Channels, Fall 2018

Page 6 Spice • Codemixing attempt not to use L1 (Keller, 2016). Many beginner-level language students code-mix as a means of supplementation for L2, since they cannot yet express themselves fully in their TL (Keller, 2016). Students can, however, begin to move in the direction of fuller L2 expression by using CM to “play around with language” (Kontio & Sylvén, 2015, p. 282) and hopefully better understand how to use their TL in the process. In this way, CM can be a stepping stone towards greater language ability. Using CM in these ways recognizes that language, rather than being “an end in itself” (Keller, 2016, p. 18), is being used as means to communicate a message from the speaker to the listener, which is the essential purpose of language (Keller, 2016). Arguments for Mixed Language Instruction. Studies have shown several benefits of mixed language instruction that lead to an argument for the use of CM in the classroom. Jiang, Garcia, and Willis (2014) conclude that “strategic use of code-mixing of bilinguals’ L1 and L2 in instruction may enhance students’ bilingual development and maximize their learning efficacy” (p. 311). As L2-only instruction can be intimidating in a beginner-level language course, CM may increase motivation and willingness to learn the TL for some students. Language teachers cannot, of course, control students’ intrinsic motivation to learn, but they can do some things to help increase the possibility of motivation. A non- threatening classroom environment goes a long way; such an environment could be cultivated, in part, by easing into the TL through the teacher’s use of CM (Gilead, 2016; Keller, 2016). CM has been found to encourage student participation in the beginning level language classroom (Keller, 2016; Kustati, 2014). Possibly one of the biggest cases for mixed language instruction is that complete abolishment of L1 use is simply impractical. Particularly at low proficiency levels, students will inevitably use L1 either in an attempt to understand the material or to supplement for their limited repertoire of L2, while teachers will use L1 to be better understood by the students and save time explaining instructions or abstract concepts (Gilead, 2016). Rather than rejecting or even ignoring CM as a language teaching strategy, language teachers ought to examine how CM could benefit their students. When students all share the same L1, there is “no reason why a teacher should not take advantage of the classroom students’ shared knowledge in order to bridge the gap to what they do not yet know” (Keller, 2016, p. 27). CM can be a valuable resource to tap into, and language teachers should not ignore it as such (Gilead, 2016; Jiang, Garcia, & Willis, 2014; Keller, 2016). Using CM in the classroom, rather than avoiding or condemning any use of L1, allows for a more holistic view of the students “as whole persons rather than deficient monolingual native speakers” (Gilead, 2016, p. 269). Allowing students to use their L1 and code-mixing in the classroom proves the teacher’s recognition of the students as multilinguals and affirms students’ identity in L1 (Gilead, 2016). This practice also recognizes that L1 and L2 are not secluded; they work together in the multilingual’s brain (Jiang, Garcia, & Willis, 2014). Avoidance of L1 use in L2 instruction often stems from a fear of negative transfer from L1 to L2. However, through CM, teachers can allow for positive transfer between the two languages and, therefore, they “should promote, instead of inhibit, such transfer” (Jiang, Garcia, & Willis, 2014). Such a holistic, mixed-language approach to language