Teaching vocabulary through code mixing

Abstract

I intend to do research on the proposed topic ‘Teaching vocabulary through code mixing’. In order to carry out research I will approach the data quantitatively and will enumerate the findings in tabulated form and description will be provided as well. For the purpose of carrying out research, 50 university students will be used as participants and a test will be designed to measure the language proficiency based on several type of questions. The result of the test will be enumerated and displayed after the actual research.

Introduction

Teaching vocabulary in second language may be done using various methods. One of them is code mixing. Several studies have been done to validate code mixing as a method to teach vocabulary. Some linguists consider using code mixing an orthodox way of teaching L2. By the advent of new methods to teach code missing and translation into L1 is disregarded. At the same time there are some theorists who go for using L1 and code mixing and they propound that employing code mixing can bring forth better results. Code mixing is using lexical words in one’s native language when uttering sentence in second language. Code mixing is sometimes referred to as code switching and is observed at sentence level. Mahootian (2006) states other linguists marking the use of code mixing at discourse level where there is switching of word or clause. However in his view a child making use of bilingualism is different than adult’s deliberate code mixing. He gives a concept of base or host language and embedded or guest language. The host language serves as a matrix where a word or clause from guest language fits in. the syntax of host language is kept intact. The word or clause of guest language is only embedded in the matrix. Code switching or code mixing is a phenomenon that is rule governed and grammatically checked. Yet some communities disregard it and consider it debased. There are many factors e.g. age, status, education, class etc that generate different views about using code mixing or bilingualism. There are negative as well as positive views about code mixing in any community and society. Same is the case with linguists. Both attitudes are found in literary circles regarding use of cod mixing. The grownups have strict ideas regarding keeping a language pure i.e. not embedding words from other dialects or language. They expect the youngsters to follow the same and not to change the status of a language (Mahootian, 2006). There are social stigmas attached to code mixing where ethnic and racial discrepancies exist. My focus however is on academic use of code mixing. The motive behind discussing the social aspects of mixing codes is that its trends cast reflection on other aspects like education and academia too.

The use of code mixing in academic learning of L2 is viewed with both positive and negative color. Those who regard code mixing a positive tool believe that it does not require teacher’s reliance on extra supporting material like realia, audio lingual tools, pictures and images and elaborate explanations to make students learn the concept in L2. If the students are told the exact equivalent in L1, they will spontaneously pick the new lexical item in L2. Cook (2001) counts many methods to acquire or learn vocabulary. Among those methods he mention making estimates by guessing from context, deducing meanings from the forms of words, looking up for meaning in a dictionary, repeating a newly learnt word or rot learning etc. August (nd) mentions some other strategies to learn vocabulary. She states that making students exposed to rich and varied surrounding of words will help them be stimulated intellectually and pick words in an interesting way. One common way of doing this is reading stories to children and consequently arranges interactive discussion session with them. Another method she mentions is teaching individual words. It can be done by providing explanation and definition of words along with contextual information about the words too.

Literature Review

Vocabulary learning is one of the most vital trends to learn a new language and to have a mastery over all the four skills of writing, reading, speaking and listening. It involves a range of artistic or stylistic forms of words. As the research will focus on learning vocabulary and phenomenon of code-mixing to teach vocabulary, here is a brief yet comprehensive overview of literature encompassing the research questions in focus.

(Arasteh, 2011) discusses aims to discover the effects of three common methods of teaching vocabulary including code mixing, thematic clustering and contextualization to witness L2 learning and production. Their study compares the results of three methods mentioned above. There are found no significant differences among the results obtained after teaching the individuals by the three methods separately. The slight differences indicate the group which learnt using contextualization performed a little better than the others. The study concludes that code mixing is the least effective method to teach L2. When compared the results of other methods, participant group failed to give a fruitful output. Memorization and rote learning has been long been discarded when it comes to language learning or vocabulary acquisition. Linguists count both the merits and demerits of code mixing as a tool to learn l2 vocabulary. Those in favor of code mixing to help learn a language counts the benefit as a time and effort saving tool. Tutor does not need to make realia and other audio or visual aids available for classroom activity (Celik, 2003).

Abdalia (2011) conducts a research to study a control group and experimental group to analyze phenomenon of code mixing while teaching L2. She took 25 students from a high school in Sheraz, Iran. The participants were divided into two groups i.e. control group and experimental group. The control group was taught vocabulary with the help of teacher’s definition, synonyms and antonyms. While the experimental group was taught by providing l1 equivalents for the unfamiliar vocabulary items. The data when analyzed proved experimental group, the group provided with L1 equivalent vocabulary outperformed the other group.Sasan Baleghizadeh and Ali Mirzae( 2011) also regard the views of those who rebuff the use of L1. They state that with the advent of audio lingual method, grammar translation method was rejected and use of audio lingual method came in vogue. Phillipson (1992) was an advocate of using English only when learning English as second language learning. He disregarded the use of code mixing while learning a second language. Folse (2004) on the other hand has a contradictory view. He believes disregarding the existence of L1 when learners are taught L2 is a myth. He challenges the commonly acknowledged belief that role of L1 be reprimanded. Sasan Baleghizadeh and Ali Mirzae( 2011) discuss how vocabulary is incidentally acquired. He adds the other linguists’ views on vocabulary acquisition methods. His research methodology contained not only a stereotypical list of lexical items. He further gives explanation of lexical items and similar meanings in the native language of the learners. 45 students were the participants in the research study and were divided into two groups. One of the group was provided list of words with meanings in English, however the other group was given a list of words with meanings translated in the native language. A list of total 20 unfamiliar words was prepared and distributed among the participants for test. The results obtained after the analysis claimed the success of the group which was given instructions in the native language. Sasan Baleghizadeh and Ali Mirzae( 2011)’ findings comply with the group in favor of employing L1 for teaching vocabulary.

Significance of Research

Teaching vocabulary through different techniques is an interesting debate contemporarily. A lot of research has been done to evaluate the effective policy. Trend of code mixing i.e. making use of L1 while learning vocabulary items in second language has gained enormous place in the debating circles in linguists. I have opted to find out the trend of code mixing used to teach vocabulary in this geographical area. Previously research has been done on other parts of the world and with different perspectives.

Research Questions

1. What basic differences were found between these methods? And how the language use differs?
2. Is there a concentration on one literary skill over the other?
3. What are the methods usually used inside and outside the classroom?

Aims

• To recognize and produce the vocabulary related with all the topics dealt in each unit
• To listen and understand general and specific information coming from different communicative situations, taking a respectful and cooperative attitude.
• To express yourself and to interact in communicative situations, in a comprehensible and autonomous way.
• To read and understand different types of texts according to the level and
• To write simple texts with different aims and topics using adequate resources of cohesion and coherence.

Research Methodology

I intend to carry out this project by employing quantitative approach. Following the lines of other research works done on the subject, I will take students from the university as participants. I plan to compose a list of unfamiliar words. A list of 30 lexical items will be made. Number of participants is 50. In order to determine unfamiliarity level for the selected participants, I intend to take a pretest. The vocabulary is based on common words i.e. not associated to any particular jargon. Test will be based on questions like guessing the suitable word for unfilled space in a sentence, error correction in a sentence, using word in a sentence to show knowledge of the word. The participants will be divided into two groups. One of the groups will be taught meanings in the native language; however the other group will be provided explanations and definitions of the unfamiliar list. The data will thus be obtained by testing the participants by measuring their proficiency in the second language. The data will be analyzed quantitatively by enumerating the correct answers against the total number of questions being asked. The enumerated data and result will be presented in table form. Total percentage of each performance will be calculated.

Ethical Considerations

The willing participants will be asked to propose a date and time suitable to them for test taking. The participants will be informed about the nature and objective of the research being conducted prior to seeking their consent to participate. For this purpose, an information sheet will be provided to the participants including information about the research objective, researcher and nature of the research. This information sheet will include other ethical considerations and privacy concerns the participants. The participants will be told about the research objectives in a broader sense. They will not be told the whole perspective entirely as it may change the results.

Limitations of the Study

As the study is designed to measure the results of using L1 as a code mixing technique for teaching vocabulary, there are two groups who are compared in terms of performance. There are no other groups or tests compared against this set of groups studied in the current project. Thus another test lacks which authenticates the result of the current study. There is less focus on teaching techniques outside the classroom.

Expected Results

Keeping in view the educational background of the participants and the other teaching techniques as modified for the learning aptitude of the students at (uni name), I expect that the participants who will be provided a list of meanings in the L1 equivalent to L2 will perform better than those given the definitions in the second language.

References

• Mahootian S (2006), Code Switching and Mixing. In: Keith Brown, (Editor-in-Chief)

Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Second Edition, volume 2, pp. 511-527.

Oxford: Elsevier. Available at :< http://www.neiu.edu/~linguist/Codeswitching%20and%20Codemixing.pdf>

• August D (nd), Developing Academic Vocabulary in English-Language Learners. Available at :< https://www.mheonline.com/_treasures/pdf/diane_august.pdf>

• Celik M (2003), Teaching vocabulary through code-mixing. ELT Journal, 5, 361-369
• Cook (2001), Second Language Learning and Language Teaching.

(Third Edition) London: Arnold. pp. 21-67.

• Abdali M (nd), Teaching Vocabulary trough Code Mixin. Available at: < http://www.sid.ir/En/VEWSSID/J_pdf/10138201001S01.pdf>
• Folse K S (2004), Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
• Arasteh A. A (2011), The effects of code-mixing, thematic clustering, and contextualization on L2 vocabulary recognition and production. Journal of Language and Culture Vol. 2(6), pp. 96-102.
• Philipson R (1992), Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sasan
• Baleghizadeh and Ali Mirzae (2011), A Comparison of Two Different Types of Vocabulary Treatment: Inclusion or Exclusion of L1. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 1( 7), pp.765-770.