Channels, Fall 2018

Channels • 2018 • Volume 3 • Number 1 Page 1 The Effects of Code-Mixing on Second Language Development Aimee Spice English, Literature, and Modern Languages Introduction s a multilingual, language learner, and aspiring language teacher, the subject of code-mixing (CM) and language development is of great importance to me. This subject is increasingly relevant in a world where multilingualism is the new normal and monolingualism is becoming rarer and rarer. As a young child and into adolescence, my perceptions of people who code-mixed were only negative; however, those perceptions began to change over time as I called questioned the validity of code-mixing and even began to code-mix myself, as a means of L2 development. While I started to see the benefits of CM in real-life contexts, I still held to strong beliefs of L2-only language instruction, having learned the drawbacks of the Grammar Translation Method and the benefits of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Even my strong beliefs have since been called into question in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of L1 use in the language classroom. This paper will aim to outline and detail the differing views on CM, evaluating its effects on second language development and relating those effects to language learning and teaching. This study addresses the question: “how does code-mixing facilitate or constrain second language development?”. My hypothesis is that CM facilitates acquisition at the beginning stages of language development and constrains acquisition at more advanced stages. In order to confirm or deny this hypothesis, contemporary, peer-reviewed publications from 2013 to 2018 on CM and second language development were examined, questionnaires were given to language learners/multilinguals about CM as pertaining to L2 acquisition, and a language teacher was interviewed about CM as an instructional strategy in the language classroom. Literature Review In order to discuss the subject of CM, we must first define what it means. Controversy exists regarding the technical differences between CM, code-switching (CS), inter-sentential CS, and intra-sentential CS. Goldrick, Putnam, and Schwarz (2016) define CM, also termed intra-sentential CS, as “the fluent integration of two languages within a single utterance” (p. 857). Hasan and Akhand (2014) state that inter-sentential and intra-sentential CS is “where elements are mixed from both languages that are used in the same sentence and/or in the same conversation” (p. 63). They further define CM as a “third, new code” (p. 64) formed from two languages blending together (Hasan & Akhand, 2014). A