Channels, Fall 2018

Page 4 Spice • Codemixing possible without needing extensive vocabulary in the TL. Once learners have acquired more vocabulary, they can use their L1 less and less until such scaffolding is unnecessary and they can speak entirely in L2. Scaffolding through CM must be used with caution, states Kustati (2014), “to strike a balance between strategic use of a first language as a scaffolding tool and allowing sufficient practice in target language” (p. 179). Implications of CM CM undoubtedly has an impact on one’s language development. Linguists have debated whether this impact is positive or negative or whether the positive effects outweigh the negative. This is an especially important question to language learners and instructors who must know the best way to facilitate language development, whether their own or that of their students. Positive Implications. On one side of the debate, linguists argue that CM has positive implications for one’s language development. They say CM evidences a language user’s high level of proficiency in both languages used (Humran & Shyamala, 2018; Kustati, 2014; Scotton & Jake, 2014). This reasoning is often based on the cognitive processing required to code-mix. Since processing two languages at the same time requires more than processing only one, CM displays more advanced cognitive ability. Someone who code-mixes must have a good grasp of both languages in order to do so (Kustati, 2014). Nguyen, Grainger, and Carey (2016) agree that CM can positively affect language acquisition. CM is especially useful in an increasingly multilingual society in which translation and interpretation are highly beneficial and, therefore, should not be disregarded as poor language usage (Nguyen, Grainger, & Carey, 2016). Lu (2014) vehemently argues against the idea that CM reflects low language competence. He concludes from his study that “moderate use of code- mixing is by no means detrimental to L2 learners,” and additionally, “the use of code- mixing does not have adverse impacts on the users’ mother tongue” (Lu, 2014, p. 83). Negative Implications. On the other side of the debate, linguists argue against the use of CM due to its negative implications. If CM is used too much, language learners may come to rely on CM and “reduce the sense of necessity to speak [the target language]” (Kustati, 2014, p. 179). Moderation with CM is especially important with language learners. While scaffolding by CM is a useful tool at the beginning stages of language learning, CM has the potential to become a permanent habit, constraining speakers’ use of L2 if overused (Kustati, 2014). Additionally, CM can have an adverse effect on a speaker’s accent in a language (Goldrick, Runnqvist, & Costa, 2014). One’s accent can become even less native-like when mixing two languages with very different phonology, “as speakers tend to follow the dominant phonology of the language they speak” (Hsueh, 2013). Other studies have also found that CM can result in negative transfer between one’s L1 and TL (Keller, 2016). CM in the Language Classroom Since CM is prevalent in language classroom settings, it is important to address the implications of CM by both teachers and students. CM is relevant only to certain language classrooms. It is especially common in foreign language classrooms where the teacher and students all share the same L1. In second language settings, such as ESL classrooms in the United States, use of the students’ L1 is often impractical or impossible, as there can be several different languages that the teacher does not necessarily speak represented in one