Channels, Fall 2018

Page 10 Spice • Codemixing occur from L1 to L2 as a result of CM, while three other participants discussed the positive transfer that can occur from L1 to L2. In the latter sense, language learners can use existing knowledge of L1 to better understand their TL. One participant does not believe CM would be beneficial at the point of language learning he has reached, as he thinks CM could cause him to wrongly superimpose semantic ranges from L1 onto words in L2. However, the same participant also said CM can be beneficial to language learning in general because it can help learners better understand L1 through L2. The participant’s own experience with this, he elaborated, is that although he could speak his L1 fluently, he did not understand its grammar, or the metalanguage used to describe how language functions until he began learning another language. This shows an example of positive transfer from L2 to L1, as the participant’s L2 learning aided him in L1 comprehension. The three participants who said CM can allow for positive transfer from L1 to L2 agreed that CM can be used as a tool to understand L2 rules through those of L1. Speech Variation Four participants noted that CM is beneficial in speech, specifically regarding accuracy of vocabulary, variation of language, and flow of conversation. These participants recognized that pulling vocabulary from two or more languages, instead of one, allows for more precise language. CM, participants said, can also allow for greater rapidity in speech with quicker recall for the multilingual. According to participants, CM can provide more fluidity in speech when language learners do not possess adequate vocabulary to express themselves in the TL. CM was also noted by a participant as being helpful in making oneself understood. This applies to language learners as well as proficient multilinguals –language learners can code-mix to compensate for what they do not know in L2, while proficient multilinguals can code-mix to express themselves in a more precise manner. Participants also mentioned the limitations of CM in conversation. Over half of the participants (7/13 or 54%) pointed out that CM for more precise speech only works if the speaker and listener share the languages being mixed; otherwise, these participants noted, CM can lead to lack of communication. A Language Teacher’s Perspective The language teacher interviewed reiterated many of the research findings. He answered questions about practical language instruction, such as how students can benefit from mixed-language instruction or L2-only instruction (see Appendix C). He weighed the pros and cons of each one and gave situations where each would be more ideal and practical by making a distinction between younger students and older students. Younger students would probably be those before the Critical Period, while older students would be those after the Critical Period. Older students have a better understanding of metalanguage and a greater capacity for grammar discussion and comprehension of abstract concepts. Because of this, the teacher noted, older students would benefit more from code-mixed instruction that requires metalinguistic terms. The language teacher stated that L2-only instruction works better with younger students, while it is not as practical or feasible with older students, who could benefit more from CM or L1 grammar discussion than L2-only instruction. When asked about the benefits and drawbacks of L2-only instruction, he said it is useful because it forces students to speak L2