IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Exploring the Tagalog-English Code-Switching Types Used forMathematics Classroom Instruction
Karizza P. Bravo-Sotelo
Teach for the Philippines
Makati City, Philippines

47

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
This study aimed to examine the types of Tagalog-English code-switching used inmathematics classroom discourse. Four purposively selected tertiary level math teachers
in a college situated in a rural area in the Philippines were part of the study. Using aqualitative approach, data were gathered through non-participant class observations andinterviews with selected math teachers and students. Syntactic analysis of code-switchingtypes was done to categorize the Tagalog-English utterances. The findings showed that
Tagalog-English intrasentential code-switching, which accounts for 58% of the codeswitched utterances, was the most dominant type present in math teachers’ spoken
discourse, and this was evident when math teachers had to explain math concepts andsolutions, or provide examples, among others. Intersentential code-switching made up
38% of code-switched utterances, while tag switching was used very sparingly. It is
recommended that the use of Tagalog-English intrasentential code-switching for mathlesson delivery and content knowledge explanation be considered.
Keywords: Tagalog-English code-switching, code-switching types, intrasentential codeswitching, tertiary level, math teachers

48

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

English was introduced to the Philippine education system at the time of the American
occupation in the 1900s and was sustained in the post-colonial years. In higher education
institutions (HEIs), the directive of the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) is to teachmathematics in English or Filipino. For instance, the University of the Philippines (UP), thecountry’s premier national university, prescribes the use of Filipino at the undergraduate level,
while English and Filipino are used at the graduate level (University of the Phillipines [UP],2014). In other Philippine HEIs, English is widely used as the main language in academic
discourse, particularly in science and mathematics (Bernardo & Gaerlan, 2012; Commission
on Higher Education [CHEd], 2013).
While a new language policy in the basic education program (BEP) is implemented throughMother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE), Filipino teachers in the tertiarylevel and students in the secondary and tertiary levels in the past years up to the present are
products of the education system that espoused the BEP, which may explain the difficulty ofFilipino learners in mathematics. For a majority of Filipinos who neither use Filipino nor
English as the first language, the BEP was cognitively and linguistically challenging (Bernardo,
2008; Gonzalez, 2002; Tupas & Lorente, 2014). When students do not understand what theteacher says because the subject is taught in a second or foreign language, learning challenges
may abound. Thus, to address students’ learning difficulties, a communication technique that
Filipino teachers use in math classes involves the combination of two languages, otherwise
known as code-switching (CS).
CS is defined as the “juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passage of speech
belonging to two grammatical systems or subsystems” (Gumperz, cited in Romaine, 1995, p.
121). It is a natural linguistic resource among bilingual and multilingual speakers (Gulzar,
2010; Muthusamy, 2010; Setati, Adler, Reed, & Bapoo, 2002), and a communication strategy
used to compensate for missing language (Brown, 2007).
In the Philippines, a widely-used CS variety is Tagalog-English, or Taglish, which is formedby merging the first part of the word Tagalog and the last syllable of English. Taglish is thecolloquial term for the alternation of Tagalog, a local language from the Philippines, andEnglish in the same discourse. Tagalog has branched out into various dialects used in several
provinces in the Philippines, such as Laguna, Cavite, Mindoro, Quezon, and Rizal, among
others. it is important to note that Taglish has to be distinguished from Filipino-English CS.
Filipino is the national language of the Philippines, and Filipino-English CS is the variety often
used in Metro Manila.
As a language of instruction (LOI) in the classroom, CS is identified as short switches from thelearners’ mother tongue to the official LOI, and vice versa (Probyn, 2015). Considered as acommon practice in education (Setati & Adler, 2000), it is argued that CS bridges the gap inclassroom discourse (Al-Adnani & Elyas, 2016; Moore, 2002) and is a practical measure that
content subject teachers take to aid students with low English language proficiency inunderstanding lessons (Probyn, 2015). This claim is plausibly supported by a number of studies
that show its use in classroom instruction in various levels and in different learning areas (e.g.,
Abad, 2010; Borlongan et al., 2012; Gulzar, 2010; Lin, 2013; Muthusamy, 2010; Li, 2008;
Pitpit, 2004). In the classroom context, the key participants in CS are teachers, students, andteacher aides (Li, 2008).

49

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Types of Code-Switching
The types of CS are commonly included as a variable in studies on CS as they provide insights
on the language competence of bilingual and multilingual speakers. Poplack (cited in Hamers& Blanc, 2000) developed a typology often cited in literature which identifies three CS types.
CS can occur between sentences (intersentential), within a sentence (intrasentential), or as atag in one language into an utterance entirely in another language (extra-sentential or tag
switching). Intersentential switches occur at the sentence or clause boundary. On the other
hand, intrasentential switches are considered as the more complex or “intimate” type ofswitching, “since a code-switched segment, and those around it, must conform to theunderlying syntactic rules of two languages which bridge constituents and link them together
grammatically” (Poplack, 2000, p. 230). In another study, it was noted that intrasentential
switching is the most complex form of CS as “it involves the greatest syntactic risk since theswitching between languages occurs within the clause or sentence boundaries” (Liu, 2010, p.
11). Finally, tag switches, together with single noun switches, are described as a less intimate
type, and “are often heavily loaded in ethnic content and would be placed low on a scale oftranslatability” (Poplack, 2000, p. 230).
Related Studies
It is argued that CS is indicative of a speaker’s degree of bilingual competence. The alternation
between two languages requires a large degree of linguistic competence on the part of the
speaker to be able to switch smoothly from one language to another. Poplack’s (2000) 1980’s
study, which observed the Spanish-English CS of non-fluent bilinguals in a Puerto Rican
community, showed that in the 1,835 switches made, no ungrammatical combinations of theL1 and the L2 were noted. Skilled CS is characterized by smooth transition between elementsof L1 and L2, “unmarked by false starts, hesitations or lengthy pauses” (Poplack, 2000, p. 241).
Despite the limited language competence in one of the codes, the non-fluent bilingual speakers
were able to produce grammatically-sound switches (Poplack, 2000). It should be noted,
however, that the study does not provide the disaggregated results of CS per type.
In the classroom context, the findings of a study on the English proficiency of information
technology (IT) instructors and their language use resonate with Poplack’s findings (Sarreal,2008). Thirty tertiary-level instructors from various schools in Metro Manila teaching IT
classes in English were observed and interviewed for the study. Among the variables observed
were the IT instructors’ patterns and types of CS used in class. After identifying the CS types
using Poplack’s model, the results of the study identified intrasentential CS as the mostcommonly-used CS type of IT teachers, as concepts pertaining to the subject matter had to be
explained further in Tagalog to become clearer and more understandable for students (Sarreal,2008).
The results of other studies (Martin, 2006; Liu, 2010) show deviations from the previous
findings, mentioning that among the three CS types, intersentential switching was usedprevalently in classroom instruction. A study of teachers’ CS to L1 in English as a foreign
language (EFL) classrooms examined the general situation of the switching from English to
Chinese (Liu, 2010). Sixty teachers and 261 undergraduate students randomly selected fromthree universities had their English classes observed. The LOI in all classes observed wasEnglish, and the lesson observed was “teaching a text.” Survey questionnaires and transcribedclass observations were used to gather pertinent data. To categorize CS patterns, Poplack’s
syntactic structure was used. A major finding of the study was that teachers and students usedintersentential CS most frequently to translate from English to Chinese. Tertiary EFL teachers
explained that in text analysis, English sentences were discussed with students through50

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

translation as the teachers were having “difficulty in trying to conform to the different syntactic
rules” of English and Chinese (Liu, 2010, p. 18). The difference in the syntactic rules of thetwo languages made the EFL teachers resort to intersentential CS to translate texts and makeEnglish content much more comprehensible for the EFL learners.
Another study regarding CS in the tertiary level included the CS type as a variable (Martin,
2006). Two instructors from a private, non-sectarian Philippine higher education institution(HEI) handling science courses for freshmen students were observed. Science courses wererequired to be taught in English. Both classes which spanned 3 hours and 30 minutes werevideo-recorded, and teachers were interviewed after class. Filipino-English CS types of bothteachers and students were categorized using Poplack’s syntactic structure. The findings of thestudy showed that “[i]n both cases, intersentential switches registered as dominant among thethree syntactic structures” (Martin, 2000, p. 56). Both teachers observed used intrasentential
and tag switching very minimally. Another observation from the study was that one of the twoteachers produced 90% of intersentential CS gathered from the whole sample. Although a large
percentage of CS occurred, the researcher claimed that the science teacher was a “skilled codeswitcher.” The researcher noted that all the code-switched utterances made by both the teachers
and the students were grammatical and the utterances were smooth. It should be stated thatwhile the strength of the study is the identification of the types of switches made, it would havehelped confirm the claim of the researcher that both teachers observed were “skilled codeswitchers” if other instruments were used to further validate the assumption.
This present study is timely and important as it can be a valuable addition to the literature on
CS. Data and insights culled from the findings of this research may help set future directions
for language planners and policy makers. The reports on the uses of the math teachers’ CS in
the tertiary level can serve as a guide as they create, review, or modify existing policies on the
LOI in content areas in the tertiary level. Additionally, school administrators in the higher
education sector become more informed of the in-class language practices of mathematics
teachers, so provisions can be made to appropriate codeswitching use in the tertiary-level
mathematics instruction when necessary. Moreover, the results of the study can inform content
teachers on the types of CS employed in the classroom and the contexts in which these CS
types are utilized. For language teachers, this can open collaboration with math teachers forcontent-based instruction. The findings of the study can likewise provide insights to future
researchers on the actual use of language in classroom discourse, identify the CS types used bymath teachers, and confirm or disconfirm the findings of previous studies on the CS types usedprevalently in the classroom.
Research Questions
In order to examine the CS use in content areas, the study focuses on the following researchquestions:(1) What are the types of CS used by tertiary level math teachers in mathematics
classroom discourse?
(2) What are the instances in which the CS types are used?

51

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Methods
Research Design
The study used a qualitative approach to identify and describe the CS types used by college
level math teachers. Tallying and getting the percentages of CS types from the observed mathclasses were employed, while interviews with teachers and students were completed to validate
the data gathered from class observations (Abad, 2010; Martin, 2006; Sarreal, 2008).
Research Locale and Participants
The locale for this study was a state college in Occidental Mindoro, the Philippines. Since
Tagalog is widely spoken in Occidental Mindoro in their day-to-day discourse, conducting thestudy in a tertiary institution in the province was deemed appropriate as it was a good
opportunity for the researcher to observe the language contact and dynamics of Tagalog andEnglish in mathematics discourse. Likewise, the decision to conduct the study in a college froma rural area was due to the high probability of Tagalog-English CS use in the classes to beobserved. Unlike in an urban setting such as Metro Manila where English is commonly usedas the default language in mathematics discourse, the rural setting was instrumental in allowing
the researcher to observe how the two languages operated in mathematics discourse, with
Tagalog as the more dominant language.
It is also worth noting that despite the dominance of the use of Tagalog in the community, theCollege implements an English-only policy for instruction across all subjects, except in theFilipino subject. Adherence to the policy is expected; thus, teachers and students in the College
have to use the English language in all forms of spoken discourse in all subjects, except in theFilipino language subject.
The participants consisted of four math teachers who were selected purposively for the study,
and whose names were withheld for purposes of confidentiality. The choice of purposive
sampling was influenced by the idea of selecting math classes where the use of TagalogEnglish CS was moderate to high, that is, 41 to 100% (Abad, 2010), which implies that CS issubstantially present in the observed classes. Alphanumeric codes were instead used to refer tothe teachers: T1 for the first teacher, T2 for the second, T3 for the third, and T4 for the last.
Trigonometry was selected as it is considered to be a fundamental mathematics subject onwhich other subject areas, such as physics, architecture, engineering, and other sciences, arehinged (Weber, 2005; Moore, 2009). Also, students struggle with this aspect of math
instruction due to its difficulty and abstractness (Gur, 2009; Moore, 2009).
There were 88 students in all four classes observed. Some of the students who were part of themath teachers’ classes were selected purposively for key informant interviews (KIIs).
Data Collection Tools
Data were gathered through a profiling form, a tally sheet for CS types, and KII guides forteachers and students. The tally sheet was piloted to a group comparable to the sample. Since
the instruments appropriately and sufficiently gathered the pertinent data needed for the study,
no changes were made on the tools.
The CS tally sheet was not used during the actual class observations as it would have been very
difficult to classify CS occurrences while classes were ongoing. Instead, this tool was used
after class observations to organize data and guide KIIs.

52

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Two different sets of KII guides were made for selected math teachers and students, andquestions were designed to obtain information on the use of Tagalog-English CS in
mathematics classroom discourse.
Data Collection Procedure
Data were culled from several sources, such as class observations, demographic profile ofstudents, and KIIs with teachers and selected students. The data gathering was conducted in
two full weeks.
Non-participant observation was used in this study. Preliminary observations were done in all
four math classes to check the CS occurrences in classroom discourse and to let the mathteachers and the students get used to the presence of an observer. After the initial observations,
three class observations were completed for each class. Class observations were recorded using
a digital camera, a tablet, and a smartphone. The total number of observation hours for the 12
math sessions was 18.
Two sets of KIIs were conducted individually, one with every math teacher in the sample andanother one with selected students. All interviews with math teachers and selected students
were digitally recorded. Notetaking was avoided so the researcher would have undivided
attention while conducting the interview and would limit a possible source of distraction forstudents. Overall, there were four hours’ worth of interview with the selected math teachersand students.
Data Analysis
All recorded data from class observations were transcribed manually by the researcher using
Microsoft Word. To facilitate ease of reading, fillers such as um, ah, and the like, were removed
as they have little influence on mathematics discourse (Herbel-Eisenmann & Otten, 2011). The
task was guided by the transcription conventions adapted from Metila (2007). Checking theaccuracy of transcribed data was done. The quantitative data needed to identify the CS typesof math teachers were derived from frequency count. In categorizing data, Tagalog-English CS
utterances were syntactically analyzed and then classified using Poplack’s CS categories,
namely intersentential, intrasentential, and tag switching (Poplack in Hamers & Blanc, 2000,
pp. 259-260). Categorized data were rechecked by a language expert to ascertain data accuracy.
To corroborate the results of the math teachers’ CS types yielded from the quantitative analysis,
data were triangulated with the responses of KII participants. Interview data were transcribed,
then transcripts were reviewed afterwards. Repeated and similar responses were noted andgrouped accordingly to generate themes. Triangulation was done to enrich the data from classobservations and to strengthen the credibility and generalizability of the study (Fraenkel &Wallen, 2010; Tracy, 2013).
Results and Discussion
All three types of CS – intersentential, intrasentential, and tag switching – were present in the
spoken discourse of the four observed math teachers. However, the most dominant CS typeused was intrasentential, accounting for 58% of the code-switched utterances. Intrasentential
CS was followed by intersentential CS, which was equivalent to 38% of code-switchedutterances. Lastly, tag switching was used sparingly across the 12 class observations. Data areshown in Figure 1, and more detailed explanations for each type follow.

53

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

4%38%

Inter CS
Intra CS58%

Tag CS

Figure 1: Percentages of CS types
Intrasentential CS
The biggest chunk of the CS type was intrasentential, which is consistent with the findings ofthe studies of Poplack (2000) and Sarreal (2008), noting that it is the CS type used quite
extensively in spoken discourse. This indicates that the utterances of math teachers werecharacterized by switching between two languages within a sentence, with one language
compensating for the other. An example in Extract 1 follows.
Extract 1
T1: So ibig sabihin, kung hindi available yung isang function sa calculator,
pwede n'yong kunin yung kanyang complementary function kasi confident
naman kayong they are just equal. (So it means, if one function isunavailable in the calculator, you can get its complementary function
because you are confident that they are just equal.) Can you follow?
Can you follow? Ganun din sa reciprocal function. (The same goes for thereciprocal function.) That’s why kung napapansin n’yo, in your scientificcalculators, only the three functions are there. (That’s why if you could
notice, in your scientific calculators, only the three functions are there.)
What are those?
In Extract 1, T1 explained the role of complementary functions by shuttling between English
and Tagalog in a sentence. Using the two languages, the math teacher was able to express her
points clearly and coherently. Likewise, it can be noted that the sentences from the extract
conformed to the syntactic rules of the two languages, Tagalog and English, and the words
from the two languages were linked grammatically, thereby facilitating smooth and naturaltransition between words. This is similar to the observation of Poplack (2000) where she notedthat the intrasentential switches she gathered were grammatically sound. The results provide
insights that speakers have sufficient awareness of the syntax of the two languages used, which
prevents them from violating their syntactic rules.
The observed math teachers had to use English and Tagalog interchangeably within a sentence
in explaining math concepts and solutions, among others. In short, both languages arecomplementary for instruction. Using pure Tagalog or pure English throughout the discussion
poses limitations. Speaking in pure Tagalog can be preventive because the math terms which
are crucial in understanding math concepts are often in English. Unless math teachers and54

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

students are familiar with the equivalent Tagalog words of math terms, using Tagalog all
throughout math discourse can be challenging. The same goes for using pure English. If mathteachers were to use only English for classroom instruction, the concerns would be the mathteachers’ English language proficiency, lesson delivery, and students’ capacity to understandthe lesson. T1 and T4, for instance, observed that the math teachers themselves may have
limited language capabilities to express their ideas fluently and use English in a more complex
academic discourse. As regards students’ capabilities to understand instruction in English, allfour math teachers agreed that most students have basic English-language proficiency, and so
the use of English would be a stumbling block for their learning. This is supported by the KII
responses of all the interviewed students who all said that using both languages in mathdiscourse is important for students to understand lessons better.
However, while the claim was that the use of intrasentential CS is done by highly-skilledbilinguals (Poplack, 2000), data yielded from the observed math teachers showed that bilingual
speakers do not always demonstrate language fluency and accuracy when using intrasentential
switching. As in the case of any second-language speaker who has yet to demonstrate masteryof the target language, the math teachers observed in this study had occasional slips andgrammar lapses characteristic of non-native speaker speech. There were instances when
intrasentential CS utterances did not conform to the standard Tagalog-English syntactic rules;
thus, intrasentential CS was not fluid and clear. This could be seen in Extract 2, where an
intrasentenial switching caused confusion. In the dialogue, note that the underlined TagalogEnglish code-switched utterance is the unclear part of the discourse.
Extract 2
T2:
So what is the measure of the corresponding acute angle if the given is
520 degrees?
S:
20
T2:
Why 20?
S:
Because 540 is equivalent to…
T2:
Okay. So that’s correct. 360 is the one revolution or full na pag-ikot, so
one revolution is equal to 360, and iyong half revolution is 180. Ito posiya hanggang rito. Sabi nga natin kanina so kung nasa quadrant, ditosiya and nandito iyong given, it is minus kay 180 so kapag tinotal siya
is 540. (We said a while ago, so if it is in quadrant, it is here and thegiven is here, 180 is subtracted from the given, so when the total iscomputed, it is 540.) Unless ang given natin is 520 so the acute angle
is 20 and this is what we call the corresponding acute angle. (Unless ourgiven is 520 so the acute angle is 20 and this is what we call thecorresponding acute angle.) Okay na po? (Is it okay?)S:Yes.
The underlined statement in Extract 2 is an example of intrasentential CS that is ambiguous
and confusing. T2 attempted to explain the process of solving for the corresponding acuteangle, but the original translation contained the unnecessary use of the transition word, so.
T2:

Sabi nga natin kanina so kung nasa quadrant, dito siya and nandito
iyong given… (We said a while ago, so if it is in quadrant, it is here
and the given is here…)

55

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Likewise, from the same extract, the phrase, “kung nasa quadrant” (if it is in the quadrant)
lacked specificity. T2 was not clear about the quadrant being referred to, which could confuse
the listeners.
Also, in this clause, “it is minus kay 180 [degrees]…,” the referent for the pronoun, it, wasunclear, and the use of the Filipino preposition kay (from) was confusing as the 180 degrees
was given a human referent. When translated to English, the clause “it is minus kay 180[degrees]…” could be interpreted as “it [the given] is minus [subtracted] from 180,” but since
what the teacher meant was that 180 is subtracted from the given, the use of an incorrect
Filipino preposition, kay, could get in the way of understanding the math teacher’s explanation.
Note, however, that when T2 asked during the comprehension check if the explanation wasokay, the students answered Yes. While the students answered in the affirmative, saying yes
could likewise work as a conversation stopper (Palacio & Gustilo, 2016; Colin-Jones & ColinJones, 2008). Also, answering with a yes could be indicative of the speakers’ attempt to bepolite, to lessen friction, or to maintain a cordial atmosphere (Bernardo, 2011).
In sum, contrary to the argument that intrasentential switches generally conform to the syntactic
rules (Poplack, 2000), it has to be taken into account that there were notable instances wherein
the observed math teachers committed grammar lapses in classroom discourse. While in somecases, the math teachers did self-correction, showing that they were able to detect theungrammatical utterances they produced and to correct them, there were also instances whengrammar lapses remained uncorrected, which may indicate that the math teachers were
unaware of the grammar mistakes in their utterances. Table 1 presents the utterances withgrammar lapses that were corrected.
Table 1: Examples of math teachers’ corrected utterances
Teacher
Utterance
T1
Yung between (The one between), angles between zero degrees andnegative 90 degrees. Where can we found (sic) that – where can wefind that rather?
T2
Okay, that’s right. But I am asking kung ano po iyong tawag sa sine,
cosine, tangent (But I’m asking for the term for sine, cosine,
tangent). So that is the trigonometric functions (sic). 'Di banabanggit ko naman iyon? (Isn’t it that I have told you about it?)So that is the trigonometric functions (sic). Iyong pinaka-simplest(sic) (The most simplest). Pinaka na nga, simplest pa*

T3
T4*Note: T4 means that adding “pinaka,” which means “most,” isalready redundant.
You should familiar (sic) – familiarize yourselves with these because
it’s basic knowledge.
To view it more, in a more clear (sic) manner, in a clearer manner, forexample I have here Giselle.

Reference
Observation 3
Line 60
Observation 1
Line 45

Observation 1
Line 163
Observation 1
Line 27

As shown in Table 1, the math teachers were conscious of the ungrammatical statements they
produced. For T1, T3, and T4, the correct version of the lapses they produced were later
provided. T2, meanwhile, pointed out toward the end of the utterance her use of double
superlatives.
Table 2 presents a list of some of the code-switched utterances produced by math teachers

56

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

which they were unable to identify as ungrammatical.
Table 2: Examples of ungrammatical statements produced by math teachers
Teacher
Utterance
T1
O, eto yung mga things to remember ha (O, these are the things toremember). That’s why I told you to bring at least two colored penspara sa first angle yung isang kulay, second angle another kulay kasi
you have to show the two initial sides and the two terminal sides andthe two angle (sic) ‘pag ikot nung gano’n (That’s why I told you tobring at least two colored pens so that you can use one color for
the first angle, then use another one for the second angle because
you have to show the two initial sides and the two terminal sides
and the two angles when it rotates).

Reference
Observation 3
Line 248

T2

Acute angle because 30 degree (sic) and 60 degree (sic) is (sic) lessthan 90 degree (sic) and we cannot form 90 degree (sic) or we cannot
have an angles (sic) with iyong isa is obtuse angle kasi nga lalampas
siya (Acute angle because 30 degrees and 60 degrees are less than
90 degrees and we cannot form 90 degrees or we cannot have anangle with one as obtuse because it will go beyond).

Observation 3
Line 295

T3

And if a line is move (sic) ano po ang na-form? (And if a line
moves, what is formed?)

Observation 1
Line 37

T4

Because the line in between the bubbles act (sic) as a border, hindi
makapunta yung hangin sa kabila papunta sa kabila (Because theline in between the bubbles acts as a border, the air cannot moveto the other bubble).

Observation 1
Line 340

As Table 2 shows, among the common grammar concerns of the observed math teachers werepluralization (e.g., two angle, 90 degree), verb use (e.g., is move), and subject-verb agreement(e.g., line… act). However, these grammar lapses are examples of local errors which do notseriously interfere with one’s understanding of the utterances and are negligible.
These examples indicate that intrasentential CS generally follows sound grammatical patterns,
but there were also cases when ungrammatical constructions of Tagalog-English utteranceswere present, and imprecise word choice can compromise the clarity of a statement. This canlead future researchers to further look into the plausibility of arguments that intrasentential CS
is apparent in bilinguals with high language proficiency (Poplack in Berk-Seligson, 1986: 314).
3.2 Intersentential CS
Intersentential CS accounted for 38% of the total code-switched utterances of the four mathteachers. This differs from results of some studies (Martin, 2006; Liu, 2010) that intersentential
CS is the type used prevalently for classroom instruction. The reason for the disparity of theresults could be attributed to the limited sample size and the observation duration (e.g., Martin,
2006) and the lesson type during the class observation (e.g., Liu, 2010). In the twelve mathclasses observed for this study, intrasentential was used more dominantly that intersentential
switching. Extract 3 follows.

57

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Extract 3
T4:
So if 3x is equal to 180 degrees, what must be the value of x? X therefore
is…
S:
60
T4:
60 degrees. Sige po. (Alright.) Malinaw? (Clear?)
Ss:
Yes
T4:
Madali lang, ano? (It’s easy, isn’t it?) Easy as pie.
When T4 asked for the value of x, a student answered correctly. So, T4 repeated the answer ofthe student and provided an affirmation by saying, Alright. To check whether students
understood the process of arriving at the value of x, T4 used a one-word question in Filipino,
Malinaw? (Clear?) The students replied with a yes, and T4 commented in Filipino thatcomputing for the answer was easy.
As observed, pure English was used when providing mathematical explanations or definitionsof mathematical terms. Only when the teacher would need to expound on a certain question ora concept that switching to Tagalog or Tagalog-English would be done.
In Extract 4, note that T4’s first utterance was a definition of a ray, which he presented in
English. Then, in the second part of the utterance, he switched to Taglish and simplified theinformation for the students. This is evident in the use of the words ibig sabihin (it means),
which is an indication that the math teacher expounded on the idea to bring down theinformation to a simpler level of understanding, allowing students to comprehend the given
definition by interspersing math concepts with a familiar language.
Extract 4
T4:
So, a ray is a part of a line characterized by a line bounded by a point
on one end and that extends indefinitely on another. So ibig sabihin (itmeans), as our figure depicts, meron kang endpoint dito (you have an
endpoint here), tapos meron kang (then you have an) indefinite line,
or indefinite part of a line extending to one direction.
Extract 5 shows a similar example in which intersentential switching was used by a mathteacher in her utterances to elaborate on her point.
Extract 5
T2:
So in determining the corresponding acute angle, so (sic) you need todetermine also where the angle is located or [in] what quadrant is theangle located. So sasabihin rin po natin kung nasa quadrant 1 siya, nasa
quadrant 2, nasa quadrant 3 or nasa quadrant 4 (So we need to identify
whether the angle is in quadrant 1, quadrant 2, quadrant 3, or
quadrant 4). So if the angle is 120, then it is in the…? In what
quadrant?
In Extract 5, T2 explained the concept of corresponding acute angle in English, that is, in
identifying the corresponding acute angle, it is important to locate the quadrant where the angle
is found. Then, the teacher used Taglish in the second utterance to emphasize her point. Finally,
to check whether students understood the concept correctly, T2 asked them the quadrant wherea 120-degree angle could be found.

58

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

In the examples, intersentential CS was useful when mathematical concepts in English had to
be explained more thoroughly to students through Tagalog-English CS.
Likewise, intersentential CS was at play when the observed math teachers would ask students
to answer a mathematical question or equation. Usually, the delivery of the question was inpure English. Extract 6 provides an example.
Extract 6
T1:
So what is the complementary function of – you have your calculator?
– what is the complementary function of sine 36 degrees 15 minutes 10
seconds? [This is a] review of the last meeting’s lesson.
The math teacher asked her students to provide the complementary function of a given item,and she did not find it necessary to repeat the statement in Tagalog or Tagalog-English because
she used a simple sentence construction, which was rather straightforward, andunderstandable.
It can be noted that the reason for using pure English when asking math questions andpresenting math concepts and definitions was in line with the use of mathematics register.
During the KII, T2 mentioned that mathematical equations are best expressed in English giventhat there are already canned expressions and jargons. For instance, she mentioned that the“square root of 2x plus y” does not need to be translated to Tagalog because it is a mathematicalexpression already understood by students, and that it would otherwise be complicated totranslate “square root” or “2x plus y” to Tagalog.
These examples show that intersentential CS is evident when expressing mathematicalstatements or questions in pure English.
Tag Switching
In this study, tag switching was used least extensively in classroom discourse, noting that in
all 12 observations, tags accounted for only 4% of the total code-switched utterances. This issimilar to the results of the study of Martin (2006) that noted the minimal use of tag switchingin classroom discourse. Extract 6 shows the use of tag switching in an utterance.
Extract 7
T3:
Ano po ang cosine ng zero degrees? (What is the cosine of zero
degrees?)
Ss:
One, sir.
T3:
As simple as that po. (As simple as that.)
In Extract 7, T3 used a Tagalog word, po, and appended it to the statement, as simple as that.
There is no English equivalent for the word po, as the word is unique to the Filipino culture.
Filipinos commonly use po as an indicator of respect or politeness. Hence, the use of po as atag marker fits the description of Poplack (2000) that tag switches “are often heavily loadedwith ethnic content and would be placed low on a scale of translatability” (p. 23).
Other commonly used tag switches identified in the study include tama? (correct?), lang (only),‘di ba? (isn’ it?), din and rin (also), and some Filipino particles with no direct equivalent inEnglish, like ba, naman, nga, daw, a, and ha. Okay is also considered as a form of tag switch
when appended to the end of the sentence. Note that the basis for categorizing it as a Tagalog

59

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

word was because of the teachers’ pronunciation, which was characterized by syllabication anda distinct Tagalog accent.
Overall, the findings of this study affirm that math teachers used Tagalog-English CS in theclassroom, with intrasentential switching as the most commonly used among the three, toexplain math concepts and simplify information for students.
Conclusions, Recommendations, and Limitations
This study was conducted with the idea of contributing to the existing knowledge on thelanguage use in content areas and identifying the types of CS used by math teachers. What
prompted this research was the inadequate and inconclusive findings on the CS use by tertiary
math teachers and its implications for students’ learning.
Intrasentential CS was the most commonly used Tagalog-English CS type, as more than halfof the total code-switched utterances by the four observed math teachers were intrasentential.
The high percentage of intrasentential CS confirms the findings of studies (Poplack, 2000;
Sarreal, 2008) that it is the most pervasive type used by interlocutors in spoken discourse. On
the other hand, intersentential CS was used when math concepts and principles have to bepresented in English, then afterwards explained in Tagalog. Finally, tag switching was the least
used CS type, making up only a negligible percentage of the total codeswitched utterances inall classes observed.
Intrasentential CS is indicative of tertiary-level math teachers’ sufficient bilingual knowledge
and competence of both English and Tagalog syntax. The dominance of intrasentential CS
implies that speakers can switch with ease from one language to another, which, in this case,is Tagalog to English, and vice versa. The observed math teachers had to use English andTagalog interchangeably within a sentence in explaining math concepts and solutions, among
others.
It was noted in this study that both languages are complementary for instruction. Using pureTagalog or pure English throughout the discussion poses limitations. Speaking in pure Tagalog
can be preventive because the math terms which are crucial in understanding math concepts
are often in English. Unless math teachers and students are familiar with the equivalent Tagalog
words of math terms, using Tagalog all throughout math discourse can be challenging. The
same goes for using pure English. If math teachers were to use pure English for classroom
instruction, the concerns would be the math teachers’ English language proficiency, lesson
delivery, and students’ capacity to understand the lesson. T1 and T4, for instance, observedthat the math teachers themselves may have limited language capabilities to express their ideas
fluently and use English in a more complex academic discourse. As regards students’capabilities to understand instruction in English, all four math teachers agreed that most
students have basic English-language proficiency, and so the use of English would be astumbling block for students’ learning. This is supported by the KII responses of all theinterviewed students who all said that using both languages in math discourse is important for
students to understand lessons better.
Hence, Tagalog-English intrasentential switching is both instrumental and inevitable. It is
instrumental for lesson delivery because it lessens students’ cognitive burden of understanding
both language and content at once. Likewise, CS is inevitable because math terms andexpressions in English are necessary components in explaining and discussing content

60

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

knowledge, and so it is understandable when equations and jargons are expressed in English,
while further elaborations are done in Tagalog.
For language planners and policy makers, it might be worth considering to draft clear
provisions relevant to language use in the content subjects in the tertiary level. Having
identified from the class observations and KIIs that the Tagalog-English CS was not a result ofsome random and inconsistent language switching, but rather a purposeful attempt to facilitate
mathematics instruction and learning, the use of CS will give bilingual and multilingual
students who require extra support in the English language a better chance of learning
mathematical concepts and processes, and participate productively in classroom discourse
through the infusion of their mother tongue.
For tertiary level math teachers, utilizing CS in classroom instruction when necessary helps
facilitate learning, instruction, transition, and communication. These insights will allow mathteachers to strategize their use of CS to complement the English-language instruction and avoid
its unsystematic use. By focusing on elevating the quality of math discourse, CS can be used
as a tool for analyzing math problems, understanding logical connections, and evaluating
information, among others, since language would not be much of a concern in this context.
Secondary and tertiary level English language teachers can create learning opportunities forstudents to practice the English language in spoken discourse. Students’ limited confidence to
use the English language in spoken academic discourse is a concern because of their inadequate
exposure to the language or their restricted vocabulary. Secondary and tertiary level English
language teachers have to provide means for their students to use English meaningfully andextensively in communication. By creating a rich and safe classroom environment that
promotes the use of English and allows the teacher to give meaningful feedback, students arehelped to build their confidence in speaking the language, and to practice the English languagein academic contexts, which will benefit classroom instruction and learning in the long run.
Likewise, exploring a possible collaboration between English and math teachers in light ofusing content-based instruction in the classroom will allow the former to assist the latter inlearning and using math register correctly in language discourse. Also, this will open
opportunities for students to be familiar with the common math register and sentence structuresin the subject area, and be exposed to the context-specific use of math language.
The findings of the study should be viewed in light of some limitations. Since it focuses on the
CS types, it does not extensively discuss the functions and purposes of CS in math classrooms.
Additionally, since the sample only includes tertiary math teachers, the CS types used byprimary and secondary math teachers, and teachers handling other content areas may differ.
However, given the dearth of literature that focuses on the use of CS in tertiary level content
areas, this study can be further explored by future researchers in identifying the purposes bywhich CS is used in content areas, and whether math teachers’ CS influence students’performance or learning outcomes.

61

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Abad, L. S. (2010). An analysis of teachers’ and students’ perceptions of codeswitching inteaching science and mathematics in a Philippine private school. The Journal of Asia
TEFL, 7(1), 239–264.
Al-Adnani, A., & Elyas, T. (2016). The effect of teacher’s code-switching on students’achievement in speaking in the EFL context. The European Conference on Language
Learning 2016 Official Conference Proceedings. http://papers.iafor.org/wpcontent/uploads/papers/ecll2016/ECLL2016_22567.pdf
Bernardo A. B. I. (2008). English in Philippine education: Solution or problem? In M. L. S.
Bautista & K. Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and Literary Perspective(pp. 29–48). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press
Bernardo, A. B. I., & Gaerlan, M. J. M. (2011). Non-native English students learning in
English: Reviewing and reflecting on the research. In R. Jaidev, M. L. C. Sadorra, W.
J. Onn, L. M. Cherk, & B. P. Lorente (Eds.), Global perspectives, local initiatives:
Reflections and practices in ELT (pp. 1–10). Singapore: Center for English Language
Communication, National University of Singapore.
Bernardo, A. S. (2011). What’s between yes and no? A pragmatic analysis of Filipino
senators’ responses to yes/no questions. Far Eastern University English & Literature
Journal, 5(1), 1–30.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1986). Linguistic constraints in intrasentential code-switching: A study ofSpanish/Hebrew bilingualism. Language in Society, 15, 313–348.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500011799
Borlongan, A. M., Lim, J., & Roxas, R. E. (2012). University students’ attitudes towards
English-Tagalog code-switching in classroom instruction. TESOL Journal, 7, 70–77.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Colin-Jones, G. & Colin-Jones, Y. (2008). Philippines: The essential guide to customs &culture. London: Kuperard.
Commission on Higher Education (CHEd). (2013). General education curriculum: Holistic
understandings, intellectual and civic competencies (CMO 20, s. 2013).
https://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CMO-No.20-s2013.pdf
Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2010). How to design and evaluate research in education (7thed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gonzalez, A. (2002). Language planning and intellectualization. Current Issues on Language
Planning, 3(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200208668034
Gulzar, M. (2010). Code-switching: Awareness about its utility in bilingual classrooms.
Bulletin of Education and Research, 32(2), 23–44.
Gur, H. (2009). Trigonometry learning. New Horizons in Education, 57(1), 67–80.
Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. (2000). Social psychological aspects of bilinguality: interculturalcommunication. In J. F. Hamer & M. Blanc (Eds.), Bilinguality and Bilingualism (2nded., pp 241–277). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Otten, S. (2011). Mapping mathematics in classroom discourse.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(5), 451–485.

62

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.5.0451
Li, D. (2008). Understanding mixed code and classroom code-switching: Myths and realities.
New Horizons in Education, 56(3), 75–86.
Lin, A. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics
Review, 4(1), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0009
Liu, J. (2010). Teachers’ code-switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. The Open Applied
Linguistics Journal, 3, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874913501003010010
Martin, I. P. (2006). Language in Philippine classrooms: Enfeebling or enabling? AsianEnglishes, 9(2), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2006.10801188
Metila, R. A. (2007). Recurrent patterns of English-Filipino code switching as bases forlanguage teaching modifications [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of thePhilippines.
Moore, D. (2002). Case study: Code-switching and learning in the classroom. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(2), 279–293.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050208667762
Moore, K. C. (2009). Trigonometry, technology, and didactic objects. In S. L. Swars, D. W.
Stinson & S. Lemons-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of theNorth American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology ofMathematics Education (pp. 1480–1488). Georgia State University.
Muthusamy, P. (2010). Codeswitching in communication: A sociolinguistic study of
Malaysian secondary school students. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences &Humanities, 18(2), 407–415.
Palacio, M. A., & Gustilo, L. (2016). A pragmatic analysis of discourse particles in Filipino
computer mediated communication. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies,
16(3), 1–19. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2016-1603-01
Pitpit, G. (2004). Codeswitching as a communication strategy in comprehending Science
concepts [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of the Philippines.
Poplack, S. (2000). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Towarda typology of code-switching. In L. Wei (Ed.). The Bilingualism Reader. NY:
Routledge.
Probyn, M. (2015). Pedagogical translanguaging: Bridging courses in South African scienceclassrooms. Language and Education, 29(3), 218–234.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.994525
Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sarreal, M. L. (2008). English proficiency of IT instructors and language use [Unpublishedmaster’s thesis]. University of the Philippines.
Setati, M., & Adler, J. (2000). Between languages and discourses: Language practices inprimary multilingual mathematics classrooms in South Africa. Educational Studies inMathematics, 43, 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011996002062
Setati, M., Adler, J., Reed, Y., & Bapoo, A. (2002). Incomplete journeys: Code-switchingand other language practices in mathematics, science and English language
classrooms in South Africa. Language and Education, 16(2), 128–149.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780208666824

63

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Tracy, S. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Tupas, R., & Lorente, B. P. (2014). A ‘new’ politics of language in the Philippines: Bilingual
education and the new challenge of the mother tongues. In P. Sercombe & R. Tupas(Eds.), Language, education and nation-building: Assimilation and shift in Southeast
Asia (pp 165–180). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137455536_9
University of the Philippines. (2014). Academic information: Medium of instruction.
http://upd.edu.ph/admissions/academic-information/
Weber, K. (2005). Students’ understanding of trigonometric functions. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 17, 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217423
Corresponding author: Karizza P. Bravo-Sotelo
Contact email: kpbravo@gmail.com

64