Channels, Fall 2018

Page 12 Spice • Codemixing According to the language teacher interviewed and corroborated by researchers in the literature reviewed, CM can be used in the language classroom to lower students’ affective filter and heighten motivation to learn the TL (Keller, 2016; Makulloluwa, 2013). It can also be used for increased comprehension of the TL or for classroom management, the language teacher said. An L2-only classroom is no longer seen as the best option or the ideal, according to researchers such as Gilead (2016), Keller (2016), Kustati (2014), and Jiang, Garcia, and Willis (2014). Research has shown the benefits of mixed-language instruction in the L2 classroom, particularly in low-proficiency levels (Gilead, 2016; Jiang, Garcia, & Willis, 2014; Keller, 2016; Kustati, 2014). CM can be a valuable pedagogical tool in low- proficiency level classrooms, and it should be utilized as such. CM should taper off in higher-proficiency level language classrooms, according to the language teacher, ultimately mimicking real-life L2 contexts as language instructors include more and more TL input. Limitations and Further Study In order to narrow the search criteria for the literature, this study looked only at peer- reviewed articles published between 2013 and 2018. Broadening the search criteria could present ideas for further study, as examining viewpoints on CM and second language development historically could be beneficial for further study on the topic. Additionally, interviewing and surveying more language learners and multilinguals would allow for a more complete idea of people’s perceptions of their own CM and their views on the pros and cons of CM in general. Surveys could be quantitative in nature, where interviews would allow for qualitative research, as the questionnaires did in this study. The subject of CM and second language development is one that is continually discussed, even more so in recent years with the spread of multilingualism. As time goes on more research can be done on the subject, and long-term research beyond the scope of this study could be conducted as well. Conclusion Conducting research on the effects of CM on second language development highlighted views on the subject and brought out more awareness of the debate on the topic, particularly in relation to language instruction. The hypothesis was upheld, that while CM facilitates acquisition at the beginning stages of language development, it constrains acquisition at more advanced stages. The literature and findings from questionnaires all supported this hypothesis. Much of the literature presented arguments for and against CM in language learning and concluded that CM can be beneficial at certain points of language development (Jiang, Garcia, & Willis, 2014; Keller, 2016; Makulloluwa, 2013). Limitations to CM, particularly in the language classroom, are given along with warnings of negative effects of CM. However, much of the literature and all the participants in the study see the benefits CM has, that it should not be ignored, but can be used advantageously. Keller (2016) sums it up well in saying, “For beginners and low-proficiency learners, again by way of introductory example, code [mixing] is now increasingly considered an effective strategy to learn, but for intermediate level students more target language input is required and therefore code [mixing] is not approved or liked by lecturers and students” (p. 23). Use of L1 becomes less necessary and less beneficial as a language learner moves closer to