Printer Friendly

Monolingual and bilingual perceptions of code-switching: a difference in cognition but not competence.

Generally, the term "code-switching" refers to the ability to switch between two languages during a conversation, and is a common phenomenon in bilingual conversation. Code-switching can be viewed not as evidence of a limitation of the bilingual speaker, nor even as a deficit of vocabulary, but rather as the selection of words/languages which are readily available to the speaker (Lance, 1975). Code-switching can be considered a "bilingual mode of speaking" (Valdes-Fallis, 1978, p. 67). Early researchers considered code- switching a form of interference between First language (L1) and Second language (L2) (Duran, 1994). Also, monolingual individuals considered code-switching to be an abnormal means of communication because the phenomenon was unfamiliar to them (Duran, 1994). However, in recent years it has been considered an important phenomenon in terms of revealing the complex methods of comprehension and processing of two languages in the human brain (Gardner-Chloros, 2009).

Code-switching has been widely studied in research on bilingualism. According to Grosjean (2010), code switching is a distinctive way of speaking in which the speaker switches back and forth between L1 and L2. During the switch, usually the speaker moves to the other language completely in search of "a word, phrase or sentence" and then returns to the root language (Grosjean, 2010, p. 743). In considering the cognitive aspects of bilingualism, Kroll (2008) stated, "The presence of activity among both languages when only one language is required, in the absence of a serious disruption to performance, suggests that proficient bilinguals have acquired not only linguistic proficiency but also the cognitive skills that allow them to juggle the two languages with ease" (Kroll, 2008, p. 1). She also added that this "juggling" ability of bilinguals helps them to resolve "cognitive conflict" throughout their lives (Kroll, 2008, p. 1).

Groot and Christoffels (2006) focused on the different forms of language processing that monolingual and bilingual speakers use (Groot & Christoffels, 2006). Monolingualism refers to the ability to speak, read, write and comprehend one language only. It does not mean that monolinguals are unable to learn a second language (L2). In terms of competence, linguists have not always recognized that bilinguals' grammar might be different from monolinguals' grammar (Grosjean, 1989, p. 5). In most cases researchers have considered bilingualism from a monolingual point of view. This is why bilingual speakers' ability to have command over two languages is mostly neglected (Groot & Christoffels, 2006). According to Grosjean (2010), "The effects of bilingualism have been closely scrutinized, and bilinguals themselves rarely evaluate their language competencies as adequate. They have a tendency to assume and amplify the monolingual view of bilingualism and thus criticize their own bilingualism" (Grosjean, 2010, p. 377).

It is misleading to define bilingualism from a monolingual perspective (Grosjean, 1989). Bilinguals possess the ability to speak and comprehend two languages in contrast to monolinguals' ability in one. Bilinguals have competence in both a First language (L1) and a Second language (L2). However, the L2 acquisition takes place in such a sophisticated way that there are hardly any conflicts while using both languages simultaneously (Grosjean, 1989). Rather, a spontaneous and skilled combination of languages is observed while bilinguals deal with both languages (Cook & Bassetti , 2011). Language comprehension and processing in the brain work in two different ways for monolinguals and bilinguals. Children belonging to any language group are inherently monolingual until they are exposed to learn L2. Once they are introduced to learn L2, the language learning ability becomes quite different from that of the monolingual or L1 learner/speaker (Genesse, 2001). In addition, Genesse (2001) claims that children who learn two languages simultaneously from infancy possess the unique skill to manage both the languages side by side, and this quality distinguishes them from their monolingual counterparts. Eventually when these bilingual children grow up, this distinctive and sophisticated skill helps them to become more proficient in switching between both languages. Also, he adds that the language learning faculty is undisturbed even when the bilinguals strive to learn both the languages at the same time, from a very early age (Genesse, 2001). Further, children who get the opportunity to learn two languages from an early age possess "the requisite neuro- cognitive competencies" that help them to learn and use both languages with equal skill from the earliest stage of language learning, development and production (Genesse 2001, p. 164). Genesse (2001) stated, "Studies of speech perception in children exposed to two languages from birth suggest that they probably have the cognitive-perceptual capacities that are prerequisite to establishing simultaneous differentiated representations of more than one language from the very outset of exposure to two languages" (p. 164). Bilingualism is a complex and abstract phenomenon. Thus, it may be challenging to accurately perceive bilingual competence from a monolingual perspective.

During code-switching, speakers usually switch between two languages within the same conversation, sometimes in the same sentence (Poplack, 1980), for example: "Leo un MAGAZINE" (I read magazine) (Poplack, 1980 p. 583) or "Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPANOL (and finish in Spanish)" (Poplack, 1980 p. 594). Therefore, a competent bilingual speaker who switches codes must have a sound knowledge of both L1 and L2 in terms of grammar and sentence structure. Thus, whenever he or she switches codes during a conversation, it does not seem unnatural or exaggerated to other bilinguals.

Historically, code-switching has been discouraged in educational institutions, perceived as a sign of language decay, or was seen as having a negative influence on proficiency in one or both languages (Aitchison, 1991). Studies have shown that monolinguals tend to perceive code switching as a sign of inadequacy in L2 (Hughes, Shaunessy, Brice, Ratiliff & McHatton, 2006). However, according to Fakeye (2012), code-switching should be encouraged in educational settings, so that L2 learners are motivated to learn new things and are able to maintain good rapport with their teachers.

Unfortunately, there has been little research examining bilinguals' perceptions of code switching. Pagett (2006) found that bilingual children (in primary school settings) born and raised in a foreign land feel more comfortable speaking in L2 with their monolingual friends in school environments and feel uncomfortable revealing their bilingual identity to their peers. They feel inhibited from speaking their first language (L1) even in family settings. Pagett's findings suggested that bilingual children in primary school settings feel negative about code-switching. It is plausible that those children might also perceive code-switching as a sign of linguistic incompetence when they grow older (Pagett, 2006).

The present study was designed to examine how monolinguals perceive individuals who speak more than one language. Understanding these perceptions would be useful for several reasons. For example, if it were found that monolinguals perceive bilinguals as less competent due to their tendency to switch codes, this knowledge could help us to better understand possible relationships between misperception of bilinguals, racism and unfair discrimination. Indeed, it seems plausible that many monolinguals have negative perceptions of bilinguals (Grosjean, 2010), as it has been observed that some monolinguals consider bilingualism a "grammarless mixture" of L1 and L2 and as an "insult to the monolingual's rule-governed language" (Grosjean, 1982; p. 146). Also, migrated bilinguals in a monolingual society are often stigmatized and discriminated against by monolinguals and this hostility is not necessarily directed towards the language but towards the bilingual culture (McLaughlin, 1978). Monolinguals may perceive bilingual culture as a distant and unknown entity, so they embrace neither the distant language nor the alien culture. As a result, the monolinguals may have negative feelings towards bilinguals and bilinguals may face an identity crisis as they navigate between two cultures.

Unfortunately, many monolinguals fail to value the linguistic assets of bilinguals in terms of communication and understanding (Grosjean, 2010). It would be regrettable if bilinguals were held back from contributing to society due to misperceptions, such as the belief that bilinguals are "incompetent" based on negative beliefs about code switching. For example, research shows that bilinguals have the ability to learn a third language faster than monolinguals (Abu-Rabia & Sanitsky, 2010). In addition, Biyalystok (2009) pointed out that bilinguals "showed signs of dementia four years later than the monolinguals-with a mean age of 71.4 and 75.5 for monolinguals and bilinguals, respectively" (Biyalystok, 2009, p. 9). She found a significant difference between the two groups. This difference indicated a "generalized power of bilingualism" that preserved "cognitive functioning even with the challenges of impending disease" (Biyalystok, 2009, p. 9); therefore, bilingualism can be considered as potentially conferring an advantage.

Historically, there is evidence that code switching has been widely perceived as interfering with learning and as a sign of a language deficit (Grosjean, 1989). However, if we consider its creative, sociocultural and resourceful sides, code-switching can be seen as a special means for bilinguals to advance their learning ability (Dahl, Rice, Steffensen & Amundsen, 2010). More precisely, second language learners can learn L2 more effectively with the help of the structure of their native grammar and language structure.

The present study addressed two hypotheses regarding perceptions of code-switching. First, we hypothesized that monolinguals would be more likely than bilinguals to report perceiving code switching as a sign of linguistic incompetence. Second, we hypothesized that monolinguals would be less likely than bilinguals to report perceiving of code switching as representing a unique cognitive ability.

METHOD

Participants

The sample included 77 participants (49 monolinguals and 28 bilinguals) with a mean age of 22.52 years (SD = 6.73). Participants were undergraduate and graduate students (18 years and above), attending the University of Central Missouri (UCM). The sample included 25 men and 52 women, and was composed of Asian (19.5%), Caucasian (51.9%), African American (7.8%), Hispanic (3.9%) participants and other ethnicities (16.9%). There were bilingual participants whose first languages were Arabic, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Urdu, Bangla etc.

Forty-nine monolingual and twelve bilingual participants registered for the study through SONA, an online registration system for research participation, and were eligible for course credit in the Department of Psychological Science. Additional participants were recruited through email announcement via UCM's international student listserv and through verbal announcements in UCM's Modern Language Department classes. Those who were recruited through email and verbal announcement received either a set of pens or notebooks for completing the study.

Materials

The materials included a demographic questionnaire, the Participant Monolingual or Bilingual (PMBM) questionnaire to determine whether the participants were monolingual/bilingual or multilingual, a five-minute video clip which demonstrated code-switching in a real life setting, a questionnaire to measure viewers' perception towards the speakers in the video, and finally a questionnaire to measure participants' perceptions towards bilinguals in general. The demographic questionnaire prompted participants to provide information regarding their age, sex, ethnicity, first language, second language and ability in multiple languages.

The PMBM questionnaire was developed exclusively for the purpose of this study. It included questions on fluency; comprehension; ability to speak, read and write; satisfaction; and level of linguistic skill (See Appendix A). Sample items included, "I can speak more than one language fluently," "I can understand more than one language," and "I can speak, read, write and understand more than two languages." Participants were instructed to select either "yes" or "no" in response to each question. Item 6 on the questionnaire included an option for multilinguals. We classified the monolinguals as those who responded 'no' to all six questions while those who provided "yes" responses to a minimum of five of the six questions and specifically responded "yes" to item seven and eight were classified as bilinguals. If participants gave "yes" responses on item six, they were considered to be multilinguals, but we did not include their responses in the study since we compared only monolinguals and bilinguals.

In addition to completing the demographic and PMBM questionnaires, participants watched a video displaying a conversation among three bilingual persons who switched codes. Before watching the video, participants viewed a slide which explained what code-switching was and that the video was being shown to demonstrate for them how code-switching takes place in a real life scenario, so that they could be familiar with the behavior that they would later be asked to evaluate (See Appendix B). The clip shown in the video was derived from a TV program in which the speakers talked about music piracy. During this conversation the speakers frequently switched codes between Bangla and English. The duration of the video was approximately five minutes.

Finally, participants completed two sets of questionnaires measuring their perceptions of code-switching (CS). The first set of questions was intended to measure participants' perceptions of the speakers in the video (Appendix C). Items on the first set of questions included statements such as, "The speakers do not seem to have completely learned both languages." This questionnaire utilized a five-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). These items were constructed to measure beliefs reflecting perceptions of linguistic incompetence. Another example was "The speakers are violating purity of language." This item was chosen because in the past and even today CS seems unfamiliar, aberrant, baffling and fragmented in terms of "language development" and "acquisition process" to researchers especially in the area of linguistics, psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics (Duran, 1994, p. 2). Also, item 17, "The speakers seem to have a random means of communication" can be viewed as indicating a perception of linguistic incompetence; although code-switching may be perceived as having a "random" and "unprincipled" nature,--it is evident that--"bilingual"--CS tends to follow a group of strict "sentential constraints" (Lipski, 1977, p. 261). We calculated a total of the responses for nine items (item numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16 &17 from the seventeen items on the post video questionnaire) relating to linguistic incompetence (Perception of Linguistic Incompetence-Video; PCSV-LI). We discarded item number 8 as it did not correspond to PCSV-LI or PCSV-UCA. The content of item 8 ("The speaker seems to have better expression in English") was not clearly related to the construct of perceiving linguistic incompetence. Cronbach's Alpha for this set of items was .703. The reliability analysis indicated no items that would increase the Cronbach's Alpha if deleted. The linguistic incompetence score (the mean score across participants' responses on the items on this subscale) from the PCSV-LI questionnaire represented participants' perceptions of the extent to which CS among speakers in the video reflected linguistic incompetence, with higher scores representing higher levels of perceived incompetence. We calculated another score across seven items (item numbers 2, 3, 7, 11, 13, & 15) for unique cognitive ability (Perception of Unique Cognitive Ability-Video; PCSV-UCA). Again we discarded item number 8 ("The speakers seem to have better expression in English") as it did not correspond to the construct of unique cognitive ability. The unique cognitive ability score (the mean of the above items) from the post video questionnaire represented participants' perceptions of the extent to which code-switching among speakers in the video reflects unique cognitive ability, with higher scores representing more unique ability. The instruments were researcher-developed. Initially, Cronbach's alpha for PCSV-UCA questionnaire was .670. After deleting item number five, the Cronbach's alpha increased to .717. Final Cronbach's alpha internal consistency reliability estimates for the present study for the PCSV-LI and PCSV-UCA were .703 and .717 respectively.

The second set of questions was intended to measure participants' perceptions of bilinguals in general (Appendix D). We developed the post video questionnaire based on a review of relevant literature. The items were meant to be parallel to those on the PCSV. Again we modified and used this questionnaire for bilinguals in general. For example, this set of questions included statements such as, "Bilinguals do not learn both languages completely," compared to "The speakers do not seem to have completely learned both languages" on the PCSV. This questionnaire also utilized a five-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). We calculated a total of the responses for nine items that indicated linguistic incompetence (item numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16 & 17) from the eighteen items on the general questionnaire that indicated linguistic incompetence (Perception of Linguistic Incompetence General--PCSG-LI). We discarded item number 8 (Bilinguals have better expression in English and item number 18 (Do you ever switch back and forth between languages?) as they did not correspond to either construct, linguistic incompetence or unique cognitive ability. For the nine items listed above on the PCSG-LI, Cronbach's Alpha was .735. The linguistic incompetence score (the mean of the above items) from the general questionnaire represented participants' perceptions of the extent to which code-switching among bilinguals in general represents linguistic incompetence, with higher scores representing more perceived incompetence. Finally, we calculated another score of seven items (item numbers 2, 3, 7, 11, 13, 15) from the eighteen items on the general questionnaire that indicated unique cognitive ability (Perception of Unique Cognitive Ability-General, PCSG-UCA). We discarded item number 8 and item number 18 as they did not correspond to linguistic incompetence or unique cognitive ability. The unique cognitive ability score (the mean of the above items) from the general questionnaire represented participants' perceptions of the extent to which code-switching among bilinguals in general represents unique cognitive ability, with higher scores representing more unique ability. The post video questionnaire (Appendix C) initially had seventeen items and we discarded item number eight due to its irrelevancy. Similarly, the general questionnaire (Appendix D) had eighteen items and we discarded item number eight and eighteen for irrelevancy. The instruments were researcher-developed. Cronbach's alpha was employed to test the internal consistency of the instruments. Initially, the Cronbach's alpha was .580. After deleting two more items (5 and 2) based on the reliability analysis, the Cronbach's Alpha increased to .647 and .710 respectively. The final Cronbach's alphas for the present study for the PCSG-LI and PCSG-UCA were .735 and .710 respectively.

Procedure

After signing the consent form, participants completed the demographic and the PMBM questionnaires respectively. Next participants watched the video clip and then completed the remaining questionnaires (PCSV-LI and PCSV- UCA; PCSG-LI, and PCSG-UCA).

RESULTS

The present study addressed two hypotheses regarding perceptions of code-switching. First, we hypothesized that monolinguals would be more likely than bilinguals to report perceiving code switching as a sign of linguistic incompetence. Second, we hypothesized that monolinguals would be less likely than bilinguals to report perceiving of code switching as representing a unique cognitive ability.

We conducted independent f-tests to compare the mean (PCSV-LI and PCSG-LI) and (PCSV- UCA and PCSG-UCA) scores of the monolinguals to those of the bilinguals. An independent samples f-test indicated no significant difference between monolinguals (M= 2.83, SD = .70) and bilinguals (M = 2.92, SD = .58) on PCSV-LI scores, t (75) = .57, p = .57, [r.sup.2] = .00. Similarly, an independent samples t-test indicated no significant difference between monolinguals (M = 2.59, SD = .61) and bilinguals (M = 2.83, SD =.75) on PCSG-LI scores, t (75) = 1.53, p = .13, [r.sup.2] = .03.

An independent samples f-test indicated no significant difference between monolinguals (M = 3.54, SD = .74) and bilinguals (M = 3.58, SD = .61) on PCSV- UCA scores, t (75) = .26, p = .80, [r.sup.2] = .00. However, an independent samples t-test indicated a significant difference between monolinguals (M = 3.29, SD = .73) and bilinguals (M = 3.71, SD =.73) on PCSG-UCA scores, t (75) = 2.49, p = .02, [r.sup.2] = .07, revealing that bilinguals had significantly more positive perceptions than monolinguals regarding code-switching representing a unique cognitive ability.

DISCUSSION

In this study we addressed two hypotheses about perceptions of CS. We used measures designed specifically for this study to assess perceptions of CS as reflective of linguistic incompetence (PCSV-LI and PCSG-LI) and as reflective of unique cognitive ability (PCSV-UCA and PCSG-UCA). Because the measures were self-created for the purpose of the present study, information about the validity of the instruments is not available. However, we found that the reliability was reasonably good for a new instrument. We hypothesized that monolinguals would be more likely than bilinguals to perceive code switching as a sign of linguistic incompetence, as demonstrated by monolinguals' higher scores on measures of this construct (PCSV-LI and PCSG-LI) as compared to bilinguals' ratings on the same measures. We also hypothesized that monolinguals would provide lower ratings than bilinguals on items assessing their perceptions of code switching representing a unique cognitive ability (PCSV-UCA and PCSG-UCA). Only the PCSG-UCA scores were significantly different between monolinguals and bilinguals when the participants were asked about their perceptions of bilinguals in general. The results did not show a significant difference between monolingual and bilingual individuals in perceptions of speakers' code-switching in a video (PCSV-LI and PCSV-UCA scores). Similarly, when responding about their perceptions of bilinguals' use of CS in general, the results did not show any significant difference between monolingual and bilingual individuals in terms of PCSG-LI scores. If this finding is an accurate reflection of reality, it is heartening in that it suggests that monolinguals are not necessarily inclined to perceive CS negatively (i.e., as a sign of linguistic incompetence). One possible explanation for these results is that CS during conversation in the video might not have been very clear for the participants to understand. It is possible that the video may have been too short for the participants to fully understand the code-switching behavior that was shown. Also, the video clip was taken from a Bangladeshi TV channel and the speakers in the video switched between Bangla and English. Participants who were not familiar with Bangla might have experienced confusion as a result. Results may be different from those found in the present study if participants are observing code-switching between their first language and another language with which they have some familiarity. As the sample included bilingual participants who were familiar with Bangla, their responses may have differed from those of the monolingual or bilingual participants who were unfamiliar with this language. No participants had Bangla as a second language. Familiarity with the languages used in code-switching may be an important factor to consider in future research.

These findings are in contrast with the results of prior research which suggest that monolinguals perceive CS as a sign of inadequacy in L2 (Hughes, Shaunessy, Brice, Ratiliff & McHatton, 2006). Additionally, CS has often been vilified by both monolinguals and bilinguals, suggesting that it was perceived as an offensive blend of languages and a sign of speakers' carelessness (Grosjean, 2010). The results of the present study suggest that, although monolinguals may not perceive bilingual code-switching as a sign of incompetence, monolinguals may not fully appreciate the cognitive complexity involved in CS. It is possible that monolinguals did not perceive CS as a sign of incompetence in the present study as they were not familiar with Bangla, which was used in the code-switching video instead of more familiar languages such as Spanish or French. When the language is unfamiliar or less familiar to the participant- it is expected that they may perceive less incompetence. Since they do not understand the language properly it is difficult for them to distinguish whether CS is linguistic incompetence or unique cognitive ability. This could also help explain why the results from the general questionnaire (PCSG-UCA) did show a significant difference between monolingual and bilingual perceptions of CS as indicative of unique cognitive ability. It seems that bilinguals held stronger perceptions of CS as a unique cognitive ability when they evaluated the use of CS in general, rather than specifically evaluating the use of CS displayed in the video.

In terms of perceptions of CS based on evaluations of the speakers shown in the video, it is possible that when the bilingual participants watched the video they evaluated those speakers differently from how they evaluated their own abilities as bilinguals. Similarly, the bilinguals might not have identified with the speakers in the video in terms of the cognitive challenges they faced in switching codes, but when thinking about their own abilities, perhaps they provided higher ratings of bilinguals in general. Thus, it is possible that the bilingual participants did not perceive bilingual speakers in the video as demonstrating greater cognitive ability even while perceiving bilinguals in general as having greater cognitive ability.

However, when bilingual participants responded to the general questionnaire regarding CS as a sign of unique cognitive ability, there is a chance that they perceived themselves as more cognitively sophisticated than their monolingual counterparts. The findings from this study did not completely support the idea that monolinguals perceive CS as a sign of "linguistic incompetence" or that the bilinguals perceived CS as a representing a "unique cognitive ability." As a result, we cannot completely reject or support our hypotheses.

The questionnaires that were used for the present research were self-created by the primary author for the study. One of the limitations of this study was that participants had to self-assess fluency on the questionnaire which was used to determine whether each participant would be classified as monolingual or bilingual. As a result, some individuals who were not truly fluent (i.e., bilinguals) but who self-assessed as fluent might have been erroneously classified as "bilingual" in the study. If this were the case, it is possible that, had there been more "true" bilinguals in the sample, our results would have been different, such that the bilinguals would have differed from monolinguals in their perceptions of CS.

Also, the participants were all college students who represented a segment of the society but not the general population. Further, we did not obtain equal numbers of bilingual and monolingual participants for the study. Moreover, bilingual participants were recruited in three different ways (through SONA- an online registration system for research participation, email via the international-listserv and verbal announcement in the Modern Languages department). Therefore, the sample of bilinguals may have differed from the monolinguals in ways other than bilingualism.

Future studies in this area should include larger and more representative samples of monolingual and bilingual participants. Participants could be recruited from various locations other than university settings only. Additionally, instead of merely completing self-report surveys regarding their fluency, the participants could be interviewed to determine their actual level of fluency. The method described of Costa and Santesteban (2004; as cited in Schwieter & Sunderman, 2008) which involves a picture-naming task using L1 and L2, could be used to measure verbal fluency.

In summary, although previous research suggest that monolinguals tend to perceive CS as indicative of bilinguals' "linguistic incompetence," we did not find any such evidence in our study. In the present study, our analyses regarding bilinguals' greater perception of CS as indicative of unique cognitive ability, compared to monolinguals, was supported for the use of CS in general but not for the specific use of CS displayed in the video.

Kuntala S. Parama, David S. Kreiner, Kimberly S. Stark and Steven A. Schuetz

University of Central Missouri

Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: David S. Kreiner, Dept. of Psychological Science, LOV 1111, Warrensburg, MO 64093, 660-5438076, kreiner@ucmo.edu

REFERENCES

Abu-Rabia, S., & Sanitsky, E. (2010). Advantages of bilinguals over monolinguals in learning a third language. Bilingual Research Journal, 33, 173-199.

Aitchison, J. (1991). Language change: Progress or decay? (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biyalystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 3-11. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10. 1017/S1366728908003477

Cook, V., & Bassetti, B. (2011). Language and bilingual cognition. New York, NY: Psychology press.

Dahl, T. I., Rice, C., Steffensen, M., & Amundsen, L. (2010). Is it language relearning or language reacquisition? Hints from a young boy's code-switching during his journey back to his native language. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 490-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1367006910371024

Duran, L. (1994). Toward a better understanding of code switching and interlanguage in bilinguality: Implications for bilingual instruction. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 14, 69-88.

Fakeye, D. O. (2012). Motivational factors for code alternation in per-service teachers' verbal communication in oyo and ekiti states. Asian Social Science, 8, 149-154. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5539/ass.v8n8p149

Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

Genesee, F. (2001). Bilingual first language acquisition: Exploring the limits of the language faculty. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 153-168.

Groot, A. M. B. D., & Christoffels, I. K. (2006). Language control in bilinguals: Monolingual tasks and simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 189-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S1366728906002537

Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages. Harvard University Press.

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3-15.

Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: life and reality. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University.

Hughes, C.E., Shaunessy, E.S., Brice, A.R., Ratliff, M.A., & McHatton, P.A. (2006). Code switching among bilingual and limited English proficient students: Possible indicators of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 7-28.

Kroll, J. F. (2008). Juggling two languages in one mind. American Psychological Association, 22(1).

Lance, D. M. (1975). Spanish-English code switching. In E. Hernandez-Chavez, A. D. Cohen, & A. F. Beltramo (Eds.), El Lenguaje De Los Chicanos: Regional and Social Characteristics Used by Mexican Americans (pp. 138-154). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Lipski. J. (1977). Code switching and the problems of bilingual competence. In Parads. M. (Ed.), Aspects of Bilingualism. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press

McLaughlin, B. (1978). Second language acquisition in childhood. NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pagett, L. (2006). Mum and dad prefer me to speak Bengali at home: Code switching and parallel speech in primary school setting. Literacy, 40, 137-145.

Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in spanish y termino en espanol: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581-618.

Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2008). Language switching in bilingual speech production: In search of the language-specific selection mechanism. The Mental Lexicon, 3, 214-238. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1075/ ml.3.2.06sch

Valdes-Fallis, G. (1978). Code-switching among bilingual mexican-american women: Towards an understanding of sex-related language alternation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 65-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1978.17.65

Appendix A (PMBM)

Determining Monolingualism, Bilingualism and Multilingualism

* Items to measure whether the participant is a Monolingual or a Bilingual

* Please circle the response for each question which is most accurate for you.

1. I can speak more than one language fluently. Yes / No

2. I can read more than one language fluently. Yes / No

3. I can write in more than one language. Yes / No

4. I can understand more than one language. Yes / No

5. I am able to think in more than one language. Yes / No

6. I can speak, read, write and understand more than two languages. Yes/No

If you speak more than one language, please circle your response for questions 7 and 8.

7. I am satisfied with my linguistic competence in my second language. Yes / No

8. I am able to mix my first and second language comfortably during a conversation with my friends and family. Yes / No

Appendix B

The following video includes example of code-switching. Generally, it is way of speaking for bilinguals where they switch between two languages during a conversation. In the video you will watch three bilingual persons talking. They are talking about saving the music industry from piracy. During the conversation they frequently switch codes. This video is a demonstration of switching codes in real life setting. https://youtu.be/NQlkiSuSWWo

Appendix C (PCSV-LI/PCSV-UCA)

Post Video Questionnaire

1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = Not sure, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree

* You may have noticed in the video that the speakers switched back and forth between two languages- this is known as code-switching (CS). We would like your opinions about the speakers that you observed in this video.

* Circle the options which best represents your opinion

1. When the speakers in the video switch between languages, one language interferes with the other language.

2. The speakers seem to have natural ability to switch between languages.

3. The speakers have a well-organized means of communication.

4. The speakers seem to have an artificial way of speaking two languages simultaneously.

5. The speakers do not show complete fluency in both languages.

6. The speakers seem to switch between languages spontaneously.

7. By switching between languages, the speakers demonstrate their strength in two languages.

8. The speakers seem to have better expression in English.

9. It seems the speakers switch between languages because they do not have enough vocabulary in their first language.

10. It seems the speakers switch between languages because they do not have enough vocabulary in their second language.

11. The speakers demonstrate a complex cognitive task by switching back and forth between languages.

12. The speakers do not seem to have completely learned both languages.

13. The speakers have a structured means of communication.

14. The speakers seem to have a lazy means of communication.

15. The speakers seem to demonstrate expertise in both languages.

16. The speakers are violating purity of language.

17. The speakers seem to have a random means of communication.

Appendix D (PCSG-LI/PCSG-UCA)

General Questionnaire

Bilinguals can speak two languages and they frequently switch between languages.

Now we would like your opinions on people switching between languages in general. When responding to these items, please think about your opinions in general rather than the speakers in video. Circle the options which best represents your opinion.

1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = Not sure, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree

1. When bilinguals switch between languages, one language interferes with the other language.

2. Bilinguals have natural ability to switch between languages.

3. Bilinguals have a well-organized means of communication.

4. Bilinguals have an artificial way of speaking two languages simultaneously.

5. Bilinguals switch between languages spontaneously.

6. Bilinguals do not show complete fluency in both languages.

7. By switching between languages, bilinguals demonstrate their strength in two languages.

8. Bilinguals have better expression in English.

9. Bilinguals switch between languages because they do not have enough vocabulary in their first language.

10. Bilinguals switch between languages because they do not have enough vocabulary in their second language.

11. Bilinguals demonstrate a complex cognitive task by switching back and forth between languages.

12. Bilinguals do not learn both languages completely.

13. Bilinguals have a structured means of communication.

14. Bilinguals have a lazy means of communication.

15. Bilinguals demonstrate expertise in both languages.

16. Bilinguals violate the purity of language.

17. Bilinguals have a random means of communication.

18. Do you ever switch back and forth between languages?

Author Note: Kuntala Parama would like to acknowledge the Department of Psychological Science at University of Central Missouri for its approval of this study, and thank Dr. David Kreiner for his advice in designing the study and his assistance in analyzing the data. Finally, he would like to thank thesis committee members (Dr. David Kreiner, Dr. Kim Stark and Dr. Steven Schuetz) and research assistants who helped complete this research.
COPYRIGHT 2017 North American Journal of Psychology
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Parama, Kuntala S.; Kreiner, David S.; Stark, Kimberly S.; Schuetz, Steven A.
Publication:North American Journal of Psychology
Article Type:Report
Date:Mar 1, 2017
Words:5810
Previous Article:The feeling of being watched: do eye cues elicit negative affect?
Next Article:Self-prophecies and cognitive dissonance: habit, norms and justification of past behavior.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters