Channels, Fall 2018

Page 8 Spice • Codemixing instead receive less L2 practice by ignoring the TL and only listening to their L1. While some CM for clarification and classroom management is good, the “tendency to repeat the instruction in the native language may result in demotivating the learner to listen to the instruction in L2” (Keller, 2016, p. 29). Many language teachers attempt to expose their students to as much of the TL as possible. The main way students can gain listening practice with their TL is by listening to their teacher’s instruction. Any use of L1 in the classroom “can deprive students of opportunities to improve their L2 listening” (Keller, 2016, p. 16) by decreasing their exposure to the TL. These studies concluded that the drawbacks of mixed-language instruction outweigh the benefits. Complete understanding of every word the teacher says is not necessary, nor is it the goal of language learning, and it is also not realistic for real-life L2 contexts. L2-only instruction “has numerous benefits such as making the language real and allowing the learners to experience unpredictability” (Keller, 2016, p. 15) and such mimicking an authentic L2 environment as much as possible in the language classroom. One argument for the use of L1 in the language classroom is that it saves time by forgoing the lack of communication that occurs between teacher and students when students understand very little of the TL, particularly in giving instructions for an activity or dealing with classroom management (Gilead, 2016). However, although this may save time in the classroom, it can ultimately slow students’ language development, as it could cause them to feel the need to translate L2 into L1 before they fully understand the TL. In the long run, language learners would waste more time translating every L2 utterance into L1 than they would spend trying to understand the teacher’s instruction in L2. Furthermore, such practice could result in negative transfer, as learners continue to view L2 through the lens of L1 (Keller, 2016). All these reasons lead to an argument for L2-only language classrooms. Summary and Research Connection Through the literature presented above, the question “how does code-mixing facilitate or constrain second language development?” is answered. Research supports the hypothesis that CM can serve to facilitate second language development initially, but it can constrain language development in more advanced stages of acquisition. CM shows both positive and negative effects on second language development (Goldrick, Runnqvist, & Costa, 2014; Hsueh, 2013; Keller, 2016; Kustati, 2014; Nguyen, Grainger, & Carey, 2016), and because of this, it must be used strategically and in moderation to avoid negative effects and utilize benefits to language learning (Gilead, 2016; Jiang, Garcia, & Willis, 2014; Kustati, 2014; Lu, 2014). Methods After extensively researching literature about the effects of CM on second language development, this qualitative study began by giving out questionnaires to thirteen language learners/multilinguals (see Appendix A). Participants ranged in age from early twenties to mid-fifties, and they all learned a second language after the Critical Period. Three of the participants studied L2 in its native context in full-immersion of L2-only classrooms, while the other ten studied L2 in a foreign language setting in which they shared L1 with their