In the previous chapter, I introduced the Thai context, and presented extracts from lessons and interviews which gave a picture of EFL in this Asian context. In the present chapter, I wish to look more closely at classroom data, focusing on what I will call bilingual teacher talk – that is, at the ways in which teachers use both L1 and L2 in class. The purpose of this chapter is to construct a descriptive framework: the categories identified are intended to be of value to teachers and teacher-educators in the analysis of bilingual classroom practices.

I started my analysis by going through transcripts and field notes for each lesson observed, and attempting to categorise teacher talk. By comparing one lesson to the next, it became possible to identify distinct communicative functions across the whole group. Various attempts were then made to relate these functions to existing patterns and descriptors, which included the IRF sequence (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975); Christie's (following Bernstein's) pedagogic and regulatory registers (1994); the Communicative Orientation of second Language Teaching scheme (COLT – Allen et al., 1984; Spada & Fröhlich, 1995); the latter's development into the Functional Language Alternation Analysis of Teacher Talk framework (FLAATT – S.H. Kim, 2001; S.H. Kim & Elder, 2005); Canagarajah's (1995) identification of 17 micro functions of teacher L1 use; and a 12-part scheme offered by Üstünel and Seedhouse (2005).

However, the categories used by existing studies were found to be better suited to a particular context (EFL, ESL, FLT); to be lacking a bilingual dimension; or to focus at a level of detail which although appropriate for research purposes, would be difficult for teachers to apply to an analysis of their practice. With regard to the IRF, for example, it was found that while Step 1 (Initiate) seemed familiar in these Thai classrooms, Step 2 (Respond) was sometimes absent, and Step 3 (Feedback) could either be absent, or more commonly was of a different (bilingual) nature and (non-evaluative) function.