study focuses on code-switching (i.e.the participants’ alternation from English into Czech or vice versa) in English as aforeign language (EFL) classrooms. Since code-switching serves many functions in EFL classrooms, the goal of this conversation-analytic study is to provide insight into how teachers and students code-switch while dealing with word meaning. The data consists of 13 hours and 30 minutes of recordings from five different upper-secondary schools in the Czech Republic. In each school, three to five consecutive English language lessons were recorded in the final year. All students and their teachers spoke Czech, therefore Czech could be used to explain word meanings and everybody would understand. The analysis shows that Czech is commonly used in EFL classes to deal with word meaning, even though the teacher maximizes the use of the target language and uses English as the main language in the classroom. It also demonstrates how teachers’ questions may influence students’ language choice in their answers. The study thus reveals the intricacies of language choice and language use in foreign language classrooms. ABSTRAKT: Používání mateřštiny ve výuce anglického jazyka je stále kontroverzním tématem. Rozděluje vyučující anglického jazyka, studentky astudenty učitelství anglického jazyka, vyučující podílející se na jejich vzdělávání, samotné studenty jazyka ivýzkumníky na dva tábory. Jedna skupina zastává názor, že občasné použití mateřštiny má ve výuce své místo, druhá skupina podporuje myšlenku vedení hodin pouze vcílovém jazyce. Tato práce se proto zaměřuje na přepínání kódů, tedy přechody mluvčích zjednoho jazykového systému do druhého, během frontální výuky anglického jazyka na středních školách. Data pochází z5 různých středních škol vČeské republice, na nichž byly pořízeny videonahrávky 3 až 5 po sobě jdoucích vyučovacích hodin vposledním ročníku studia (celkově třináct apůl hodiny nahrávek). Analýza ukazuje, že čeština je vhodinách angličtiny běžně používána pro vyjednávání významu slov, ato ipřesto, že učitelé aučitelky vedou hodiny vcílovém jazyce. Dále ukazuje, že vhodnou formulací otázky mají vyučující vrukou nástroj, kterým mohou studenty dovést kodpovědi vmateřštině nebo cílovém jazyce. Cílem tohoto článku je tedy odkrýt roli jazykového kódu ve výuce angličtiny amotivy jeho volby. KEY WORDS / KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA code-switching, conversation analysis, whole-class interaction, upper-secondary school, EFL střídání kódů, konverzační analýza, interakce ve třídě, střední školy, výuka anglického jazyka OPEN ACCESS 60 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2021 1. INTRODUCTION The role of the first language (L1) in English language teaching has changed accordingly with the type of language teaching approach that was currently dominant. While translation was considered abeneficial practice activity in the Grammar Translation Method, the mother tongue was banished from the English language classroom with the development of the Direct Method. Its critics argued that conducting lessons in English is the most effective way for students to learn anew language (Atkinson, 1996; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Hall & Cook, 2013). This exclusion of the first language is known as the English-only approach or the monolingual principle (Howatt, 1984). It refers to the sole use of the second language (L2) as the instructional language with minimal interference from the L1, which enables learners to think in the target language. This principle stresses the importance of delivering instruction in the target language, based on the assumption that when learners have to figure out what the teacher says, it provides them with lots of valuable language input (Turnbull, 2001). However, there is abody of literature that problematizes the effectiveness of the English-only policy, arguing that there is no research proving it is the best and most effective way to teach the language (e.g. Auerbach, 1993; Cook, 2001; Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Kerr, 2019) and it is now starting to be commonly accepted that the mother tongue has its role and significance in the foreign language classroom. Research shows that there are “good interactional reasons” for the use of the L1 (Gardner, 2013, p.602), it plays avariety of significant functions in L2 classrooms, and it can help build the learner’s confidence in the target language (Auerbach, 1993; Butzkamm, 1998; Kerr, 2019). Butzkamm (1998, p.95) considers the mother tongue to be “anecessary conversational lubricant” and argues that even if the L1 is not used in the classroom, it is still present in learners’ minds, therefore it can serve as “anatural short-cut” in the L2 classroom if used purposefully and not very often. Butzkamm and Caldwell (2009, p.24) state that the students’ mother tongue is actually “the most important ally aforeign language can have”. This points to the significance of the L1 in the L2 classroom and suggests that if the teacher shares the L1 with their students, they can use it to their benefit. Even Atkinson (1996, p.12), who declared that “Every second spent using the L1 is asecond not spent using English!— And every second counts!”, otherwise supports the occasional use of the L1 when the teacher and students share it. He emphasizes that English must remain the main language for conducting the lesson, however, he admits that the L1 “can be avital resource” in the L2 classroom (ibid., p.13). Based on studies examining different situations in which teachers use the L1 in English lessons, Kerr (2019) distinguishes two basic, sometimes overlapping, functions of the L1 use by the teacher in English lessons: “core” functions related to teaching and “social” functions related to class management. Aresearch project conducted by Hall and Cook (2013, p.15) for the British Council showed that the use of the L1 was common for “core” functions, such as explaining “when meanings in English are unclear”, explaining vocabulary and explaining grammar. The development of rapport and classroom discipline are the most common uses among the “framework” functions (ibid.). Other studies show that making ashift to OPEN ACCESS NIKOLA KUPČíKOVá 61 the L1 when students are not used to it might help get their attention and therefore it might help maintain discipline in the classroom (Merrit et al., 1992; Cook, 2002). The mother tongue can be an effective tool for both teachers and students in regard to time management, it can contextualize atopic shift, initiate off-task talk, build relationships, help create asupportive learning environment or keep the conversation going when students are not able to continue the interaction in the target language (Flyman Mattsson & Burenhult, 1999; Moore, 2002; Hughes et al., 2006; Littlewood & Yu, 2011).1 Kerr (2019) argues that the debate is shifting from “whether” the L1 should be used in the L2 classroom to “how” or “how often”, as reflected in updates to handbooks for EFL teachers. In Classroom Management Techniques, Scrivener (2012) presents practical ideas for teachers and suggests making use of the mother tongue for attracting students’ attention and managing the classroom. Ur (2012, p.6) stresses the significance of the mother tongue in the L2 classroom and claims that there is no reason why it should not be used. Betáková (2017, pp.17–19) concludes that teachers need to consider whether the use of the L1 is effective for students, providing they are not leaning on it because it is the easy way out. Gráf (2014), who described the development of views on the use of the L1 in the Czech Republic, advocates for the systematic use of the L1 in EFL classrooms. This concurs with Cook (2001, p.418) who argues that the L1 can be used “deliberately and systematically” in the L2 classroom. The goal of this paper is to contribute to this debate by analyzing the use of the L1 by EFL teachers and students in naturally occurring EFL talk and reveal the actual practices that the participants employ in classroom interaction. 2. AUER’S SEQUENTIAL APPROACH TO CODE-SWITCHING AND ITS APPLICATION IN EFL CLASSROOMS From the studies cited above, it follows that there has been agrowing interest in the topic of classroom code-switching in the past decades and it has been analyzed from anumber of perspectives, including pedagogical (Üstünel & Seedhouse, 2005; Levine, 2011; Uys & Dulm, 2011) and sociolinguistic (Gumperz, 1982; Auer, 1988). This study follows the sociolinguistic strand and views alternating from one language (L1) to another (L2) and vice versa as code-switching (Auer, 2002). Drawing on Gumperz’s (1982) work on how code-switching operates in conversations, Auer (2002) analyzed code-switching using the sequential approach, which is closely linked to the sequential approach taken up by conversation analysts. It establishes code-switching occurrences as contextualization cues, atool used by bilingual speakers to negotiate and interpret meaning. Auer’s sequential approach examines conversational structure and sequential development in order to understand the role 1 Li Wei (2002, p.168) conducted astudy focused on interaction between bilingual speakers in which he refers to “acue to restart aconversation”. He argues that the mother tongue also serves as an attempt to restart or renew communication when aparticipant feels that it would be abandoned (ibid., pp.160–161). OPEN ACCESS 62 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2021 of code-switching in interactions, which corresponds to the interest of conversation analysis. This approach is now widely used to analyze everyday interactions as well as institutional talk, such as classroom interaction (Martin-Jones, 1995; Lin, 2013). In classroom interaction, conversation analysts examine interactions between speakers, how participants achieve common understanding and, consequently, how teachers achieve pedagogical aims (Gardner, 2013, pp.593–594). The turn-taking process, which is one of the main interests of conversation analysists (Pomerantz & Fehr,2011), differs in mundane conversations and in institutional talk (Drew & Sorjonen, 2011). In the classroom, the turn-taking organization is influenced by the pedagogical focus that the teacher introduces and by the specific activity that the students are doing (Seedhouse, 2004). In frontal teaching, an activity which is directed by the teacher from the front of the classroom, the turn-taking process is influenced by the teacher, the institutional aim they set and how the aim is interpreted by the students. The teacher is usually the one asking questions and students are not expected to speak until nominated by the teacher. If the student does not provide an answer, the teacher may initiate arepair process until the expected answer is produced (ibid., pp.102–106). When the answer is produced, the teacher is expected to provide acomment on its sufficiency (McHoul, 1978). As far as the sequence organization is concerned, the teacher dominates first position turns. In the second turn, the student typically answers the question posed by the teacher in the first turn. The third turn consists of evaluation and performs multiple actions, such as moving thesequence towards the teacher’s objective, providing clues or scaffolding to obtain the desired answer, and managing the classroom (Mehan, 1979; Gardner, 2013). This IRE (Initiation-Reply-Evaluation) structure means that it is the teacher who initiates the interaction and evaluates the answer (Mehan, 1979). The sequential approach views code-switching as aphenomenon which occurs naturally among multilingual or bilingual speakers (Auer, 1988; Lee, 2000; Macaro, 2005). As speakers of Czech and learners of English as aforeign language, the students in the study are considered to be bilingual speakers,2 therefore the language classroom constitutes abilingual environment where speakers use code-switching as acommunicative tool (Auer, 2002). While some might see code-switching in language classes as amanifestation of poor proficiency in the target language (Sridhar, 1996), Jacobson and Faltis (1990, p.174) imply that code-switching “addresses aproblem inherent in foreign language classes: the tension between the desire of the teacher to use the target language exclusively and the need of the student to understand as much as possible of what is being taught”. As aresult, it may be problematic for both teachers and students to avoid the L1. Using conversation-analytic tools to investigate classroom interaction provides insight into participants’ perspectives. Since code-switching is often performed unconsciously in the language classroom, even teachers are not always aware of its 2 The term “bilingual” is used for “someone with the possession of two languages” including people “who have varying degrees of proficiency” in these two languages (Wei, 2000, p.6). Other authors, such as García (2009, p.322), refer to learners of foreign language as “emergent bilinguals”. OPEN ACCESS NIKOLA KUPČíKOVá 63 functions, which can subsequently influence the learning process (Üstünel, 2016). This is why it is important to analyze the phenomenon in classroom interaction. Üstünel (2016) presents acomprehensive study addressing both teachers’ and students’ code-switching patterns using quantitative analysis, conversation analysis and other methods, demonstrating that code-switching serves as avaluable resource for acquiring the language for effective bilingual communication, and shows how it is used as adevice to organize activities (see also Kasper, 2004; Mori, 2004; Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2005; Tůma, 2016). The present paper contributes to this body of literature by focusing on code-switching practices while dealing with word meaning. 3. EXAMINING CODE-SWITCHING PRACTICES WHILE DEALING WITH WORD MEANING Empirical research on vocabulary teaching and learning has predominantly focused on the theoretical assumptions and on what should be done during vocabulary explanation, not on how it is done (Waring, Creider & Box, 2013). Despite that, studies focusing on how vocabulary explanations unfold in classroom interaction have been conducted in various settings. In agreement with Mortensen’s (2011) findings from adult Danish L2 classrooms, Waring et al. (2013, p.254) identified the main elements of vocabulary explanation sequences based on atwo-hour adult English as asecond language (ESL) lesson, employing conversation analysis: “(1) set WORD in focus (e.g. repeat, display on the board); (2) contextualise WORD (e.g. use in asentence); (3) invite (via UDS)3 or offer explanation; (4) close the explanation with arepetition (e.g. repeat, summarise)”. These elements can also be observed in Morton’s (2015) analysis examining how vocabulary explanations are accomplished in secondary Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Macaro (2009) employed experimental approaches to elucidate the effect of code-switching on vocabulary learning among Chinese learners and concluded that “some items of vocabulary might be better learnt through ateacher providing first language equivalents” (ibid., p.49). While there are studies examining code-switching in vocabulary learning in foreign educational contexts, there is very little research on this topic conducted in Czech schools, which is agap this study seeks to fill. In the Czech educational context, researchers examined code-switching practices in elementary schools and higher education. Najvar et al. (2011) examine the role of the mother tongue in elementary schools by quantifying the number of words which were uttered in Czech and in English. Tůma (2017b) examines how teachers and students code-switch in expert-teachers’ elementary EFL classrooms. As far as higher education is concerned, Tůma (2017a) analyzes asample of sequences collected in one language course which shows the role of the switch to Czech in English language classroom. His analysis demonstrates that participants code-switch in frontal teaching purposefully, proving that code-switching is acommon phenomenon among bilingual speakers (ibid., pp.126–127). This study thus builds on the pre3 UDS stands for “an understanding-display sequence” (Waring et al., 2013, p.4). OPEN ACCESS 64 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2021 vious research done in Czech schools by collecting data in multiple upper-secondary schools and providing an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon. The aim of this study is to broaden the existing research on Czech upper-secondary schools, where codeswitching practices remain to be explored further. 4. DATA AND METHOD The data consists of 810 minutes of recorded English lessons in five Czech upper-secondary schools. Three to five consecutive 45-minute English lessons were recorded in each school. The lessons were recorded on two digital video cameras, one focused on the teacher and one on the students. Voice recorders were placed on the students’ desks in order to capture students’ utterances more clearly. All students and teachers could speak Czech, therefore Czech could be used in the class and everybody would understand it, which makes it more likely for students and teachers to resort to Czech. The recordings were made in autumn 2018, in classes where the learners were in their final year of school and were preparing for the Maturita exams. The students were working with different textbooks, targeting B1–C1 levels according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). The recordings were transcribed using the transcription notations based on the transcription system introduced by Gail Jefferson with additional notes from Klára Vaníčková (2014). The list of the notations used in this paper can be found in the Appendix. Anonymization of participants’ names was required by the agreement that the authors of the project made with the school beforehand. The names which appear in the transcripts are fictitious. The method used for the analysis was conversation analysis (CA), which uses data occurring naturally either in everyday life or in institutional talk. Its goal is to shed light on human interaction by uncovering its practices and organization. CA researchers work with detailed transcripts of the recordings, gain agood understanding of what is happening in the recordings and then identify interesting patterns, which they subject to adetailed line by line analysis (ten Have, 2007; Pomerantz & Fehr, 2011). After Iread the transcripts and watched the recordings several times, Iidentified 82 sequences in which participants switched from English to Czech and vice versa in whole class work. Ianalyzed these sequences line by line and asked what the participants are doing and how they are doing it— “why that now?” (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, p.299). The sequences showed abroad array of code-switching functions— to give and clarify instructions (24 sequences), to explain or clarify grammar (6 sequences), to give feedback (9 sequences), and to build rapport and manage the classroom (17 sequences). Teachers or students also used code-switching for clarifying the meaning of words which appeared when the class was doing or checking an exercise (26 sequences). Ifocused on these 26 sequences to answer the following research question of the qualitative analysis: How do the teachers and students code-switch while dealing with word meaning in whole class work? Typical situations in which the teacher and the students code-switch are presented in the analysis below. OPEN ACCESS NIKOLA KUPČíKOVá 65 5. ANALYSIS As far as dealing with word meanings is concerned, it was common for teachers to ask questions such as “what’s that?”, “what is X?” or “what does X mean?”. The following sequences are examples of such teacher-induced code-switching. The sequences are initiated by the teacher, who asks one of the above-mentioned questions and students provide Czech translations of the words. Czech words are accepted by the teacher in English, by saying “right”, “yes” or by praising the student. In Examples 1 and 2, the teacher asks about vocabulary from the texts that the class is dealing with. In Example 1, the word “pavement” occurs in aset of sentences which the students should mark true or false. The class is checking this exercise together— the teacher asks astudent to read the first statement and say whether the statement is true or false. He then accepts the answer and elicits why. Example 1 (Pavement) 1 Dom: e:: the picture of Batman and Robin was painted on a 2 burning house 3 T: ehe 4 Dom: and is e: it’s false 5 T: mhm (.) so where is it? where is it painted? 6 Dom: er ehm::: hmm (x) 7 (Ste): top of abuilding? 8 T: okay well it looks like athe top of the building but= 9 (Ste): =but it’s an (on) pavement 10 T: okay pavement, what’s what’s pavement? 11 Ste: chodník ((pavement in Czech)) 12 T: right, good one Stefanie (.) ehe right eMíša? number two In lines 1 and 2, astudent reads the first statement from the exercise that the class is dealing with. After the teacher encourages her to provide the answer (line 3), she replies that the statement in question is false (line 4). The teacher confirms that the statement is false by saying “mhm” and asks where the picture was painted if it was not on aburning house (line 5). In line 6, the student who provided the answer produces aset of hesitation sounds. In the next line, another student nominates herself, answering the teacher’s question with rising intonation, suggesting that she is not sure about the answer (line 7). The teacher starts the response by saying “okay”, which might seem as if he is accepting the answer but he continues by providing scaffolding (Gardner, 2013). In line 9, the student completes the answer by interrupting the teacher and mentions the word pavement. In line 10, the teacher accepts her answer, repeats the key word after the student to direct students’ attention to it and asks “what’s pavement?”. The Czech translation of the word pavement is accepted by the teacher in line 12, where he praises the student who provided the correct answer and then brings the aside to aclose, which is further evident from how he orients to another item in the exercise and nominates another student. OPEN ACCESS 66 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2021 Example 2 shows avery similar situation, which occurred during the same exercise as shown in Example 1. The teacher establishes that asentence is false, then asks students to explain why. Example 2 (Chalk) 1 T: false okay so what ewhat does he use? to draw? 2 Do2: chalk 3 T: chalk! what’s that? 4 Ss: křída 5 T: okay (.) do you guys e: draw with chalk In line 1, the teacher confirms that asentence is false by repeating the answer. Then, he asks students to explain why (line 1). The question is answered correctly in line 2 in English and the teacher accepts it in line 3 by repeating the answer. Immediately, he adds “what’s that?” to ask the students to demonstrate their understanding of the word “chalk” (line 3). Students provide the Czech equivalent in line 4 and the teacher accepts it by saying “okay” in line 5. He then follows up and asks the class if they draw with chalk to check their understanding. By doing that, he also encourages them to put the word (which might be new to some) to immediate use. Again, asimilar sequence can be observed in Example 3, where the teacher deals with aword that some of the students were discussing privately while doing an exercise. Anticipating that more students could have problems with the word, the teacher approaches the students and encourages them to repeat the word so that the whole class can hear it. After they clarify the meaning, he lets them continue working on the exercise. Example 3 (Notice) 1 T: so what was it? 2 Do2: no no no no noticed (.) noticed 3 T: noticed, so what does it mean? 4 Do2: zaregistrovat, všimnout si 5 T: ehe good one In line 1, the teacher approaches the students’ desk and asks “so what was it?”, inquiring about the word that the students were talking about. The student repeats the word “notice” for the whole class in line 2. In line 3, the teacher echoes the verb and asks the student “what does it mean?”. The student provides the Czech equivalent of the verb “notice” in line 3 and in the next line, the teacher accepts her answer by praising the student. Example 4 is taken from adifferent class than the previous three extracts. However, it shows the teacher using the same question phrased “what is X” and students’ responses in Czech. The class is checking an exercise with expressions related to work and jobs. The students first read atext in the textbook with highlighted words. OPEN ACCESS NIKOLA KUPČíKOVá 67 Their task is then to match those highlighted words to their correct definitions in the following exercise. Example 4 (Curse) 1 T: alright so let’s check it together (.) ehm (..) /kay/ er: 2 Patrik ((points to Patrik)) first one 3 Pat: eh the knowledge you get from doing ajob (.) experience 4 T: mhm (2s) Milane 5 Mil: ((whispers to his neighbor)) yes. ((looks into the 6 textbook)) the knowlednah yeah aseries of lessons to 7 learn (.) to do ajob, training /curs-/ course 8 T: course [yeah] 9 Mil: ((nods)) [mhm] 10 T: what is acurse 11 Mil: jako ta:: 12 Eri: (that’s) kletba= 13 Mil: =kletba 14 T: yes yeah so training course, mhm 15 Eri: close one 16 Mil: ((turns around to Erik)) na tebe sešlu nějakou kletbu 17 ((giggles)) 18 T: eh Erik (.) four In line 1, the teacher tells the class to stop working and announces that they are going to check the exercise together. She nominates Patrik to read the first definition and its matching expression (lines 1–2). In line 3, Patrik reads the definition and then gives the correct expression, which is “experience”. The teacher accepts his answer and nominates Milan to read the next definition and expression (line 4). Milan is whispering something unintelligible to his neighbor but says “yes” to show the teacher that he is paying attention. He also gazes at the textbook to signal that he is going to start reading (line 5). He accidentally reads the beginning of the previous definition which was already done by Patrik (“the knowled-” in line 6). He utters “nah yeah” immediately to show that he realizes his mistake and starts reading the definition which was assigned to him, which is “aseries of lessons to learn to do ajob” (line 6). In line 7, he reads the expression he filled in (which is “training course”) but says “curse” instead of “course”. Milan immediately corrects himself with an emphasis on the first syllable in the word “course” to stress that he is aware of his mistake. In line 8, the teacher confirms his answer by repeating the word “course” and saying “yeah” while Milan nods and utters “mhm” as well (line 9). In line 10, the teacher asks “what is acurse?”, presumably to check everybody is clear on the difference between the minimal pair “curse” and a“course”, anticipating difficulties. Milan is not sure what the equivalent in Czech is but starts the word search in Czech using fillers and aprolonged vowel (“ta::”) to gain some thinking time before he answers (line 11). Erik, another student, starts his response in English by saying “that is” and then gives the Czech equivalent of the word OPEN ACCESS 74 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2021 Society, 7(2), 183–213. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0047404500005522 Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/ harvard.9780674420106 Merritt, M., Cleghorn, A., Abagi, J.O., & Bunyi, G. (1992). Socialising multilingualism: Determinants of codeswitching in Kenyan primary classrooms. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 13(1–2), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1992. 9994486 Moore, D. (2002). Code-switching and learning in the classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(5), 279–293. https://doi. org/10.1080/13670050208667762 Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: Acase from Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 536–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004. t01-17-.x Mortensen, K. (2011). Doing word explanation in interaction. In G.Pallotti & J.Wagner (Eds.), L2 Learning as Social Practice: Conversationanalytic Perspectives (pp. 135–163). National Foreign Language Resource Center. Morton, T. (2015). Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: Aconversation analysis perspective. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2 015.1053283 Najvar, P., Najvarová, V., Janík,T., & Šebestová,S. (2011). Videostudie vpedagogickém výzkumu. Paido. Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B.J. (2011). Conversation analysis: An approach to the analysis of social interaction. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse Studies: AMultidisciplinary Introduction (pp.165–190). Sage Publications. http://dx.doi. org/10.4135/9781446289068.n9 Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell Publishing. Schegloff, E.A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. https://doi. org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 Scrivener, J. (2012). Classroom Management Techniques. Cambridge University Press. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: AConversation Analysis Perspective. Blackwell Publishing. Sert, O. (2015). Social Interaction and L2 Classroom Discourse. Edinburgh University Press. Sridhar, K. (1996). Societal multilingualism. In N.H.Hornberger & S.McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp.47–70). Cambridge University Press. ten Have, P. (2007). Introducing Qualitative Methods: Doing Conversation Analysis. Sage Publications. https://dx.doi. org/10.4135/9781849208895 Tůma, F. (2016). Konverzační analýza ainterakce ve třídě: východiska ametodologické aspekty. Pedagogická orientace, 26(3), 415–441. https:// doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2016-3-415 Tůma, F. (2017a). Interakce ve výuce anglického jazyka na vysoké škole pohledem konverzační analýzy. Masaryk University Press. Tůma, F. (2017b). Střídání kódů ve výuce angličtiny uučitelů-expertů pohledem konverzační analýzy. Slovo aslovesnost, 78(4), 283–304. Turnbull, M. (2001). There is arole for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but… Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.4.531 Ur, P. (2012). ACourse in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge University Press. Üstünel, E. (2016). EFL Classroom Code-switching. Palgrave Macmillan UK. Üstünel, E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Code-switching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 302–325. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00093.x Uys, D., & Dulm, O.V. (2011). The functions of classroom code-switching in the Siyanda District of the Northern Cape. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 29(1), OPEN ACCESS NIKOLA KUPČíKOVá 75 67–76. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.201 1.583159 Vaníčková, K. (2014). Transkripce vkonverzační analýze. Studies in Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 48–64. Waring, H.Z., Creider, S.C., & Box, C.D. (2013). Explaining vocabulary in the second language classroom: Aconversation analytic account. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(4), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lcsi.2013.08.001 Wei, L. (2002). The why and how questions in the analysis of conversational codeswitching. In P.Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in Conversation (pp. 156–176). Routledge. Wei, L. (Ed.). (2000). The Bilingualism Reader. Routledge. APPENDIX Transcription conventions (adapted from Jefferson, 2004; Vaníčková, 2014) T teacher S student Ss more students speaking [ ] overlap = immediate reaction to the previous utterance word stress °word° aword pronounced more softly (word) adubious word (xxx) an unclear word ((laughs)) commentary matka switching into L1 (Czech) e, ee, eee hesitation sounds e, eh, ehm sounds containing [ə] hm one-syllable sound produced with closed mouth mhm two-syllable sound produced with closed mouth (affirmation) ehe two-syllable sound produced with open mouth (affirmation) e-e two-syllable sound made of two separate [ə] sounds produced separately (to express disagreement) (1,5) pause length (.) micro pause (..) relatively short pause (…) relatively long pause - cut-off ? rising intonation . falling intonation , slight rise or fall of intonation Nikola Kupčíková | Department of English and American Studies, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University <nkupciko[email protected].cz> OPEN ACCESS