Teachers’ codeswitching in EFL classrooms: Functions and motivations

Abstract Codeswitching, which has become the subject of much debate and controversy among different scholars due to its pros and cons, is commonly employed in English as foreign language (EFL) classrooms. However, scant attention has been given to the functions and reasons of teachers’ codeswitching in the Ethiopian context. In an attempt to fill this gap, this study aimed to determine the functions and motivations of EFL teachers’ codeswitching practices. To this end, three English teachers participated in the study from one secondary school in Ethiopia. The study used audio-assisted observations, field notes and stimulated recall interviews as data collection methods in contrast to studies which relied only on self-reported data. Data were categorized according to Ferguson’s typology of functions of classroom codeswitching. The results indicated that teachers codeswitched for academic, managerial and social functions. Furthermore, this study revealed that students’ limited English proficiency, teachers’ beliefs, the types and the natures of language skills were the major influencing factors for their codeswitching practices. Thus, teachers need to be aware of codeswitching to use it as a valuable instrument for teaching English rather than adhering blindly to English-only rule and ashamed of codeswitching acts. Moreover, as codeswitching is an inseparable part of classroom discourse and something that should not be avoided, teacher training programs should incorporate codeswitching as an effective teaching strategy.


PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
The use of codeswitching or first language use in L2 classrooms remains a contested and unresolved issue among scholars. On one side, proponents of English-only argue that the use of L1 is detrimental to students learning, and codeswitching should be banned. On the other side, proponents of codeswitching have questioned the uses of L1 in L2 classrooms on the ground that that L2 is better learned naturally in a process that resembles L1 acquisition. This study aimed to examine the functions and reasons of teachers' codeswitching in EFL classrooms. It was a qualitative case study that was conducted on three EFL teachers. The results revealed that teachers used codeswitching for academic, social and management purposes. Furthermore, different factors affected teachers' use of codeswitching. The results of this study, therefore, can particularly be important to those who are caught in dilemmas about the uses of codeswitching in English classrooms and beyond.

Introduction
Codeswitching or using first language, which is one of the most pervasive and inescapable phenomena in language classrooms across the globe where teachers are teaching a foreign language or a second language, has attracted the attentions of more and more researchers. These researchers investigated the different types of codeswitching, its function, its effect on the students, the reasons for codeswitching and perceptions of teachers and students on classroom codeswitching in different contexts. However, the use of codeswitching in the context of teaching English in a classroom setting remains a polemic issue. The debate focuses on the dilemma as to whether the use of L1 in EFL classrooms should be totally banned or used. In other words, codeswitching or L1 usage in foreign language classrooms has become a double-edged sword as it has pros and cons (Raman & Yigitoglu, 2015) On one side of the debate, in the eyes of proponents of English-only classes, use of the first language or codeswitching negatively affects language proficiency of learners, and they have argued that English is best taught through English only and L1 has no place. In other words, the use of students' first language should totally be avoided from the foreign or second language environment because it dilutes the ability of learners to access L2 input. This issue emerged with the introduction of Direct Method which enforces the exclusive use of the foreign language (Harbord, 1992). Ellis (1984), Chaudron (1988), and Wong-Fillmore (1985) who are exponents of intralingual or monolingual teaching strategy think that teachers should aim at creating a pure foreign language environment by shunning L1 at all costs since they are the sole linguistic models for the students and that codeswitching will result in negative transfer in foreign language learning.
On the other hand, there is the grammar-translation method where the use of L1 governs language teaching and learning. It is claimed that L1 must be predominantly used to teach the equivalences of lexical items and grammar structures on a translation basis (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). According to this paradigm, first language is the language of instruction. It is used to explain the grammatical rules, and translate sentences from the target language. To the proponents of this method, using the students' first language to teach a foreign language is therefore the norm. In this regard, a new language should be taught with the help of students' first language since it is unavoidable whether permitted or not (Cook, 2010).
In the absence of such studies, it might be true that teachers of English in Ethiopia subject to follow their own assumptions and intuitions about best practice for language instruction as they may not aware of the pedagogical value of codeswitching in EFL classrooms (Habtamu, 2013). Likewise, the Ministry of Education of Ethiopia did not stipulate whether codeswitching or L1 use is permissible during classroom instructions other than stating that Amharic has to be taught as a compulsory subject and English is taught as a subject starting from grade one and functions as a medium of instruction starting from grade nine to subsequent levels of education (MOE, 1994). However, teachers use Amharic although English is the legitimate and official language in the classrooms. Consequently, Tamiru, (2013) has recommended researchers to conduct a study on codeswitching at secondary schools with particular reference to English teachers as the available literature focused on primary schools and teacher training colleges.
Despite the call made by Tamiru, (2013), only a few researchers (Alemnew et al., 2016;Minwuyelet, 2019;Samuel, 2014) conducted studies on classroom codeswitching. Nevertheless, these and the aforementioned local researches are different from the current study. First, the study made by Alemnew et al. (2016) focused on elementary level whereas the second two studies by Minwuyelet, (2019) and Samuel, (2014) focused on higher education and content subject classrooms where English is the medium of instruction, not both the vehicle and object of instruction as the present study. Second, this study is pioneer to use stimulated recall interviews as there are no studies in Ethiopia using it to explore teachers' reactions to their use of codeswitching practices. Third, the majority of these small numbers of studies included other languages other than Amharic. Fourth, this research is carried out in rural context. Finally, and most importantly, the majority of the studies conducted in the Ethiopian context focused on teachers' attitudes and functions of codeswitching on survey-based questionnaires without any reference to classroom data which can help reveal the real situation in the classroom. This indicates that there is a need for further studies focusing on real classroom data and providing some deeper understanding to this phenomenon. In view of such research niches, this study aimed to find out the functions of teachers' codeswitching in which English, the target language, is both the subject and the medium of instruction in an EFL secondary school. Moreover, it examined the underlying reasons for English teachers using codeswitching in their language classrooms. Therefore, the research questions that this study sought to address were: object and medium (1) What functions does the teachers' codeswitching serve in EFL classrooms?
(2) What are teachers' motives for codeswitching in EFL classrooms?
As the current study aimed to examine the teachers' codeswitching functions and reasons, it has two main contributions. Firstly, it is hoped that the study will be beneficial especially for EFL teachers who have been in a dilemma about the use of codeswitching to make informed decisions on how codeswitching is used in foreign language classrooms. Secondly, the results might help teacher educators, materials developers and syllabus designers to raise their awareness and get insights about the functions and reasons of teachers' codeswitching. Moreover, the study may serve as a guideline for further studies of codeswitching in foreign language classrooms in other similar contexts.

Review of related literature
According to previous scholarly studies, teachers have used codeswitching for different functions in different contexts, either being English as second language or English as foreign language classrooms. Most of these studies indicated that teachers' codeswitching in L2 classes can fulfill three major functions: academic, managerial and social functions (Adendorff, 1993;Puspawati, 2018;Sali, 2014;Tsagari & Georgiou, 2016). Likewise, Ferguson (2003) categorized functions of classroom codeswitching into three main categories: curriculum access, classroom management and interpersonal relations, albeit there is no consensus about the number of specific functions. In actual fact, this classification is similar to a study done by Dehrab (2002) who categorized teachers' codeswitching into three overarching categories: codeswitching used to accomplish instructional tasks, achieve conversational tasks and convey social information. Inbar-Lourie (2010) also categorized the functions of teachers' codeswitching into three main purposes: instructional, managerial and affective purpose. Likewise, Turnbull and Arnett (2002) identify three functional categories of codeswitching in the L2 classroom. According to them, teachers use the learners' L1 for pedagogical, social and management purposes. Some other researchers classified the functions of teachers' codeswitching into two bigger umbrellas: pedagogical and social (Grant & Nguyen, 2017;Promnath & Tayjasanant, 2016;Qian, 2017;Zainil & Arsyad, 2021). In a nutshell, different researchers have put forward different taxonomies of classroom codeswitching functions.
Despite the differences in the terms used within the literature, the studies above suggest that there seems to be similarity in the broad classification of codeswitching functions in teachers' discourse. For example, as stated above, Dehrab (2002) used the term "instructional function " to refer to codeswitching used for accomplishing instructional tasks whereas Ferguson (2003) used "curriculum access" to refer to the use of codeswitching to help students to understand the subject matters of the lessons. Similarly, Uys and van Dulm (2011) and Sali (2014) used the term "academic function" which is used in this study instead of codeswitching for "curriculum access". However, identifying the exact function of every codeswitching instance is difficult (Bullock & Toribio, 2009). One of the reasons for this is the possibility for any given codeswitching instance to be multifunctional (Ferguson, 2009;Qian et al., 2009). Furthermore, teachers do not use codeswitching consciously. In other words, teachers might codeswitch unconsciously and automatically without being aware of the functions and effects of their codeswitching (Sert, 2005). Thus, for the purpose of this study, rather than listing all the functions presented in each study, the functions of teachers' codeswitching will be organized in light of findings from prior studies which are germane to this study: codeswitching for academic, managerial and social functions.
As for codeswitching for academic purposes, Ferguson (2003) used the term curriculum access which is equated with academic functions in this study. According to Ferguson (2003), codeswitching for curriculum access refers to helping students to comprehend the subject matter of the lesson. It was also employed by Üstünel (2016) study in Turkey. Üstünel (2016),taking sociocultural perspectives, found that teachers used codeswitching as a scaffolding technique to create a zone of proximal development(ZPD) in relation to particular pedagogical functions such as translating, asking a question, checking comprehension and giving metalanguage information. Similar studies were conducted by (Duff & Polio, 1994;Grant & Nguyen, 2017;Gwee & Saravanan, 2018;Ngoc & Yen, 2018;Taşçı & Aksu Ataç, 2020). For instance, Ngoc and Yen (2018) discovered that teachers codeswitch from English to Vietnamese for different functions including explaining complex grammar points and cross-cultural issues, explaining complex ideas, evaluating comprehension, passing on meaning through providing the L1 equivalence through translating L2 items or sentences, correcting students' errors besides interpersonal and classroom management purposes. Makulloluwa (2013) confirmed that teachers were found to codeswitch for the following functions: explaining difficult concepts, comparing and contrasting the two language systems, explaining grammatical points, defining difficult vocabulary, introducing new material and discussing cultural issues specific to Sri Lankan culture. Tsagari and Georgiou (2016) also disclosed that teachers applied codeswitching for translation of words and sentences, explaining grammar or other foreign language forms, checking comprehension and contrasting L2 with Ll.
In addition to delivering knowledge to students, codeswitching is also used for a variety of managerial purposes. According to Canagarajah (1995), Liu et al. (2004), and Sali (2014) teachers use codeswitching for the purpose of managing the lesson and student behavior efficiently and systematically. In the same token, Chen & Rubinstein-Avila, (2018) stated that lesson content is conveyed primarily by the official language of instruction, but the off-lesson concerns which include gaining students' attention, disciplining students, admonishing students and clarifying task instruction are better conveyed by the native language. This use of codeswitching is participant-related switching which takes into consideration the hearers' linguistic preferences or competence (Auer, 1984). This switching may happen when students do not understand or have the difficulty to understand the foreign language. Sali (2014) came to the conclusion that when teachers are not satisfied with the performance or behavior of students, they generally switch to L1 for classroom management since admonitions expressed in L1 are believed to be more effective and forceful. Moreover, using L1 for disciplinary purposes seems to be more energetic and expressive, target language use may not be so authentic; instead, it may become artificial (Gierlinger, 2015).
The third broad category focuses on the use of codeswitching to maintain and negotiate the social relationships between teachers and students. In relation to this, Gumperz (1982) asserts that using the native language of the speakers conveys a sense of solidarity while the non-native language is associated with social distance. This may imply that in classrooms where the teacher and the students share L1, the teacher uses it to express solidarity with the students. As to Ferguson (2003), the classroom is more than a place for learning; it is a social environment in its own right. He explains that teachers who use only English are often perceived as distant and consequently, teachers codeswitched to students' native language to develop harmonious relationships with the students and build cohesive classroom environments. In other words, codeswitching for interpersonal relations represents an affective or social function, in which codeswitching indexes a closer and more comfortable teacher-student relationship than the target language. Recent research findings have also proven that teachers codeswitching to students' L1 reduces anxiety (Cahyani et al., 2018), establishes social relationships and builds rapports (Qian, 2017), makes students feel comfortable in the classroom (De La Campa & Nassaji, 2009), gives praise and cracks jokes (Bozorgian & Fallahpour, 2015) More recent studies also have confirmed the different uses or functions of teachers' codeswitching reported in the previous studies. For example, Ataş and Sağın-Şimş (2021) found that teachers switched to Turkish mostly for educational purposes to change topic, give additional information, extend, explain, emphasize and exemplify information, and deal with task-related procedural problems although the language of instruction in the classrooms was English. A study by Zhang (2021) similarly indicated that teachers used codeswitching for offering translations, clarifying confusing sentences, shortening the distance between students and teachers, creating humors, attracting students' attention and imposing disciplines. Bairmani et al. (2022) also found that teachers used codeswitching for clarification, ease of expression, emphasis, repetitive functions, socializing, translation, checking understanding, giving instructions and topic shift .This shows that the functions of codeswitching or L1 use are relatively similar and consistent. However, one thing that should be acknowledge is that Ferguson's (2003Ferguson's ( , 2009) framework, which is based on a series of studies in different contexts,is a comprehensive framework in studying the functions of teachers' codeswitching (Cahyani et al., 2018).
Apart from exploring the aforementioned functions of codeswitching, researchers have also studied motivational factors affecting the language choice of teachers in EFL classrooms. De La Campa and Nassaji (2009), for instance, investigated the amount, purposes, and reasons for which teachers employed the L1 in L2 classrooms, and concluded that experienced and inexperienced teachers employed the L1 in their respective classes, but for different reasons and functions. They also found that students' low levels of proficiency in the target language played a pivotal role on teachers' use of codeswitching. Jingxia (2010) added that the students' English proficiency, differences between English and Chinese, teaching materials, lesson contents and objectives, department policy on the target language use, teachers' attitudes towards codeswitching, traditional methods and situational factors contribute to the occurrence of the switching to the L1. Similarly, Liu et al. (2004) argued that teachers' lack of oral proficiency or confidence in using English, students' inability to understand spoken English, the national entrance examination, teachers' beliefs, national and local curricula, assessment instruments, and educational policies were the main reasons for teachers' use of codeswitching. Furthermore, teachers' poor L2 skills can lead to the use of L1. In this regard, Khresheh (2012) noted that teachers' use of L1 was motivated by a desire to avoid committing grammatical mistakes not to be embarrassed in front of their students. Therefore, they avoided speaking solely in English, and switched to Arabic.
Although studies on the functions and reasons of codeswitching abound internationally, to date only a few studies in the Ethiopian educational context have addressed the issue of teachers' codeswitching practices. In fact, it is only in the last two decades or so that classroom codeswitching research has begun to emerge in Ethiopia. Among the few number of studies, most of them were conducted at higher education settings (Minwuyelet, 2019;Kenenisa, 2003;Samuel , 2014),or elementary education settings (Alemnew et al., 2016;Nigatu, 2013),while one study was conducted at secondary education setting (Tamiru, 2013). Besides, these studies are not different from the overall literature about the use of codeswitching in EFL classrooms. To exemplify, Nigatu, (2013) and Samuel (2014) found that teachers used codeswitching for explaining new words, explaining difficult concepts, giving instructions, maintaining classroom discipline, checking students' comprehension and motivating students to participate. Tamiru, (2013) also noted that teachers in content subjects used codeswitching for question shift, clarification, enhancing participation, repetition, floor-holding and confirmation. Thus, there seems to be a gap in literature pertaining to the teachers' use of codeswitching at secondary school levels. Since foreign language teaching at different educational settings may have its own distinct characteristics, the present study attempted to add the literature on codeswitching in Ethiopian EFL secondary school setting focusing on the functions and reasons for teachers' codeswitching in English language classrooms.

Research design
To investigate the teachers' codeswitching in detail, qualitative case study was selected to address the research questions for the following reasons. Firstly, as the focus was on a specific phenomenon, which was codeswitching in EFL classrooms, an attempt was made to understand this particular phenomenon in-depth within its natural environment without any manipulation of behavior. Secondly, case study permits the uses of multiple sources of data (Yin, 2018), which in this study consisted of audio-assisted observations, note-taking and stimulated recall interviews which allowed researchers to study the issue in-depth. Thirdly, this study did not seek to generalize from its findings and therefore did not require a large sample size.

Research context
The research setting was a rural secondary school located in South Wollo Zone of Amhara Region, Ethiopia where all the teachers and students in the school spoke Amharic as their first language and English as foreign language. Furthermore, they shared the same social and cultural backgrounds. The school was chosen deliberately for the following reasons. First, the researchers were familiar with the selected area in general and the school in particular. This helped the researchers to get access and develop relationships with concerned bodies. Second, the site was in close proximity to the researchers. This was very important to get easy and frequent access to the school understudy. Third, there was not any research conducted in the school in general and the present kind of research in particular. Finally, sharing the participants' cultural and linguistic backgrounds, researchers were able to follow and understand teachers' codeswitching behavior. This also enabled the researchers to transcribe and translate easily the instances of teachers' codeswitching.

Participants
In this study, three teachers, along with their students from Sayint Secondary School were recruited to partake in the study. The selection of three teachers was purposely done on the basis of the following criteria. Firstly, they should have either a BA Degree or above in English language teaching and they should have at least five years working experience. This was done to avoid the possibility that their codeswitching might be due to being novice teachers and to ensure that participants had familiarity with the context. Secondly, they should have interest and willingness in cooperating with the researchers. Thirdly, teachers should teach at a school where codeswitching was extensively used by the teachers. As preliminary observation was made in the school for the purpose of gaining access to the school and familiarizing with the participants, three teachers who were heavy codeswitchers were identified in the school although it was expected that codeswitching was inexorable in EFL classrooms, especially when teachers and students had the same L1. As a result, three teachers were chosen intentionally that met the defining criteria that were set and their potential to give rich information for answering the research questions (Kumar, 2011;Patton, 2002).

Data collection
This study employed audio-assisted classroom observations, field notes and stimulated recall interviews for data collection. Each teacher was observed for eight times and each class session lasted for about 45 minutes. In total, 24 classroom observations were conducted. This total excluded the observations that were made for familiarization and rapport building purposes. These recurrent and prolonged observations were done to minimize observer's paradox effects as the students and teachers get more accustomed to having a visitor in their classes. In this regard, Borg (2015) claims that repeated rather than one-off observations of teaching are recommended on the assumption that reactivity decreases over time as teachers become accustomed to the presence of the observers although this problem can never be eliminated entirely. Moreover, the exact purpose of the study, specifically codeswitching was not explicitly disclosed to the participants until the entire observation was over in order not to affect the outcome of the study. However, they were tactfully informed that their language use generally would be observed.
On top of audio-assisted observations, field notes and stimulated recall interviews were used to complement the recorded data and to analyze the naturally occurring classroom talk. Field notes were important to capture teachers' and students' non-verbal features and gestures which could not be captured by recording. The notes were also valuable to record the researchers' subjective impressions and interpretations of the events. Thus, field notes were helpful to data transcription and analysis.
Stimulated recall interviews were used to obtain the motivations of teachers' codeswitching which could not be answered solely through audio-assisted observations. Gass and Mackey (2017) argue that it is ideal to carry out stimulated recall interviews immediately after task completion. Conversely, Sanchez and Trevor (2020) who reviewed a number studies found that the majority of studies used the recall sessions that were held within seven days of the initial event though in a few studies they were conducted more than a week or two. These suggest that the delayed time for conducting the stimulated recall interview did not appear to be a big deal. Thus, for practical reasons, stimulated recall interviews were conducted after the entire observation was over within two weeks. And it was at this time that the teachers were fully debriefed about the details and the true purposes of the research so that no teacher would like to withdraw from the study. Silverman (2013) argues that research participants must be informed about the purpose, methods, possible uses of the research and the risks. Moreover, ensuring research participants participate voluntarily, making their comments confidential and protecting them from harm should be considered. In light of these, the following ethical matters were taken into account for this study. Firstly, consent had to be obtained from the concerned bodies. Consequently, the consent was gotten from the principal of school. After that English teachers of the school were notified that a study was going to be conducted on classroom language use. They were happy with the idea, and they granted the researchers the permission to carry out the study. Secondly, the teachers and the students were informed the focus of the research. However, the detailed research objectives were not explained to the participants until the end of classroom observation to avoid contamination of data as codeswitching is a delicate topic. Thirdly, pseudonyms were used to protect the identities of teachers. Thus, the teachers were called as Anteneh, Beminet and Hailu. Besides, the responses of the participants were kept confidential. Fourthly, participants were informed that they had the right to withdraw at any moment during the research process.

Method of data analysis
Given the qualitative nature of the study and its emphasis on classroom interaction and the functions of teachers' codeswitching, the recorded data from the three teachers were analyzed following discourse analytic approach by adopting Ferguson's (2003) taxonomy of classroom codeswitching. One might ask why Ferguson's taxonomy has been selected to analyze the data. Ferguson's (2003) system was adapted as a guiding framework in this study for four reasons. Firstly, it is based on the findings of previous studies. Secondly, it is comprehensive. Thirdly, the codeswitching categories are based on a series of studies conducted in various pedagogical and geographic contexts. Fourthly, it is a recent framework compared to Gumperz (1982) Semantic model. Thus, the data gleaned from audio-assisted observations were coded and categorized into themes. Observation notes and data from the stimulated interviews with teachers complemented an analysis of the functions of teachers' codeswitching which gained through audio recording. In other words, the functions of teachers' codeswitching were verified through the stimulated recall interviews of teachers.

Results
Data gained from audio recording and observations were selected from each teacher. Comments provided by the teachers during the stimulated recall interviews associated with specific codeswitching episodes are presented together.

Codeswitching for academic functions
Academic functions of teachers' codeswitching contained eight subtypes which will be presented in the following eight extracts.

Codeswitching for checking students' understanding
Teachers repeatedly used codeswitching to check whether or not the students understood the lesson taught. The extract from Hailu's class depicts the incidence.

Extract 1 (Hailu)
In the above extract, Hailu was teaching nouns. In turn 3, he switched to Amharic to evoke an affirmative answer from the students, given in turn 4 following the students' silence. He used codeswitching for pseudo checking because everybody can say the expression gilts new without understanding what had been said. Thus, the choral response by the students was not a genuine indication that they had understood the lesson.
As teachers noted in the interview, they used codeswitching when their students did not understand the grammar lesson, but Amharic should not be used excessively at the expense of English. As to them, as students had varied proficiency levels in English, they did not want to exclude low proficient students.

Codeswitching for explaining grammatical rules
It was observed that teachers used Amharic to elucidate grammar exercises when students confused or when they did not give responses as in the following extract.
Extract 2 (Anteneh) The student initiated codeswitching to seek further clarifications on the passive which caused confusion and resulted in the use of Amharic. As we can see, Anteneh began with English as the matrix language but as the lesson progressed, he used Amharic as the matrix language. Following the switch, the students understood the concepts. Here, the use of Amharic seemed a justified choice as it helped students to give the correct answer.
Interviewed teachers explained that they used Amharic when students did not understand the lesson. For instance, Anteneh said: Not all students will understand my explanations if I use English only. There are low proficient students. They do not want English only. If you look at the students' faces, you will identify whether they understand you or not. Thus, codeswitching is necessary.
It is possible to assert that it would not be right to expect all students comprehended what the teacher had explained in English. Under such circumstance, teachers simply resort to Amharic for the benefits of students.

Codeswitching for explaining vocabularies
Providing the Amharic equivalents of English vocabularies was a common practice in the observed lessons. The following extract is an illustrative of this practice.

Extract 3 (Beminet)
It was noted that Beminet tried to ensure that all students know the words in the lesson, especially if there are new words. He asked students what the words mean in English as it is the case in turn 1 so that he would not translate everything. However, students seemed to be confused with the meaning of meddle. When Beminet asked twice what meddle means, nobody was able to provide the answer although he provided a context. Finally, he switched to Amharic with the intention of clarifying the novel word to the students rather than strictly sticking to the target word.
During the interview, teachers explained that the types and natures of language skills determined their codeswitching practices; they commonly used Amharic when they taught vocabulary. Thus, a surprising finding in this study was that teachers believed that students learn better when strange and difficult words are explained in Amharic. This in turn shows that teachers' belief about teaching method was another motivational factor.

Codeswitching for recapitulation
Teachers used codeswitching to recap the salient points of the lesson in Amharic in order that students might not miss important points as indicated in Extract 4.

Extract 4 (Anteneh)
In reviewing the lesson, Anteneh first used English to explain the core points of the lesson, and then he re-explained them in Amharic to make students understand the lesson although the students did not request him to do so. The teacher used English words which are embedded in an Amharic sentence structure and pure Amharic sentence. His use of the Amharic word lematekalel served to signal the end of the ongoing discussion. In connection to this, teachers were asked why In Extract 4, Anteneh was seen when he used sentential and intrasentential codeswitching. In this regard, they were asked why they used intrasentential codeswitching. Anteneh and Beminet did not provide obvious rationales for this kind of codeswitching. However, Hailu stated that his use of intrasentential codeswitching could be a natural result of being a bilingual speaker and it was his habit. Hailu believed that codeswitching should not be used haphazardly.

Codeswitching for correcting errors
This function was employed by teachers when they taught grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation as used in Extract 5.

Extract 5 (Anteneh)
Students often made mistakes, particularly in grammar and pronunciation. As a result, teachers switched to Amharic to provide feedback and highlight students' errors. In Extract 5, a student was reading a text entitled with three different traditions. While the student was reading the text, he mispronounced the word hymn. The student also pronounced other words in the text wrongly. However, the teacher did not repair these errors on the spot for reasons unknown. During the interview, Anteneh explained: It is not fair to expect students to produce flawless English. Native speakers of English make errors let alone EFL teachers and students. I also make mistakes. So I can tolerate the students' errors, but I do not completely ignore errors. I sometimes use Amharic to correct.
The quote above suggests that Anteneh did not use Amharic to correct every error unless he found that it should be corrected.

Codeswitching for delivering culture-related message
Teachers used codeswitching for dealing with cultural issues which cannot be expressed in English. The following extract is typical example. Extract 6 (Beminet) The term ageligil, which refers to a cultural object, was so indigenous that Beminet could not translate it into English. In this occasion, the use of Amharic was indispensable and was not motivated by stylistic choice. Hence, the teacher used ageligil,tef and enjera which are Amharic registers and peculiar to the local community. In the interview with Beminet, he stated:

I wish I had to translate ageligil in English, but I could not find the proper word in English.I believe that you cannot substitute basket for agelgil. Basket and agelgil are totally different words. In Amharic agelgil and kirchat have different meanings and used for different purposes.
Thus, it is worth noting that Beminet was certain that the word agelgil does not have an English counterpart as it has its own cultural connotation. When there were no English words that replace Amharic words, it is desirable to discuss issues pertaining to culture in Amharic so as not to confuse students. If Beminet had used an English term for agelgil which was untranslatable, he would have conveyed a different meaning.

Codeswitching for euphemism purpose
Teachers were seen to use polite and pleasant words which are culturally acceptable not to offend, embarrass or hurt the feelings of students as in the following extract.

Extract 7 (Anteneh)
When a student asked Anteneh the meaning of the term diarrhea, Anteneh avoided giving the meaning of the word diarrhea. Rather, he beat around the bush and he himself became asker. Moreover, he invited other students to give him the meaning of the word diarrhea. However, no student had replied his question. The teacher and students might not know the meaning of the word in English or they did not want to say it as it is an unpleasant word in both Amharic and English. Finally, Anteneh used the term wedetach instead of saying kizen or tekimat to soften the vulgar expression.

Codeswitching to compensate for teachers' incompetence
This function refers to the teachers' switch to Amharic when they were unable to express their ideas in English. Extract 8 below is an instance where codeswitching was used as a manifestation of linguistic incompetence.

Extract 8 (Hailu)
In the above interaction, Hailu could not sustain an explanation in English. For example, in turn 3, he gave explanations, but he did not exactly tell the difference of the expressions. Instead, his explanations were unclear. Students were not satisfied with what he said. They asked him to give them tangible examples, but Hailu himself implicitly appealed for help and invited students to give him examples. Moreover, when the students asked him to give them an example, he recommended them to read a grammar book. Interestingly, such incidents occurred only in Hailu's class.

Codeswitching for managerial functions
Codeswitching was not only used for achieving academic ends, it was also employed by teachers to manage off-lesson tasks which were not directly related to the contents of the lesson.

Codeswitching for reprimanding students
The classroom observations clearly showed that teachers used codeswitching to discipline students, especially when using English appeared to be ineffective to deal with discipline problems. The following extract is a case in point. As one of the students behaved inappropriately, Anteneh used Amharic to show his annoyance at the student. After bringing misbehaving students to order, Anteneh switched to English and began to conduct the lesson. However, students began to shout to answer the question eagerly. As a consequence, Anteneh told students to raise their hands to control the noise level and to ensure that they would get a turn in answering questions.

Extract 9 (Anteneh)
In the interview with Anteneh he told the researchers that he used Amharic in contexts when English was in vain for serious behavioral incidents. He did not want to use Amharic initially, but when the student failed to understand what had been said, he employed it to tell of him. Other teachers also stated that they used Amharic for reasons of authenticity and forcefulness when the other options failed to convey the intended message.

Codeswitching for giving instructions
Teachers deployed Amharic to make students do or not to do something in the classroom. Extract 10 illustrates this point.

Extract 10 (Beminet)
As the lesson was about to start, Beminet noticed that there was no chalk and instructed a student to get some pieces of chalk, and he ordered one of the students to go and get him pieces of chalk from the staff room. Besides, Beminet ordered the student to clean the board. With regard to this, he seemed to have the power to give directive to students to clean the board. Furthermore, he used a simple language but chose to do this in Amharic with the aim of making it comprehensible.
Beminet rationalized why he used Amharic as follows: If my students do not understand anything, I will use Amharic though it is an English lesson. The classroom is the main place, and for somethe only place, that students learn English. If I see that they do not understand, I would rather use Amharic. I have to put myself in my students' shoes.
The above quote tells us that the teacher thought that it was useful to use English only, but he felt guilty for using Amharic in the classroom. Even though Beminet admitted that English should be taught through English, he preferred to use Amharic when students faced difficulties. The other two teachers also explained that as students did not have exposure to English, Amharic was sometimes more convenient to convey their messages clearly.

Codeswitching for topic shift
Teachers can present a new lesson or moves from one subject to another, speaking to reading, or from one goal to another using Amharic. The following extract shows such use of codeswitching. Extract 11 (Anteneh) The extract above demonstrates that students wanted Anteneh to explain the point further. Nonetheless, Anteneh was about to end what he was talking about and did not dwell on the question. Consequently, the teacher interrupted the student and shifted to a new activity because the student was obstinate to accept what his teacher said. Anteneh was tired of persuading the students. The expressions yibekal and ezih lay bizu gize atefan shows that Anteneh wanted to move on a new topic as they spent a lot of time. This might help students focus on the new topic rather than thinking about what they discussed earlier.
In the interview, teachers reasoned that as students did not have enough exposure to English, and there were heterogeneous ability learners, they used L1 to introduce new topics and new vocabulary, manage the class and give instructions. For example, Anteneh stated he used Amharic when he moved from one activity to another activity according to the topic being discussed. He further stated that he codeswitched to Amharic when the need arises and when expedient. Teachers switch to L1 when it was the demand of a particular activity and English-only became futile. Thus, it seems unreasonable to expect that Amharic should not be used in English classrooms.

Codeswitching for transitions
Teachers not only used codeswitching for switching the topic, they also used codeswitching to transition from one activity to the other activity in the same topic or lesson.

Extract 12 (Hailu)
In Extract 12, Hailu was doing exercises on conditionals. Nevertheless, he tried to capture the attention of the students by applying Amharic when students were in bewildered. Hailu explicitly notified them that the question they were dealing with was different from what they did earlier. Here, Hailu did not introduce a new topic, but he shifted to another point in the same topic. He inserted the word ahun as a marker of transition in his utterance to indicate a change in focus from normal conditional sentences to inverted conditionals, not a change in topic, by displaying attention to an upcoming point. All the three teachers were seen when they employed the discourse markers esh (okay) tiru (good) ahun (now) repeatedly as triggers to switch to Amharic.

Codeswitching for getting students' attention
Teachers used simple commands such as quiet, silent and attention to maintain class order and draw students' attention in both languages. Extract 13 (Anteneh) In this extract, Anteneh was checking whether or not students signed on the attendance sheet. While Anteneh was calling one by one his students for checking their presence, he used Amharic to grab the attention of the students, and he found that a student who did not come signed. Realizing that a student was missing, he had an interaction with one of the students who was present. And then, Anteneh let the student to sign on the attendance sheet. Having done this, Anteneh had to know all the students who signed on the attendance sheet were present. However, a student signed for his friends in their absence as expected. Anteneh also began to identify the truants and the one who signed for the truants using Amharic.

Codeswitching for social functions
Aside from meeting academic and managerial goals, codeswitching was also employed to cater the social needs of the students, which helps to create friendly relations among teachers and students.

Codeswitching for creating humor
Teachers frequently resorted to their L1 when using friendly talk or jokes. In the following extract, Anteneh used Amharic to bring humor into the classroom.

Extract 14 (Anteneh)
In the above extract, Anteneh knew that students had free time and told them to use the time effectively not to postpone their homework. Although a student had already done it, Anteneh wanted to give the student extra duty. Here, Anteneh did not have the intent to give extra homework to a student, but he said deliberately to give him new homework simply for the sake of joking which aimed to bridge the social distance between the teacher and the students. Accordingly, students laughed collectively as they knew that it was sarcastic.

Codeswitching for indexing solidarity
Teachers used Amharic to build solidarity and intimate relations with the students and to show some concerns when students seemed to have problems. Extract 15 is a typical example.
Extract 15 (Beminet) Beminet encouraged females to answer questions. Despite his effort, female students did not answer the question. He did not want to give the chance for the student who usually answers a question either. Rather, he used the expression eniserewallen. For reasons unknown, Beminet delayed doing the question. The expression eniserewallen refers to both Beminet and students might have a positive effect on building rapport with students as he was including them in doing the activities. This suggests that students were not alone in doing the tasks. Thus, instead of motivating students solely in English, he used Amharic as a tool to encourage the students and help them build their confidences as learning a foreign language is expected to create some tensions within students. Furthermore, the other two teachers believed that in a classroom where teachers and students have a shared mother tongue, the use of codeswitching for showing empathy is unavoidable.

Codeswitching for provision of compliments
Teachers employed codeswitching to provide compliments to their students based on the satisfactions they got from their students. The following extract is an illustrative of compliments delivered to a student.
Extract 16 (Hailu) In the extract above, Hailu wanted to remind students the difference between sight and site; however, they did not answer the question. After Hailu's utterance, the student answered the questions successfully. As a result, he was satisfied with students' explanation and complimented the student by saying bedebgeltsehewal and ene erase yeteleye yelegnim.
In the interview, teachers thought that it was important to use Amharic sparingly to appreciate students' efforts and correct answers. As to them giving compliments in Amharic was useful to motivate students and helped them to build a close relationship with their students.

Discussion
The aim of the current study was to explore teachers' codeswitching functions and the underlying motivations for their codeswitching practices. All the three teachers who participated in this study agreed that using Amharic language would be beneficial for students, and they did it for the interests of students. Moreover, they confessed that it was ineluctable to use L1 in EFL classrooms where teachers and students have shared first language. The results of this study, despite the tacit English-only policy, revealed that teachers' codeswitching performed three major functions that included various sub-functions: academic, managerial and social functions as outlined in Ferguson's (2003) framework.
The first broad functions of teachers' codeswitching emerged from the data analysis show that codeswitching could be used to transmit the contents of the lesson to their students. Teachers deployed codeswitching for checking students' understanding, explaining vocabulary and grammatical rules, recapitulation, compensating for teachers' incompetence, correcting errors, delivering culture-related message and euphemism purposes though the ultimate purpose of the EFL classroom is the mastering of English and not the use of two languages. These findings seem to be compatible with the previous studies in the literature (Adendorff, 1993;Ataş & Sağın-Şimş, 2021;Dehrab, 2002;Duff & Polio, 1994;De La Campa & Nassaji, 2009;Sali, 2014;Taşçı & Aksu Ataç, 2020;Üstünel, 2016). However, in this study teachers used more number of sub-functions of codeswitching compared to the previous studies may be due to two reasons. The classroom context and students' proficiency levels may affect the number of micro-functions employed by the teachers. Furthermore, the use of codeswitching for euphemism purpose, which is common in naturalistic codeswitching, and codeswitching to compensate linguistic deficiency were the novel findings specific to this particular study. Thus, in summary, it is possible to say that the above findings are in line with Vygotsky's (1986) sociocultural theory which states that L1 is an important tool to mediate the L2 learning. In this study, teachers used codeswitching as a scaffolding technique to help students to understand the subject matter rather than using English alone.
As regards to codeswitching for managerial purposes, teachers used more numbers of codeswitching functions harnessed codeswitching as a tool for reprimanding students when there were serious instances of misbehavior in the classroom, reminding students, giving instructions related to classroom tasks, shifting topics, indicating transitions in the lessons and drawing students' attention. It was evident that teachers typically used codeswitching for chiding misbehaving students and giving instructions so that they could comprehend what the teachers had said without difficulty. The results from this study provide insights into why Amharic was chosen by the teachers in such situations rather than English. In support of this, Sali (2014) contended that codeswitching to students' L1 is more forceful, emphatic and valuable rather than using English so that teachers could convey their real feelings. Like the current study, teacher codeswitching for addressing classroom management issues has been discovered by previous researchers (Canagarajah, 1995;Chen & Rubinstein-Avila, 2018;Ferguson, 2003;Liu et al., 2004;Sali, 2014;Uys & van Dulm, 2011). Uys and van Dulm (2011), for instance, claimed that codeswitching can be used in classroom management contexts such as maintaining the attention of the learners, reprimanding and giving general instructions to learners to ensure that all learners understand what is expected of them. Nevertheless, this is at odds with a study conducted by Cahyani et al. (2018) where teachers use English to address a serious and urgent matter such as disciplining a student. This might be students were tertiary level students or it might due to differences in context. In present study, however, when teachers were unhappy with students' unruly behavior, they codeswitched to Amharic to express their resentment, instead of using English alone which sounds more distanced. Besides, when compared against prior studies, codeswitching for transition was the new function of codeswitching.
The third major purpose of codeswitching which would fall in the category of what Ferguson (2003Ferguson ( , 2009) labeled as "interpersonal function" and what Zainil and Arsyad (2021) called as "affective function" and Sali named it" socio/cultural " was codeswitching for social purpose. Teachers used codeswitching for three main functions: indexing solidarity or empathy, giving compliment and injecting humor; they switched their code to Amharic to express their care for their students. The findings of the study are in line with those of previous studies (Ferguson, 2003(Ferguson, , 2009Qian, 2017;Sali, 2014) which reported that the use of L1 shows closeness and a more humanized environment, which may in turn motivate students to learn the foreign language whereas the foreign language invokes a more distant relationship. In a similar vein, Gumperz (1982) claims that using the native language of the speakers conveys a sense of solidarity ("we" code), while the non-native language is associated with social distance ("they" code). It has to be noted that EFL classrooms are social contexts in their own right where language learning occurs. In other words, students not only acquire a target language, but also sociocultural knowledge in a speech community. Therefore, codeswitching cannot be completely avoided in EFL classroom for socialization purposes.
The second research question aimed to identify the motivations behind the usage of teachers' codeswitching. The results indicated that students' low ability, the types and difficulty of language skills, teachers' beliefs, shared tongue and students' limited exposure to English were some factors that influenced the three teachers to switch from English to Amharic during their lessons. Of these factors, the study indicated that students' low English ability was the most important motive triggering teachers to codeswitch to Amharic. During the stimulated interviews, all the three teachers unanimously agreed that the students' inability to understand English highly influenced their decision to use or not to use codeswitching. They had the concern not being understood by the students. The teachers emphasized that the mixed-ability class prevented them from using English-only so that they used Amharic to accommodate students' low language proficiency. This can be viewed and interpreted from the perspectives of accommodation theory which states that interlocutors adjust their speech and other forms of verbal or non-verbal communication to accommodate their conversation partners (Sachdev et al., 2013).In this study too, teachers engaged in codeswitching when they thought students did not understand clearly what they were saying. In particular, when students were not proficient in English, teachers spoke Amharic to adjust their speech depending on the L2 proficiency level of their students although the language of instruction in the classrooms was English. In other words, teachers resorted to Amharic to accommodate students' low English ability.
Furthermore, it became clear that the result of the current study is consistent with previous studies (Jingxia, 2010;De La Campa & Nassaji, 2009;Liu et al. 2004), which reported that students' low proficiency level, difficulty of language skills, and teachers' beliefs were contributing factors that influenced teachers to switch from L2 to L1 in L2 classes. Like the present study, studies by (Jingxia, 2010;Makulloluwa, 2013;Momenian & Samar, 2011) indicated that students' low proficiency level in L2 is the most determinant factor among the factors that compelled teachers to use codeswitching. Thus, teachers should use codeswitching considering the needs and English language abilities of their students if they want their students become successful in learning English.
And finally, an interesting finding emerged from the data. In contrast to previous studies, teachers were observed when they switched between Amharic and English with no obvious reason. This kind of codeswitching, Amglish, occurred when a teacher mixed L1 and L2. In other words, it is a process of combining Amharic affixes with English words for the purposes not related to teaching and learning process, where teachers use it either consciously or unconsciously. In the interview held with teachers, they could not tell the researchers the pedagogical and social reasons of the attachments of Amharic affixes to English words. Thus, it is claimed that this is another new finding of the present study.

Conclusion
This study examined English language teachers' codeswitching functions and the underlying reasons behind their codeswitching practices. The results indicated that the three teachers utilized codeswitching for academic functions such as checking students' understanding, explaining grammar and vocabularies, reviewing lessons, correcting errors, delivering culture-related message, euphemism purpose and compensating teachers' incompetence in English. Teachers also used codeswitching for managerial functions including reprimanding, drawing students' attention, topic shift, giving instructions and transitions. Moreover, they used codeswitching as a social tool to inject humor, build rapport and give compliments. The results of this study are generally in accord with earlier studies (Dehrab, 2002;Ferguson, 2003;Sali, 2014;Tsagari & Georgiou, 2016). However, there are three novel sub-functions: codeswitching for euphemism purposes, compensating English incompetence and transitions. These, may suggest that the uses of codeswitching appears to be context-specific. In fact, these functions are common in naturalistic codeswitching.
The study also found that various factors such as students' low English ability, the difficulty level and types of language skills, teachers' beliefs about codeswitching, the students' little exposure to English and shared L1 influenced teachers' codeswitching practices. Of these factors, students' low English proficiency was the decisive factor that heavily influenced teachers to use Amharic which corroborates previous findings (Jingxia, 2010;Makulloluwa, 2013;Momenian & Samar, 2011). Moreover, teachers were seen when they used a mixture of Amharic and English with no apparent reasons. However, teachers' should provide a rationale for their use of codeswitching in their classes instead of feeling guilty about, or avoiding using it in their classes.
The study showed that codeswitching in EFL classrooms becomes a pervasive reality that cannot be avoided in language classrooms where the teacher's first language is the same as that of the students as the teachers need to address different proficiency levels of students in the classroom. Thus, teachers should be aware of the functions and reasons of codeswitching as it is an important vehicle to facilitate students' learning provided that it is used judiciously and appropriately. This implies that teachers should be given training when, how and why they codeswitch. Besides, teachers should consider students' varied needs and adjust their practices accordingly and include L1 in their classroom instead of viewing it as an evil in EFL classrooms.
Finally, this study was not free from limitations. First, this study was carried out with only three male teachers who shared the same L1 with their students, which means the results cannot be generalized to all EFL teachers. Therefore, researchers should conduct a study with more teachers who have different L1. Second, the research was conducted in Sayint District only. If it had been conducted in different contexts, different findings could have been obtained. A further limitation was that the functions of students' codeswitching were not explored. Therefore, future studies will focus on students' codeswitching.