A Study to Show the Advantages of People Who Are Multilingual against Monolingual

MATH EXPLORATION RESEACRH TASK 1

AStudy to Show the Advantages of People Who Are Multilingual againstMonolingual

AStudy to Show the Advantages between People Who Are Multilingual andMonolingual

Thesis Statement

Arepeople who speak multiple languages smarter than those who aremonolingual?&nbsp

People who tend tocommunicate in multiple languages are referred to as multilinguals,and they can communicate in more than language in various ways suchas speaking, singing, writing and reading. In specific relations,other significant terms may refer to such speakers. For instance, abilingual communicates through two languages while a trilingualcommunicates through three languages. Persons who use more than threelanguages are referred to as polyglots (Kroll &amp Bialystok, 2013).Typically, multilingual users have acquired and maintained at leastone language since birth, and throughout their childhood. It is theso-called “first language”. The first language can be the mothertongue or the common language used by the child’s parents andpeople near him/her. Importantly, the first language is acquired withno access to formal education. In the scholarly world, the firstlanguage acquisition is closely linked to the model of a “nativespeaker.” It is argued that a native speaker has an advancedmastery in his/her native language to which a second language learnercannot acquire easily. Therefore, empirical language and researchstudies are mainly done using native speakers as data samples.

On the other hand,monolinguals area a section of people who use only one language forcommunication purposes. Monolinguals are mainly speakers of adominant language. Often, most people in a monolingual country havelimited access or little interest to foreign or second languages.Some of the leading monolingual countries are: France, Hungary andBrazil. However, this is an assumption, because such countries have asizable population of multilingual speakers. Native speakers are seenas the leading monolinguals, as they have access to their languageonly.

In this paragraph,the thesis of the research is introduced, with agreement to thehypothesis laid out. People who speak multiple languages aresmarter than monolinguals. It is reported that multilingualshave increased chances of language learning proficiency relative tomonolinguals. Research puts forth the notion that bilinguals who arewell endowed and capable of using various languages have improvedexecutive occupations or have a lower tendency of risk to dementia(persistent brain disorders caused by brain diseases or injuries).The learning of a new language can increase the chances for advancedknowledge acquisition, and this means that the people who tend tolearn a new language in an exclusive and immediate setting, willreinforce and expand the attainable information. In suchcircumstances, they become smarter and their relationships with otherpeople improves considerably (Kroll &amp Bialystok, 2013). On thecontrary, monolinguals have access to restricted information only,and so, in the contemporary world, they become disadvantaged invarious ways. For instance, their information (knowledge) acquisitionis limited only to one language, and this means that they might havedifficulties in comprehending different settings, foreign to them.

Multilinguals havean edge over the monolinguals in the labor market, thus, theirinteractions are enhanced. They have an upper hand in communicatingwith a clientele that is maybe monolingual or bilingual, and this iswhy they might be preferred in the employment arena. These claims aresupported by various empirical data, gathered by the relevant surveybodies. For instance, Agirdag, conducted a research study in the USand determined that bilingualism had a substantial economicadvantage, since the bilingual persons were found to have an excessof $3000 (USDs) salary annually, more than the monolinguals. Anotherstudy in Switzerland determined that bilingualism is directly linkedto improved individual’s salary, improved firm productivity andincreased Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The researchers found outthat Switzerland’s GDP is 10% linked to multilingualism.

Task

This project seeksto ascertain the advantage that multilingual people have against themonolingual individuals. It supports the thesis statement thatmultilinguals are smarter than monolinguals.

Therefore, aresearch design was created and conducted in an empirical approach.

Plan

The researchdesign incorporated observation and recording of data. Differentparticipants were used. The participants were from different familiesbelonging to the middle-class level. So, the participants came from120 middle-class families. 60 participants of the sample came from apurely Spanish-speaking background whereas the other 60 participantscame from a Spanish-English-speaking background. Therefore, it waspresumed that the pure Spanish-speakers participants were typicallymonolingual while the Spanish-English-speakers were bilingual.

Empirical datawere recorded in a questionnaire. So, each participant of the twodifferent groups was given a questionnaire and he/she was expected torespond to the questions or prompts, therein. This technique wassimple because at least every participant can respond to the promptsin a short time, and without the use of any extra resources. Theapproach was designed to be simple and less time consuming so as togather real-time data with the most convenient means possible.

Both of the twogroups were from the United States, which means that they are exposedto the same type of information contained in the questionnairedesign. This means that the questions were unbiased. However, thepure Spanish-speakers were presented with a questionnaire printed inSpanish only, whereas the Spanish-English-speakers were presentedwith a questionnaire printed in English only, and with the samequestions. The scores were marked out of a 100%. Their differentscores were recorded on a results table and presented in the Datasection of this write-up.

Therefore, theresearch had results from the two groups.

Data

10%

20%

40%

60%

80%

90%

Spanish-speaking group

12

8

18

10

8

4

Spanish-English-speaking group

0

4

13

17

15

11

Total number of participants= 120

Score levels= 0-100%

Type of participants- 2 differentgroups, each containing 60 people.

Analysis of Data

Report

Spanish-English speaking (Multilingual)

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

63.5

60

10.21

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Included

Excluded

Total

N

Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

Spanish-English speaking

60

100.0%

0

0.0%

60

100.0%

Spanish-English speaking (Multilingual)

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

20

4

6.7

6.7

6.7

90

11

18.3

18.3

25.0

40

13

21.7

21.7

46.7

80

15

25.0

25.0

71.7

60

17

28.3

28.3

100.0

Total

60

100.0

100.0

Warning

Onat least one case, the value of the weight variable was zero, Suchcases are invisible to statistical procedures and graphs which needpositively weighted cases, but remain on the file and are processedby non-statistical facilities.

Report

Spanish-Speaking (Monolingual)

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

43.33

60

9.51

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Included

Excluded

Total

N

Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

Spanish Speaking

60

100.0%

0

0.0%

60

100.0%

Spanish Speaking (Monolingual)

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

90

4

6.7

6.7

6.7

20

7

11.7

11.7

18.3

80

9

15.0

15.0

33.3

60

10

16.7

16.7

50.0

10

12

20.0

20.0

70.0

40

18

30.0

30.0

100.0

Total

60

100.0

100.0

Interpretationof the Results

The results wereanalyzed and some facts were determined. Firstly, the Mean (m)of the different participants’ scores were the main target forunderstanding the thesis of the research. In this case, theSpanish-English –speaking (multilingual) participants had a Mean(m) of 63.5 while the Spanish-speaking (monolingual) had a Mean(m) of 43.33. These data only means one thing, that is, themultilingual participants had the best overall performance ascompared to the monolingual participants. The multilinguals had abetter chance of scoring high scores, and so they were smarter thanthe rest. There scores were distributed towards a larger frequency,such as zero of the participants scored 10%, and 20 of them scored60%. This data means that a larger number of these participants had ahigher chance of scoring highly than the monolingual. Themonolinguals have poor frequency distribution which is mainly spreadstowards lower scores, and this is evident by the fact that 18 peoplescored 40% which is below the average score (50%).

In the graphs, itis clearly visible that the multilinguals had an upper hand in thescore. For example, the percentage of the participants who scored 90%was 18.3% out of 60 total participants in the multilingual, while thepercentage of the participants who scored 90% was 6.67% out of atotal of 60 participants in the monolingual. Therefore, the peoplewho scored 90% in the multilingual had a larger bar than the ones whoscored 90% in the monolingual. This means that higher percentagescores are linked to the multilinguals.

Discussion

As the thesisstates, multilinguals are smarter than bilinguals. It has been provenby the scores and analysis. The Spanish-English speakers whorepresented the multilingual people, had an advantage in scoringbetter results presented in the questionnaires. The samples weretaken from a culture that was predominantly multilingual but with aconsiderable amount of monolingual population. Poor scores werehighly prevalent in the monolingual (Spanish-speakers while betterscores were dominant in the Spanish-English-speakers. So, themultilinguals were able to respond to the questions at ease, and thismeans that they were more endowed with general knowledge. They hadadvanced skills and a rich fountain of information acquisition andretention ability. The test was testing the understanding of variousquestions that regarded the broad know-how of general knowledge.Maybe, multilinguals had a better chance of seeking knowledge andaccessing information due to the fact that they could use bothlanguages, Spanish and English, as compared to the participants whoonly used Spanish for communication.

Conclusion

Even if the relationshipbetween multilinguals and the actual intelligence is hypothetical andunclear, executive functions can help them to venture and engage inactivities that make them “appear smarter” than theircounterparts. This is maybe supported by the fact that they can doand achieve multiple things at ease. For example, a customer care whoknows several languages is in a better position to assist differentclients belonging to diverse walks of life and speaking differentlanguages. Arguably, these interactions can lead to acquisition oflarger amounts of information, and hence smartness. It is believedthat people who can speak multiple languages have an improvedcognitive function which widely plays a part in being smart (Kroll &ampBialystok, 2013).

Multilingualismpermits an individual to acquire a new dimension in thinkingreinforced with unique philosophies and assumptions that makes iteasier to live in a multi-culture set-up. Understandably,multilinguals can learn new languages faster (Kroll &amp Bialystok,2013).

In 2012, it was determined that half(54%) of the Europeans were bilinguals. The data was provided byEurobarometer survey. Additionally, other studies claim that half ofthe world’s population is bilingual. So, it seems thatmultilingualism has a beneficial side. However, there are no reliabledata to distinguish the merits and demerits of multilingualism, ormonolingualism.

Validity

The appropriate mathematical processeswere used to acquire the empirical data in the research. The mainmathematical technique used was Statistics. The technique wasinitially used to acquire data through the preparation of a thesisstatement, which was then followed by a designed questionnaire.Questionnaires are the main tools for collecting statistical databecause they are convenient and reliable on a real-time basis.Moreover, collecting these data is not enough to. The data needs tobe arranged for it to make sense, and thereafter, it is analyzedusing the appropriated techniques. The technique used here wasprimarily based on calculation of mean and standard deviation, andthen using the sample data to design a graph. So, the mean and thegraph were the only reliable ways to analyze the data. It was alsonecessary to use two distinct groups that displayed differentcharacteristics, such as the use of two languages to communicate orone language to communicate. The Spanish-speaking could only use onelanguage to communicate while the Spanish-English-speaking could usetwo languages, and so this was the variability and essence of theresearch.

However, the research could have somelimitations. For instance, the sampling was done from a multilingualsociety with a considerable number of monolinguals. Therefore, thismight have affected the results in that, the multilinguals had agiven advantage towards high scoring because the set-up favored themand was a limitation to the monolinguals.

Perhaps, the research can be done in afair set-up with no advantage posed to any group. Moreover, otherresearch studies should be used to supplement such a research becauseit is under-researched.

References

Kroll, J. F., &amp Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding theconsequences of bilingualism for language processing and cognition.Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 497–514.