I intend to make research on the proposed subject ‘Teaching vocabulary through codification mixing’ . In order to transport out research I will near the informations quantitatively and will recite the findings in tabulated signifier and description will be provided every bit good. For the intent of transporting out research, 50 university pupils will be used as participants and a trial will be designed to mensurate the linguistic communication proficiency based on several type of inquiries. The consequence of the trial will be enumerated and displayed after the existent research.
Teaching vocabulary in 2nd linguistic communication may be done utilizing assorted methods. One of them is code blending. Several surveies have been done to formalize codification commixture as a method to learn vocabulary. Some linguists consider utilizing codification blending an Orthodox manner of learning L2. By the coming of new methods to learn codification losing and interlingual rendition into L1 is disregarded. At the same clip there are some theoreticians who go for utilizing L1 and codification commixture and they propound that using codification commixture can convey away better consequences. Code commixture is utilizing lexical words in one’s native linguistic communication when expressing sentence in 2nd linguistic communication. Code commixture is sometimes referred to as codification shift and is observed at sentence degree. Mahootian ( 2006 ) states other linguists taging the usage of codification commixture at discourse degree where there is exchanging of word or clause. However in his position a kid doing usage of bilingualism is different than adult’s deliberate codification commixture. He gives a construct of base or host linguistic communication and embedded or guest linguistic communication. The host linguistic communication serves as a matrix where a word or clause from guest linguistic communication tantrums in. the sentence structure of host linguistic communication is kept integral. The word or clause of guest linguistic communication is merely embedded in the matrix. Code exchanging or codification commixture is a phenomenon that is regulation governed and grammatically checked. Yet some communities disregard it and see it debased. There are many factors e.g. age, position, instruction, category etc that generate different positions about utilizing codification commixture or bilingualism. There are negative every bit good as positive positions about codification commixture in any community and society. Lapp is the instance with linguists. Both attitudes are found in literary circles sing usage of pod commixture. The adults have strict thoughts sing maintaining a linguistic communication pure i.e. non implanting words from other idioms or linguistic communication. They expect the childs to follow the same and non to alter the position of a linguistic communication ( Mahootian, 2006 ) . There are societal stigmas attached to code blending where cultural and racial disagreements exist. My focal point nevertheless is on academic usage of codification commixture. The motivation behind discoursing the societal facets of blending codifications is that its tendencies cast contemplation on other facets like instruction and academia excessively.
The usage of codification commixture in academic acquisition of L2 is viewed with both positive and negative colour. Those who regard codification blending a positive tool believe that it does non necessitate teacher’s trust on excess back uping stuff like realia, audio linguistic tools, images and images and luxuriant accounts to do pupils larn the construct in L2. If the pupils are told the exact equivalent in L1, they will spontaneously pick the new lexical point in L2. Cook ( 2001 ) counts many methods to get or larn vocabulary. Among those methods he mention doing estimations by thinking from context, infering significances from the signifiers of words, looking up for significance in a dictionary, reiterating a freshly learnt word or putrefaction acquisition etc. August ( neodymium ) references some other schemes to larn vocabulary. She states that doing pupils exposed to rich and varied surrounding of words will assist them be stimulated intellectually and pick words in an interesting manner. One common manner of making this is reading narratives to kids and accordingly arranges synergistic treatment session with them. Another method she mentions is learning single words. It can be done by supplying account and definition of words along with contextual information about the words excessively.
Vocabulary acquisition is one of the most critical tendencies to larn a new linguistic communication and to hold a command over all the four accomplishments of authorship, reading, speech production and hearing. It involves a scope of artistic or stylistic signifiers of words. As the research will concentrate on larning vocabulary and phenomenon of code-mixing to learn vocabulary, here is a brief yet comprehensive overview of literature embracing the research inquiries in focal point.
( Arasteh, 2011 ) discusses purposes to detect the effects of three common methods of learning vocabulary including codification commixture, thematic bunch and contextualization to witness L2 acquisition and production. Their survey compares the consequences of three methods mentioned supra. There are found no important differences among the consequences obtained after learning the persons by the three methods individually. The little differences indicate the group which learnt utilizing contextualization performed a small better than the others. The survey concludes that codification commixture is the least effectual method to learn L2. When compared the consequences of other methods, participant group failed to give a fruitful end product. Memorization and rote acquisition has been long been discarded when it comes to linguistic communication acquisition or vocabulary acquisition. Linguists count both the virtues and demerits of codification commixture as a tool to larn l2 vocabulary. Those in favour of codification commixture to assist larn a linguistic communication counts the benefit as a clip and attempt salvaging tool. Coach does non necessitate to do realia and other sound or ocular AIDSs available for schoolroom activity ( Celik, 2003 ) .
Abdalia ( 2011 ) conducts a research to analyze a control group and experimental group to analyse phenomenon of codification blending while learning L2. She took 25 pupils 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 aid of teacher’s definition, equivalent word and opposite word. While the experimental group was taught by supplying l1 equivalents for the unfamiliar vocabulary points. The information when analyzed proved experimental group, the group provided with L1 tantamount vocabulary outperformed the other group.Sasan Baleghizadeh and Ali Mirzae ( 2011 ) besides regard the positions of those who rebuff the usage of L1. They province that with the coming of audio linguistic method, grammar interlingual rendition method was rejected and usage of audio linguistic method came in trend. Phillipson ( 1992 ) was an advocator of utilizing English merely when larning English as 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. He disregarded the usage of codification blending while larning a 2nd linguistic communication. Folse ( 2004 ) on the other manus has a contradictory position. He believes ignoring the being of L1 when scholars are taught L2 is a myth. He challenges the normally acknowledged belief that function of L1 be reprimanded. Sasan Baleghizadeh and Ali Mirzae ( 2011 ) discourse how vocabulary is by the way acquired. He adds the other linguists’ positions on vocabulary acquisition methods. His research methodological analysis contained non merely a stereotyped list of lexical points. He farther gives account of lexical points and similar significances in the native linguistic communication of the scholars. 45 pupils were the participants in the research survey and were divided into two groups. One of the group was provided list of words with significances in English, nevertheless the other group was given a list of words with significances translated in the native linguistic communication. A list of entire 20 unfamiliar words was prepared and distributed among the participants for trial. The consequences obtained after the analysis claimed the success of the group which was given instructions in the native linguistic communication. Sasan Baleghizadeh and Ali Mirzae ( 2011 ) ’ findings comply with the group in favour of using L1 for learning vocabulary.
Significance of Research
Teaching vocabulary through different techniques is an interesting argument contemporarily. A batch of research has been done to measure the effectual policy. Trend of codification blending i.e. doing usage of L1 while larning vocabulary points in 2nd linguistic communication has gained tremendous topographic point in the debating circles in linguists. I have opted to happen out the tendency of codification blending used to learn vocabulary in this geographical country. Previously research has been done on other parts of the universe and with different positions.
- What basic differences were found between these methods? And how the linguistic communication usage differs?
- Is there a concentration on one literary accomplishment over the other?
- What are the methods normally used inside and outside the schoolroom?
- To acknowledge and bring forth the vocabulary related with all the subjects dealt in each unit
- To listen and understand general and specific information coming from different communicative state of affairss, taking a respectful and concerted attitude.
- To show yourself and to interact in communicative state of affairss, in a comprehendible and independent manner.
- To read and understand different types of texts harmonizing to the degree and
- To compose simple texts with different purposes and subjects utilizing equal resources of coherence and coherency.
I intend to transport out this undertaking by using quantitative attack. Following the lines of other research works done on the topic, I will take pupils from the university as participants. I plan to compose a list of unfamiliar words. A list of 30 lexical points will be made. Number of participants is 50. In order to find unfamiliarity degree for the selected participants, I intend to take a pretest. The vocabulary is based on common words i.e. non associated to any peculiar slang. Test will be based on inquiries like thinking the suited word for unfilled infinite in a sentence, mistake rectification in a sentence, utilizing word in a sentence to demo cognition of the word. The participants will be divided into two groups. One of the groups will be taught significances in the native linguistic communication ; nevertheless the other group will be provided accounts and definitions of the unfamiliar list. The information will therefore be obtained by proving the participants by mensurating their proficiency in the 2nd linguistic communication. The information will be analyzed quantitatively by reciting the right replies against the entire figure of inquiries being asked. The enumerated information and consequence will be presented in table signifier. Entire per centum of each public presentation will be calculated.
The willing participants will be asked to suggest a day of the month and clip suited to them for trial pickings. The participants will be informed about the nature and aim of the research being conducted prior to seeking their consent to take part. For this intent, an information sheet will be provided to the participants including information about the research aim, research worker and nature of the research. This information sheet will include other ethical considerations and privateness concerns the participants. The participants will be told about the research objectives in a broader sense. They will non be told the whole position wholly as it may alter the consequences.
Restrictions of the Study
As the survey is designed to mensurate the consequences of utilizing L1 as a codification commixture technique for learning vocabulary, there are two groups who are compared in footings of public presentation. There are no other groups or trials compared against this set of groups studied in the current undertaking. Therefore another trial lacks which authenticates the consequence of the current survey. There is less focal point on learning techniques outside the schoolroom.
Keeping in position the educational background of the participants and the other learning techniques as modified for the learning aptitude of the pupils at ( uni name ) , I expect that the participants who will be provided a list of significances in the L1 equivalent to L2 will execute better than those given the definitions in the 2nd linguistic communication.
- Mahootian S ( 2006 ) , Code Switching and Mixing. In: Keith Brown, ( Editor-in-Chief )
Encyclopedia of Language & A ; Linguistics, Second Edition, volume 2, pp. 511-527.
Oxford: Elsevier. Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.neiu.edu/~linguist/Codeswitching % 20and % 20Codemixing.pdf & gt ;
- August D ( neodymium ) , Developing Academic Vocabulary in English-Language Learners. Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.mheonline.com/_treasures/pdf/diane_august.pdf & gt ;
- 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 ( neodymium ) , Teaching Vocabulary trough Code Mixin. Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.sid.ir/En/VEWSSID/J_pdf/10138201001S01.pdf & gt ;
- Folse K S ( 2004 ) , Vocabulary myths: Applying 2nd linguistic communication research to classroom instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
- Arasteh A. A ( 2011 ) , The effects of code-mixing, thematic bunch, and contextualization on L2 vocabulary acknowledgment 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.