The Multilingual/Bilingual Dichotomy: an Exploration of Individual Differences
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Egan... \.; I. .43.. a...I) $61.21 - . a .V .15....) 1‘ ‘.05..w. .223 :544. .K} .9 .4 .55 {in} 4 (Ii-.5.u i A 2.“) :L .. .5.7.4955. In! LI... est-r9413}. .i...’ 5x01332§v5252 . ‘.;s¢5.l§3ii!.vsl .F .54 r!- ovuiki: .1... .v. and.. >32. .5 435...! 2 . I 93......9h‘rvtz. , : .57 .u," .145 . «Rumflbntiiu . armpnunwfi... 45...... 25:855.vying. .5.fixatm. .5... "..4...5.. xv... 54.4 52.5....‘13}. n at... .45.. .ufltzl. 5.4... l. a 2.2.23 5.5 J. L. $51.42...... ...4...52 . "gs...I .. .2 ... tab. and. mar"? Ru».“- .. I‘D.JOCZO Lanna. .. Laumunu... .LNI h: .9 E. Z 7 LEBRARY 2009 Michigan state University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE MULTILINGUAL/BILINGUAL DICHOTOMY: AN EXPLORATION OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES presented by Amy S. Thompson --~ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD. degree in Second Language Studies -.o.---u— got/lat, [QM Major Professor’s Signature [(461.45 ‘11 7. 200 9 Date MSU is an Afinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE pm: o 3: MM» 5108 K‘IProlecc8Pres/ClRC/DaleDue indd THE MULTILINGUAL/BILINGUAL DICHOTOMY: AN EXPLORATION OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES By Amy S. Thompson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Second Language Studies 2009 ABSTRACT THE MU LTILINGUAL/BILINGUAL DICHOTOMY: AN EXPLORATION OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES By Amy S. Thompson Bilingualism (Sanz, 2000), motivation (Pintrich, 1989), and language aptitude (Grigorenko, Stemberg, and Ehrman, 2000) are crucial individual differences that contribute to successful adult language learning. Since Gardner’s (1985) seminal work on motivation, many studies have shown that motivation is dynamic and that it affects language development in many ways (Dornyei, 2005). We also know that bilingualism has clear benefits for successful third language (L3) acquisition (Bialystok, 2006, 2001; Da Fonttma & Siegle, 1995; Swain et al., 1990). Yet still at issue is how much bilingualism contributes to the success of L3 acquisition when taking into consideration other individual differences, such as motivation and aptitude. This study addresses the profiles of second language (L2) and third language (L3) learners of English, using 128 participants from the Casa de Cultura Britanica ’3 English language program, which is affiliated with the Universidade Federal do Cearci in Fortaleza, Brazil. The participants completed the Portuguese version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), Questionario de Estratégias Motivacionais para Aprendizagem (QEMA) (Brown et al., 2001), the Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of Language (Foreign) (CANAL-FT) (Grigorenko et al. 2000), the Michigan State University English Language Test (MSUELT) (Cook, 2001), and a self-rated proficiency scale based on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (Hasselgreen, 2005). Analyses of the aforementioned factors, including AN OVAs, correlations, factor analyses, and discriminant function analyses compare the bilingual and multilingual participants, illustrating the differences between the groups. Motivational profiles, language aptitude scores, performance on the independent measure of English proficiency, and retention rates of the bilingual and multilingual participants are discussed using the aforementioned analyses. There is also a content analysis of interview data collected from a subgroup of the multilingual participants. One important finding of this dissertation includes the statistically significant results for the language aptitude scores between the bilingual and multilingual participants. This dissertation also supports the slowly growing body of research indicating that even a small amount of previous language learning experience can affect the process of learning subsequent languages. In addition, language learners who positively perceive interactions between languages studied might have advantages in subsequent language learning experiences. Copyright by Amy S. Thompson 2009 This dissertation is dedicated to my friends and family who have helped me get this far. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would have not been possible without the help and support of many friends, family, colleagues, and professors. I would like to start by thanking the faculty and students at the Casa de Cultura Britanica ’s English language program, especially Sfimia Carvalho, the director of the Casa de Cultura Britanz'ca at the time of this dissertation. I would also like to individually thank each member of my dissertation committee who have each contributed to my degree completion in specific ways: Cristina Sanz, who put up with my ceaseless e-mails and questions about multilingualism; Debra Friedman, who given many hours to patiently explaining the intricacies of content analysis; Debra Hardison, for her incredible number of letters of recommendation over the past six years and support throughout the TESOL and SLS programs; Susan Gass, who has valued my development as a student and who always made time for me regardless of her other time commitments; and finally my chair, Paula Winke, who has offered constant support, encouragement, and optimism. I would also like to offer special thanks to Bob Frye (Fry with an “e”), who was the first person to tell me that I had what it took to complete my doctorate and who has been my inspiration both as a scholar and a teacher. Several friends and colleges have helped me in my analyses and revisions including Junkyu Lee, Shaofeng Li, Sara Hillman, Emma Trentman, Ching-Ni Hsieh, Baburhan Uzum, Ryan Miller, and Kimi Nakatsukasa. I would also like to thank my Grandpa Thompson, who I know has been watching over me through this process. Finally, I would also like to thank my family, Mom, Dad, Laura (a.k.a. Laurat or My Favorite Ski), and Memo who have been my encouragement not only in this endeavor, but in all others. I love you all MTH and TTMAB. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ ix LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER ONE — INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ..1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Review of Related Literature .............................................................................................. 3 Bilingualism and Multilingualism ................................................................................... 4 Language Aptitude ........................................................................................................ 19 Motivation ..................................................................................................................... 29 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 37 CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .............................. 39 Context for the Study .................................................................................................... 39 Participants .................................................................................................................... 40 Materials .......................................................................................... 5 .............................. 4 l Multilingualism ......................................................................................................... 42 English Language Proficiency .................................................................................. 47 Motivation ................................................................................................................. 47 Language Aptitude .................................................................................................... 48 Interviews .................................................................................................................. 53 Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 57 CHAPTER THREE: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS ......................................................... 60 Analysis: Levels of English .......................................................................................... 60 Analysis: The operationalization of a multilingual learner ........................................... 65 Analysis: Research Questions ....................................................................................... 7O RQl: Do bilingual learners have the same motivational profile as multilingual learners? .................................................................................................................... 70 RQ2: Which group of participants has higher language aptitude, bilingual or multilingual learners? ................................................................................................ 92 RQ3: Which group of participants has higher English language proficiency as measured by the MSUELT, bilingual or multilingual learners? ............................... 94 RQ4: Which group has a higher retention rate in the progression of the English courses,