Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.0 Background of the Study ............................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Statement of the Research Problem .................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Research Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Research Questions ........................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Significance of the Study .................................................................................................................. 7
1.6 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 10
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 10
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Defining Bilingualism ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Laypeople’s Perceptions of Bilingualism ..................................................................................... 15
2.3 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................................. 16
CHAPTER 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 18
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 18
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Research Design .............................................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Population and Sample ................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Reliability and Validity of Respondents’ Questionnaire ............................................................. 20
3.4 Research Instruments ..................................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................ 23
3.6 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 23
Summary................................................................................................................................................ 24
CHAPTER 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 25
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Profile of Respondents .................................................................................................................... 26
4.3 Findings of Research Question 1 ................................................................................................... 29
4.3.1 The Quantitative Findings....................................................................................................... 29
4.4 Findings of Research Question 2 ................................................................................................... 39

1
CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 51
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 51
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 51
5.2 Discussion of Research Results ...................................................................................................... 51
5.2.1 Students’ Perceptions on Bilingualism ................................................................................... 51
5.2.2 Students’ Rationale of Their Perceptions on Bilingualism................................................... 53
5.3 Conclusion on Research Findings.................................................................................................. 55
5.4 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................................. 56
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research ................................................................................................. 57
References ................................................................................................................................................... 58

2
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

This section discusses the background of the research, statement of the

problem and objective of the research. Apart from that, the chapter also

contains the purposes of the study, theoretical framework, research

questions, significance of the research, scope of the study, definition of

keywords and limitations.

1.0 Background of the Study

The phenomenon of bilingualism is often founded on the language needs of

a society. To understand language needs, one often would have to

understand the notion of bilingualism. A narrow definition of a bilingual is

that he or she is able to grasp and perfectly understand two languages. In

other words, a bilingual need to have “native-like control of two or more

languages” (Bloomfield, 1933). On the other hand, a wider definition of a

bilingual is one who uses two or more languages to communicate (Mackey,

1974). What then are the criteria that define a bilingual?

It would appear that the term “bilingual” is applied by people in

different ways. For some, it means an equal ability to communicate in two

languages. For others, it simply means the ability to communicate in two

languages but with greater skills in one language. In fact, it is more common

3
for bilinguals, even those who have been bilingual since birth; to be

somewhat “dominant” is use of one language.

One example of a study was conducted by a group of researchers

from San Jose State University in 2016 shows that the students have

optimistic perceptions on the advantages on being a bilingual. Most students

agreed that learning a second language helps them to understand more about

the people who speak this language i.e. Spanish speakers or Chinese

speakers (89%), giving them better understanding of these people (86%)

and have the ability to converse with others (90%) and to express feelings

in interactions with others (85%). However, 92% of the students who

participated in the research do not consider themselves as bilinguals as they

think they are not proficient enough in their second language since they are

only able to understand what was written and spoken, but they are unable

to hold a conversation like the native speakers do.

It often appears the concept ‘bilingual’ is assumed to be understood

by the laypeople and is therefore unnecessary to define. A problem with this

is that researches in differing fields of linguistics may be applying different

definitions to the concept and readers may be applying yet others. A further

problem with such a widely-used but difficult to define concept is that

individuals most likely have their own perception of the concept as well.

Several questions are raised by this situation. How proficient should people

be to be regarded as bilinguals? Is proficiency the only factor that

4
 distinguishes bilinguals from monolinguals? If not, what are the other

factors to be considered?

1.1 Statement of the Research Problem

This research attempts to investigate students’ perceptions towards

bilingualism and the rationality of their perceptions. Malaysia is ranked as

the fourth in the world’s most multilingual countries (Lew, 2014). In other

words, most Malaysians are able to speak in one or more than two languages

due to the diversity in the ethnicity in the country be it in Bahasa Malaysia,

Mandarin, Tamil or English. Even though majority of them are able to speak

in Bahasa Malaysia and English, they still do not consider themselves as

bilingual due to their lack in proficiency and their preference to use mixed

language or known as Manglish (Saraceni, 2010). This statement is also

supported by Grosjean (1994) which stated that bilinguals often do not see

themselves as bilingual.

Given the situation, it is high time that the local government takes

serious effort in studying the perceptions of students in higher institutions

regarding bilingualism and the rationale behind their answers. This is due

to the fact that being a bilingual has been proven to have a positive impact

on multiple aspects especially if a person has a good command in their

second language especially English (Wagers, 2015). English has become

the lingua franca in trading, commerce, communication, education and

5
 science. Throughout the world, when people with different languages come

together, they commonly use English to communicate. Hence, being a

bilingual especially if the person has a good command in English as their

second language has become a necessity in Malaysia because knowing the

language meant opening the door to a myriad of opportunities, job prospects

and employability both within and outside of the country.

1.2 Research Objectives

The main objective of the study is to analyse the perceptions of students in

higher institution of learning regarding being bilingual. The more specific

objectives of the study are:

1. To analyse students’ perceptions regarding bilingualism.

2. To determine the rationales of students’ perceptions regarding bilingualism.

1.3 Research Questions

The fundamental questions addressed by this study are:

1. What are the students’ perceptions regarding bilingualism?

2. What are the rationales behind students’ perceptions regarding bilingualism?

6
1.4 Definition of Terms

In this research, the following definitions are used:

1. Bilingualism is defined as individuals who have ‘native-like control

of two languages’ (Bloomfield, 1933).

2. Perception is defined as an active process as one selectively

perceives, organises and interprets what one experiences.

Interpretations are based on the perceivers past experiences,

assumptions about human behaviour, knowledge of the others

circumstances, present moods, wants, desires and expectations

(Tubbs & Moss, 1990).

3. Rationale is defined as the fundamental reasons or rational basis or

explanations of reasons (Harcourt, 2014).

1.5 Significance of the Study

The significance of the study concerns educators who work with linguistically

and culturally diverse student populations in dual language bilingual

educational settings. The study was undertaken to contribute to the body of

research in relation to how languages are perceived and used to mediate

learning and develop functional bilingualism and biliteracy. By having a greater

understanding of the perceptions and rationale, teachers can better support and

leverage bilingual development in their unique settings. Students bring many

7
 linguistics varieties to school, thus opening the discussion about which

languages should be spoken.

1.6 Limitations

This study concerns only respondents who are able to speak two or more

languages in order to study their perception on being a bilingual and the

rationale of their perceptions. Due to this, a few limitations exist. Firstly, in

order for the respondents to be considered eligible to be part of the research, the

respondents must be able to speak in more than one language and their second

language is not restricted. This is because Malaysia is a multilingual country

and their second language may vary.

Secondly, the sampling is limited to only tertiary education students

specifically students from Kolej Universiti Poly-Tech MARA Kuala Lumpur

(KUPTMKL) only. Due to the small number of students in KUPTMKL, the

sampling may not stand as representative of the population as a whole.

However, this research can be generalised to other private institutions as they

share similar characteristics to students in KUPTMKL which are their

proficiency in English is at par with each other and their syllabus. Other than

that, a larger example would give a better view of the perceptions on

bilingualism.

8
Summary

This chapter had covered the main idea of this research which investigates the

university students’ perceptions on bilingualism and the rationale of their

perceptions.

9
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter will provide information regarding bilingualism which begins with the

definition of bilingualism and laypeople’s perceptions of bilingualism.

2.1 Defining Bilingualism

Throughout the literature, academic definitions of bilingual abound, from

the early, restrictive definitions, “native-like control of two languages”

(Bloomfield, 1935, p. 56) to the very elastic definitions of today, “the presence of

two or more languages” (Dewaele, Housen & Li, 2003, p. 1), which reflect the

awareness of the interdisciplinary nature of studies in bilingualism. Baetens

Beardsmore (1982) brings to light the obstacle in precisely defining bilingual,

stating that it is difficult to “[posit] a generally accepted definition of the

phenomenon that will not meet some sort of criticism” (p. 1), often for being too

narrow, vague or difficult to definitively describe. Perhaps in order to avoid

criticism, definitions and usage became much less stringent. Hakuta (1986)

specifies that the definition of bilingualism in this book is deliberately open-ended.

It begins where ‘the speaker of one language can produce meaningful utterances in

the other language’ (Haugen, 1953, p. 7). This definition is preferable to a narrow

one that might include only those with native-like control. (p. 4)

10
 He further discusses the difficulty in defining ‘native-like control’ and the

importance of including the issues of second language acquisition, language

maintenance and language attrition in the study of bilingualism. In the last decade

or so as knowledge of the breadth of bilingualism has grown, discussions of

bilingualism have concentrated on “the many kinds and degrees of bilingualism and

bilingual situations” (Crystal, 2003, p. 51), leading to in depth descriptions of the

varied circumstances involved in bilingualism, anticipating the recent call for

understanding the bilingual situation through its context and its purpose (Edwards,

2004). Hakuta’s (1992) broad definition, “someone who controls two or more

languages” (p. 176), sets up the justification for using a flexible definition (the

difficulty in defining, the problem of being either too narrow or too broad, and the

variability of language competence due to the complexities of language itself); it

further allows him to provide a distinction between various typologies of bilinguals

and bilingual situations while at the same time, summarizing how various

associated academic fields (politics, education, sociology, phonology, morphology,

etc) have used associated terms and processes in studies of bilinguals.

Grosjean (1994) furthers the scope of bilingualism by refuting a commonly

held misconception about bilinguals: they are equally fluent in all their languages.

He stresses that rather than focusing on equal fluency as a marker of bilingualism,

it is important to understand why bilinguals need their languages; how they process,

organize and think about their languages in those languages; and how they feel

about themselves and their bilingualism. Still flexible, his definition, “those who

use two (or more) languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives” (p. 1656), does

11
specify the “everyday” use of two languages. Li (2000) addresses bilingualism from

various perspectives as well. After providing more than 30 distinct types of

bilingualism, he goes on to interpret the term bilingual as “primarily describing

someone with the possession of two languages” (p. 7) but also states that it can

cover any number of languages. He further discusses the complexities of defining

language itself, socio-political issues related to language use, psycholinguistic

aspects of bilingualism, and the various advantages of being bilingual. Li, like

others, constructs a multi-dimensional context for describing the phenomenon of

bilingualism.

The trend to move away from focusing on the native-like qualities of

bilinguals in favour of the situations and complexities of bilinguals has been both

welcomed and contentious. Hoffman (1991) states that one difficulty in defining

bilingualism is its interdisciplinary nature, with researchers from distinct but related

fields within linguistics “bringing different methods, criteria and assumptions to

bear upon studies of bilingual situations” (p. 17). However, not seeing this as a

problem, she suggests that the variety in definitions and uses allows researchers “to

choose the one that best suits her or his purpose” (p. 18). Others have concerns

about the increasing ambit of bilingualism. Grosjean (1998) sees, among others not

directly related to the present study, two problems with participants used in

research: researchers not understanding who is and is not bilingual, and the factors

used in determining appropriate study participants. His solution to the first problem

is to read the literature in the field, which, in this instance, has not proven truly

effective in providing a clear picture of who ‘bilingual’ applies to. His solution to

12
the second is to provide clear, complete information about the participants:

biographical data, language history, language stability, function of languages,

proficiency, and language mode (p. 135). Mackey (2002) concludes that in order to

have a truly meaningful understanding of who a bilingual is, it is necessary for the

study of bilingualism to have a “unified theory” of its own, no longer influenced by

other disciplines (p. 340). The problematic uses of the term bilingualism have even

caused at least one researcher to opt not to use the term anymore. In discussing the

effects of the L2 on the L1, Cook (2003) discusses what an L2 user is and how, for

him, that term is preferential to the term bilingual:

not only because of the plethora of confusing definitions, but also because

[those definitions] usually invoke a Platonic ideal of the perfect bilingual,

rather than the reality of the average person who uses a second language

for the needs of his or her everyday life. (p. 5)

This reaction to the muddied or vague uses of the term bilingual is being

taken on by others as linguistics moves further away from prescribed definitions

based on native-proficiency to more descriptive definitions reflective of the

language users’ realities; this will be interesting to watch terms in future literature.

In essence, historically, defining ‘bilingual’ has been marked by criticisms,

due to vague, narrow or incomplete pictures drawn in early definitions. The recent

thought is that in order to know the bilingual participants and understand the

relevance of the study, one must know age, sex, linguistic background (including

L1 and all simultaneously or subsequently languages learnt), language

proficiencies, language uses, language attitudes and, more recently, language mode.

13
Consequently, the shift to providing a well-developed picture of the person or

situation involved has become the current practice or is the desired practice at any

rate.

14
2.2. Laypeople’s Perceptions of Bilingualism

One area of bilingualism that has not been fully explored is how laypeople perceive

themselves. In studies on bilingualism, participants are normally not researchers

but ordinary people, and hence it is empirically important to understand laypeople’s

views of bilingualism. This gap is explicitly addressed in Sia and Dewaele (2006).

The researchers conducted a survey study to investigate whether self-categorization

as a bilingual was related to sociobiological factors (e.g., age, gender, and education

level) and linguistic factors (e.g., self-rated proficiency, years of exposure, and

method of instruction).

Participants were 45 individuals who fitted somewhere between the end

points of a continuum of monolingual and bilingual. One interesting finding was

that there was variability in self-rated L2 proficiency with a range from 5 to 10 (10

was the maximum) on a 10-point scale among 20 individuals who self-categorized

themselves as bilinguals. This indicated that some participants might not regard L2

proficiency as the only criterion for bilingualism. Moreover, several differences

between self-categorized bilinguals and non-bilinguals were reported. One of them

was that bilinguals tended not to be active learners. In other words, those who were

still studying their L2s appeared to be aware of their limitation in the L2s through

feedback and test results they received, and therefore they might have felt “it would

be premature to claim their status of bilingual” (p. 15).

From the linguistic perspective, the difference between the two groups was

the most significant in speaking and listening, followed by pragmatic competence,

and the smallest in reading and writing. Despite a methodological limitation of this
15
study that both independent and dependent variables were elicited from the self-

reported survey, it provided insights into how laypeople’s perceptions of

bilingualism were linked to sociobiological and linguistic factors. Another study

worth reviewing here is Pavlenko (2003). Adopting critical pedagogy and imagined

communities as theoretical frameworks, she investigated how pre-service and in-

service English teachers enrolled in a TESOL program perceived their status in the

imagined professional communities and how critical praxis allowed them to open

up an alternative option which deviated from the dichotomy of native-speakers

(NS) and non- native speakers (NNS).

The analysis showed that at first, the students recognized only two options

from which to choose: NS or NNS community. Those who failed to join NS

community and regarded themselves as NNS expressed their embarrassment,

frustration, desperation, and torment in their reflection papers. However, as the

teachers gained knowledge of contemporary theories of bilingualism including the

unstable nature of first and second language acquisition, particularly Cook’s (1999)

concept of multicompetence, they were able to imagine their status in

multilingual/L2 user community. As shown in the title “I never knew I was a

bilingual”, critical praxis allowed the teachers to be liberated from the traditional

dichotomy and see themselves as competent, bilingual, and multilingual speakers.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

The central premise that theoretically underpins this research circulates around the

belief that students’ perceptions on bilingualism and the rationale of students’

perceptions (Sia & Deweale, 2006). According to Sia & Deweale (2006), certain
16
factors are linked to students’ perceptions on being a bilingual: age, L2 proficiency,

currently living in L2 environment, not currently studying the L2, and for those

who had previously lived in the L2, the recency of the experience. Students tend to

define bilinguals based on equal fluency in more than one language and to some

extent also on “native-like” proficiency in both languages (Butler 2013). The

narrow view of bilinguals appeared to prevent them from having confidence to

claim their bilingual status (Saito, 2015).

17
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter describes the methodology to be used in this research. It includes the

description of the research instruments used in the research, the background of the

respondents, the description of the research procedures and how the data are

collected and analysed.

3.1 Research Design

For this research, the researcher is going to use survey design as the research

design. Survey research design is defined as procedures in quantitative

research in which the researcher is going to administer a survey to a sample

population or entire population (Creswell, 2012) The type of survey

research design that is going to be used in this research is cross-sectional

survey design. The rationale of using cross-sectional survey design as this

type of survey research design is used to study attitudes, beliefs, views,

opinions or practices. Other than that, this research is going to focus on

students’ perceptions or views on bilingualism.

18
3.2 Population and Sample

This research utilises stratified sampling in order to select the respondents.

The suggested respondents of the study are students from Kolej Universiti

Poly-Tech MARA Kuala Lumpur (KUPTMKL). With over 3000 students

in KUPTMKL, only a fraction of students will participate in this research.

The respondents will be selected from School of Humanities and

Social Sciences at KUPTMKL, specifically the second-year students

(Semester 4 students) of Diploma in Teaching English as a Second

Language (TESL) comprises of 40 students. However, only 36 students will

be selected as the respondents for this research in accordance to Krejcie and

Morgan in determining sample size for research activities. The reason

behind the selection is because they are the school with the largest

population in comparison to other schools in KUPTMKL. Other than that,

the Semester 4 students are currently undertaking Introduction to

Sociolinguistics which makes them aware on the issue regarding

bilingualism.

19
 3.3 Reliability and Validity of Respondents’ Questionnaire

Before the real study was conducted, the researchers did a pilot study on

Semester 3 Diploma in Teaching English as Second Language (TESL).

Semester 3 students were chosen as the respondents for the pilot study is

because both Semester 3 and 4 students have similar characteristics such as

both of them are currently in their second year of studying. Therefore, they

have similar abilities in terms of their language. The reason behind the pilot

study is to determine the suitability of the questionnaire to the respondents.

The result of the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability and validity is as follow:

Table 3 Reliability test with Cronbach Alpha of Pilot Respondents

Questionnaire (N=15)

Num. Items Description Num. of Cronbach

(Construct) Items Alpha
Value
1 Students’ Perceptions 13 0.71
2 Students’ Rationale of 8 0.736
Perceptions

The questions in the questionnaire consisted of multiple choice

questions, five-point Likert scale, and yes/no. The Cronbach Alpha

reliability test was calculated for the Likert scale items, yes/no and multiple-

choice questions. Some questions were deleted from the corrected

questionnaire. The items were decreased to 12 items for the first construct.

As for the second construct, no changes were made since the Cronbach

Alpha value does not show much differences if items were deleted. Other

20
 than that, the Cronbach Alpha value for the pilot study is within the

acceptable range. The Cronbach Alpha reliability value for the corrected

questionnaire is shown below.

Num. Items Description Num. of Cronbach

(Construct) Items Alpha
Value
1 Students’ Perceptions 12 0.769
2 Students’ Rationale of 8 0.736
Perceptions

21
3.4 Research Instruments

This research utilises quantitative research method and supported by

qualitative research methods to further enhance findings. Babbie (2010)

stated that quantitative research method is research methods that emphasize

objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical

analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by

manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques.

This method focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing it across

groups of people or to explain a phenomenon. According to Crossman

(2017), qualitative research method is a type of social science research that

collects and works with non-numerical data and that seeks to interpret

meaning from these data that helps us to understand social life through the

study of targeted populations or places via direct observations, open-ended

questions, focus group and in-depth interviews.

This research is going to be conducted by using questionnaire that

is going to be distributed to Semester 4 students of Diploma in Teaching

English as a Second Language (TESL). Before the actual study is being

conducted, a pilot study will be administered by the researcher on 15

students from Semester 3 in Diploma in TESL. After the pilot study has

been conducted, the researcher will test the result obtained from the pilot

study on its reliability and validity through the Cronbach’s alpha test by

22
 using SPSS. Since the Cronbach Alpha value is within range, the research

is proceeded with the real study. .

3.5 Data Collection

Data collection was conducted using a questionnaire which was

adapted and modified from previous research that is conducted by Sia and

Dewaele in 2006 entitled “Are you a bilingual?”. The questionnaire will be

divided into three sections consisting of Section A: Demographic which

consists of 4 demographic items, Section B: Students’ Perceptions on

Bilingualism which consists of 12 items and Section C: Students’ Rationale

on Their Perceptions on Bilingualism which consists of 16 items with 8

questions in Likert scale and 8 open-ended questions.

3.6 Data Analysis

To analyse the quantitative data obtained from the questionnaire, the data is

going to be analysed by using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 software whereas

the qualitative date obtained from the questionnaire will be analysed by

using coding method in which the researcher will analyse respondents’

open-ended response and categorise it according to a common theme.

23
Summary

This part was mainly about the procedure that is going to be used in this

research.

24
 CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter provides a detailed explanation of the findings on students’

perceptions on bilingualism and the rationale of students’ perceptions at tertiary

education level. The results are reported by the research question number

respectively. First, profiles of research sample are described in detail with reference

to each specific data collected. Next, the findings are discussed in detail by method

and by comparison made across data quantitatively and qualitatively. Discussion of

the descriptive statistical analyses is presented based on the research question for

which the survey questionnaire of students is concerned.

Frequency counts and percentages were gauged through descriptive

statistical analyses. In addition, coding analyses method were used to analyse the

qualitative data and are reported thereafter. Results from the qualitative data

involve discussion of data generated from open-ended questions (questionnaire).

25
4.2 Profile of Respondents

A total of 36 students responded to the survey questionnaire. The present study used

the whole population for students’ sampling as the number of students in semester

4 was small. The selected students were from Semester 4 of Diploma in Teaching

English as Second Language (TESL). The results were presented according to

students’ gender, age, their native language and their second language.

Gender Percentage Num. of

(%) Respondents
(N=n)

Male 11.1% N=4

Female 88.9% N=32

Table 4.2.1: The Gender of Respondents

Table 4.2.1 shows the number of male and female respondents for this

study. The larger gender group comprised by the female respondents with 88.9%

(n=32) as opposed to the male respondents which was at 11.1% (n=4). This

indicated that there were more female than male students in the semester.

Nonetheless, the figures were representative of the genders in the Malaysian society

whereby the female population is greater in number than the male population.

26
 Age Percentage (%) Num. of
Respondents
(N=n)
18-20 years old 94.4% 34

21-23 years old 5.6% 2

Table 4.2.2: Age of Respondents

Based on Table 4.2.2, the student respondents’ age ranged from 18 to 23

years old. Students who were between 18 to 20 years old constituted a large

percentage of the sample population which was at 94.4% (n=34). There were 2

students (5.6%) were aged between 21-23 years old.

First Percentage Num. of

language (%) Respondents
(N=n)

Bahasa 97.2% N=35

Malaysia

English 2.8% N=1

TOTAL 100% 36

Table 4.2.3: Respondents First Language (L1)

Based on Table 4.2.3, majority of the respondents’ native language is

Bahasa Malaysia with the percentage of 97.2% while only 2.8% of the respondents

chose English as their native language.

27
 Second Percentage Num. of
language (%) Respondents
(N=n)

English 100% 36

TOTAL 100% 36

Table 4.2.4: Respondents’ Second Language (L2)

Based on Table 4.2.4, all of the respondents chose English as their second

language with the percentage of 100%. None of them chose Bahasa Malaysia,

Tamil or Mandarin as their second language. This trend is not a surprise since

English is a default second language of most Malaysians.

28
4.3 Findings of Research Question 1

What are students’ perceptions regarding bilingualism?

The first research objective for the present study is to determine students’

perceptions on bilingualism by university students. This first research question was

answered through one source of evidence. Thus, quantitative methods were applied

in its data collection. The data was obtained from student questionnaire. The results

obtained are presented.

4.3.1 The Quantitative Findings

There are 12 questions that has to be answered by the respondents in RQ 1 in order

to gauge their perceptions on bilingualism.

Part B Q1: Are you a bilingual?

Percentage (%)/Num. of
Respondents (N=n)
Bilingual 100% (N=36)

Not a bilingual -

Table 4.3.1.1: Respondents’ Self-Categorisation of Being a Bilingual

Table 4.3.1.1 shows that all of the respondents stated that they are a

bilingual. The reason behind this trend is due to them being a Malaysian who lives

in a multicultural environment in which they can speak more than one languages

since they were in school.

29
Part B Q2: How long have you been exposed to your second language?
Num. of years exposed to Percentage (%)/Num. of
second language Respondents (N=n)
1-4 years 2.8% (n=1)

5-7 years 11.1% (n=4)

8-10 years 5.6% (n=2)

11-13 years 11.1% (n=4)

More than 14 years 69.4% (n=25)

Table 4.3.1.2: Years of Exposure to Second Language

Table 4.3.1.2 shows the percentage and frequency of students on the number

of years they were exposed to their second language. Majority of the respondents

stated that they have been exposed to their second language for more than 14 years

with 69.4% (n=25), followed by 11.1% respondents stated that they have been

exposed to their second language for 11-13 years and 5-7 years respectively. The

lowest number of years exposed to their second language would be 8-10 years

(5.6%) and followed by 1-4 years (2.8%).

30
Part B Q3: Have you ever lived in L2 environment?
Lived/never lived in L2 Percentage (%)/Num. of
environment Respondents (N=n)
Yes 44% (n=16)

No 55.6% (n=20)

Table 4.3.1.3: Respondents’’ Have Lived/Never Lived in L2 Environment

Table 4.3.1.3 shows the percentage of respondents who have lived and

never lived in a country that primarily uses their L2. Out of the 36 participants,

majority of them had never lived in a country that primarily uses their L2 with the

percentage and frequency of 44% (n=20) and only 44% of the respondents have

lived in their L2 environment.

Part B Q4: Are you currently learning L2?

Currently learning L2/Not Percentage (%)/Num. of
learning L2 Respondents (N=n)
Yes 100% (n=36)

No

Table 4.3.1.4: Respondents’ Status on Learning L2

Based on Table 4.3.1.4, all of the respondents are currently learning their

L2. This is because the respondents are students of Diploma in Teaching English

as Second Language (TESL). Therefore, it was not a surprise that they stated that

they are still learning their second language since learning their second language is

part of their core syllabus.

31
Part B Q5: A bilingual is a person who has the ability to speak in more than
one language but with greater skill in one language
Percentage (%) Frequency
(N=n)
Strongly - 0
disagree
Disagree 2.8 1
Neutral 30.6 11
Agree 52.8 19
Strongly 13.9 5
agree
TOTAL 100 36
Table 4.3.1.5: Respondents’ Perceptions on Definition of Bilingualism

Table 4.3.1.5 shows the respondents’ answers when they were given a

statement on the definition of bilingual which stated that a bilingual is a person who

have the ability to speak in more than one language but with a greater skill in one

language. Majority of the respondents stated that they agreed with the statement

with the percentage of 52.8% (n=19) followed by 30.6 % (n=11) who were neutral

on this statement. 2.8% of the respondents disagree with the statement and 13.9%

of the respondents stated that they strongly agree with the statement.

32
Part B Q6: A bilingual is a person who is able to speak in more than one
language
Percentage (%) Frequency
(N=n)
Strongly - -
disagree
Disagree - -
Neutral 22.2 8
Agree 44.4 16
Strongly 33.3 12
agree
TOTAL 100 36
Table 4.3.1.6: Respondents’ Perceptions on Definition of Bilingualism

Table 4.3.1.6 shows the frequency and percentage of respondents on a

definition of bilingualism. It is stated that a bilingual is a person who is able to

speak in more than one language. Majority of the respondents agreed with the

statement with the percentage of 44% while the remaining respondents stated that

they strongly agree with the statement with 33.3% and only 22.2% of the

respondents are neutral on this matter.

33
Part B Q7: A bilingual is a person who have a native like control of two or
more languages
Percentage (%) Frequency
(N=n)
Strongly - -
disagree
Disagree 13.9 5
Neutral 38.9 14
Agree 38.9 14
Strongly 8.3 3
agree
TOTAL 100 36
Table 4.3.1.7 Respondents’ Perceptions on Definition of Bilingualism

Table 4.3.1.7 shows the percentage and frequency of respondents on a

statement regarding a definition on bilingualism which stated that a bilingual is a

person who have a native-like control of two or more languages. The same

percentage of respondents who answered neutral and agree with the statement with

the percentage of 38.9% of them stated they are neutral and agree with the

statement. 13.9% of the respondents stated that they disagreed with the statement

and 8.3% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement.

Based on Table 4.3.1.5, 4.3.1.6 and 4.3.1.7, we can see a pattern emerging

from the respondents’ answers on their perceptions on the definition of

bilingualism. It can be said that most of the respondents preferred to categorise

themselves as bilingual by holding on to the most basic definition of bilingualism

which is a bilingual is defined as a person who speaks more than one language

(Table 4.3.1.6) followed by a bilingual is a person who have the ability to speak in

more than one language but with a greater skill in one language (Table 5) and

34
followed by a bilingual is a person who have a native-like control of two or more

languages.

Part B Q8: Please rate your overall proficiency

Percentage Frequency
(%) (N=n)
Very poor - -
Poor - -
Average 27.8% 10
Good 63.9% 23
Extremely 8.3% 3
good
TOTAL 100 36
Table 4.3.1.8: Respondents’ Self Rate on Overall Proficiency

Table 4.3.1.8 shows the respondents were asked to rate their overall

proficiency skills in L2. Majority of the respondents stated that their proficiency

level of L2 is good with the percentage of 63.9% (n=23) followed by average with

the percentage of 27.8% while only a small percentage of respondents said they are

extremely good for their proficiency level of L2 with 8.3%. There is a higher

percentage under the category of “Good” by the respondents is mainly due to the

fact that all of the respondents are bilingual. Therefore, they cannot claim

themselves as extremely good because they know that they are not a native speaker

and they do not have the native-like control over the language even though some of

the respondents do.

35
Part B Q9: Please rate your listening skill in L2
Percentage Frequency
(%) (N=n)
Very poor - -
Poor - -
Average 27.8% 10
Good 63.9% 23
Extremely 8.3% 3
good
TOTAL 100 36
Table 4.3.1.9: Respondents’ Listening Skill Rating

Based on Table 4.3.1.9, most of the respondents rated their listening skills

as good with the percentage of 63% followed by average with 27.8% and extremely

good with 8.3%.

Part B Q10: Please rate your speaking skill in L2

Percentage Frequency
(%) (N=n)
Very poor - -
Poor 2.8 1
Average 30.6% 11
Good 50.0% 18
Extremely 16.7% 6
good
TOTAL 100 36
Table 4.3.1.10: Respondents’ Speaking Skill Rating

Based on Table 4.3.1.10, majority of the respondents rated their speaking

skills as good with the percentage of 50.0% followed by average with 30.6%. The

remaining respondents choose 16.7% as extremely good and only 2.8% of the

respondents said they have poor listening skills in their L2.

36
Part B Q11: Please rate your reading skill in L2
Percentage Frequency
(%) (N=n)
Very poor - -
Poor 2.8% 1
Average 36.1% 13
Good 58.3% 21
Extremely 2.8% 1
good
TOTAL 100 36
Table 4.3.1.11: Respondents’ Reading Skill Rating
Based on Table 4.3.1.11, majority of the respondents rated their reading

skills as good with 58.3% respondents while 36.1% of the respondents rated their

reading skills as average. The same percentage of respondents can be found rated

their reading skills as extremely good and poor with 2.8% respectively in both

categories.

Part B Q12: Please rate you writing skill in L2

Percentage Frequency
(%) (N=n)
Very poor - -
Poor - -
Average 19.4% 7
Good 58.3% 21
Extremely 22.2% 8
good
TOTAL 100 36
Table 4.3.1.12: Respondents’ Writing Skill Rating

Based on Table 4.3.1.12, majority of the respondents rated themselves as

good with the percentage of 58.3% of the respondents in their writing skills

followed by 22.2% as extremely good. Only a small fraction of the respondents

37
rated themselves as average with the percentage of 19.4% for their writing skills in

L2.

Based on Table 4.1.3.9. 4.1.3.10. 4.1.3.11 and 4.1.3.12, it can be concluded

that most of the respondents rated themselves positively in their listening, speaking,

reading and writing skills. However, the percentage of the agree and strongly agree

in passive skills are higher than their active skills.

38
4.4 Findings of Research Question 2

What are students’ rationale on their perceptions on bilingualism?

The second research objective for the present study is to determine students’

rationale on their perceptions on bilingualism. This second research question was

answered through a few sources of evidence. Thus, quantitative methods that was

supported by qualitative method was applied in its data collection. The data was

obtained from student questionnaire. The results obtained are presented.

STATEMENT 1: I am a bilingual
Percentage Frequency
(%) (N=n)
Strongly - -
disagree
Disagree 2.8% 1
Neutral 22.2% 8
Agree 63.9% 23
Strongly 11.1% 4
agree
TOTAL 100% 36
Table 4.4.1: Respondents Agreement/Disagreement with Statement 1

Table 4.4.1 shows the result obtained from the respondents. For this

statement, majority of the respondents stated that they agree with the statement with

the percentage of 63.9% followed by neutral with 22.2%. A fraction of the

respondents strongly agrees with the statement with the percentage of 11.1%

followed by the lowest percentage of respondents with 2.8% said that they do not

39
agree with the statement. The rationale of their agreement and disagreement can be

seen in Table 4.4.1.1 below.

Rationale Percentage
(%)/Frequency
(N=n)
Disagree  The 2.8% (N=1)
respondent is
not confident
to use L2
Neutral  L1 22.2% (N=8)
interference
Agree  Can speak 63.9% (N=23)
more than one
language
fluently
Strongly  Fluent in L2 11.1% (N=2)
agree and the
respondents
are currently
learning L2
Table 4.4.1.1: Rationale of Respondents’ Answers

Among the rationale of why students agreed with the statement is because

almost 63.9% of the respondents who agreed with the statement claimed that they

are a bilingual due their ability to speak more than one language fluently. For the

respondents who did not agree with the statement said that the reason for their

disagreement is due to their lack of confident in their L2 proficiency. The rationale

of respondents who chose ‘neutral’ as their answer is due to the interference of L1.

This is because the respondents have the tendency to code switch between their L1

and L2. Therefore, they feel that it is premature for them to call themselves as

bilingual due to the interference of L1. Lastly the rationale of the respondents who

40
 strongly agreed with the statement stated it is due to their fluency in L2 and their

current status as L2 learner.

Summarisation of Factors of Being a Bilingual

Factors of Percentage Frequency

Students’ of (N=n)
Perceptions Agreement
on (%)
Bilingualism
Proficiency 58% 21
Daily usage 52.8% 19
Years of 44.4% 16
experience
(Learning)
Ability to express 44.4% 16
in L2 effectively
Years of exposure 41.4% 15
Master all 4 skills 41.4% 15
(Listening,
speaking, reading
and writing)
Native-like control 22.2% 8
Table 4.4.9: Summarisation of Factors of Students’ Perceptions on Bilingualism

Based on Table 4.4.9, we can see an emerging pattern of the factors on students’

perceptions on bilingualism. The first factor the students think plays a major role

in their perceptions in being a bilingual is by being proficient in their L2 with 58%

This is followed by daily usage of L2 with 52.8% and years of experience of

learning L2 with 44.4%. Based on the findings, we can see that students’ ability to

express themselves in L2 effectively does not give a big impact on students’

perceptions on being a bilingual which garner 44.4% of the respondents agreed with

the statement followed by years of exposure with 41.4%. Factors that has the lowest

impact on students’ perceptions on being a bilingual are the mastery of all 4 skills

41
(listening, speaking, reading and writing) with only 41.4% of the respondents

agreed with it followed by the ability to use L2 with a native-like control with

22.2%.

STATEMENT 2: Being proficient in my second language makes me a

bilingual.
Percentage Rationale
(%)/Frequency
(N=n)
Strongly - -
disagree
Disagree 2.8% (N=1)  The ability to
understand L2 is more
important than
acquiring fluency in
L2
Neutral 36.1% (N=13)  Proficiency does not
matter
Agree 58.3% (N=21)  Proficiency is
a must in order
to be bilingual
 It acts as a proof of
mastery of L2
Strongly 2.8% (N=1)  Able to speak fluently
agree is a must in order to
claim yourself as
bilingual
TOTAL 100% (N=36)
Table 4.4.2: Respondents’ Agreement/Disagreement with Statement 2 and
Rationale
Based on Table 4.4.2, majority of the respondents agreed with the statement

of being proficient in their second language makes them a bilingual. The rationale

behind their answer is because the respondents think that being proficient is a must

in order to be bilingual and it will act as a proof of their bilingual. 36.1% of the
42
respondents are neutral with the statement. The rationale of this answer is because

the respondents does not think being proficient is the key to be a bilingual. 2.8% of

the respondents stated that they strongly agree with the statement because by being

able to speak fluently (proficient) is a must in order to claim themselves as

bilingual. Lastly only 2.8% of the respondents do not agree with the statement

because the ability to understand L2 is more important than acquiring proficiency

of L2.

STATEMENT 3: Being proficient in all 4 skills (listening, speaking, reading

and writing) of me second language makes me a bilingual.

Percentage Rationale
(%)/Frequency
(N=n)
Strongly - -
disagree

Disagree 2.8% (N=1)  Able to master one skill is

enough to be bilingual

Neutral 41.7% (N=15)  These skills will help in

acquiring L2

Agree 41.7% (N=15)  It is a basic skill needed to

master any language and
be bilingual

Strongly 13.9% (N=5)  The ability to master all 4

agree skills is a must since it will
be the indicator of the
mastery of L2

TOTAL 100% (N=36)

Table 4.4.3: Respondents’ Agreement/Disagreement with Statement 3 and
Rationale

43
 Based on Table 4.4.3, majority of the respondents agree with the statement

with 41.7% of the respondents stated the reason for them agreeing with the

statement is because it is some basic skills needed to master any language and be

bilingual. The same percentage can be found among the respondents who are

neutral with the statement. 41.7% of the respondents stated that they are neutral

with the statement because to the respondents, these skills will help them in

acquiring L2 but it is not an indicator that they are bilingual. 13.9% of the

respondents stated that they strongly agree with the statement because the ability to

master all 4 skills in L2 is a must as this will be the indicator of the mastery of L2.

The remaining 2.8% of the respondents disagree with the statement because in their

opinion, by mastering only one or two skills in L2 is sufficient to claim themselves

as bilingual.

44
STATEMENT 4: Daily usage of my second language will make me a
bilingual.

Percentage Rationale
(%)/Frequency
(N=n)
Strongly - -
disagree
Disagree 2.8% (N=)1  It does not matter
Neutral 36.1% (N=13)  Improve
proficiency
Agree 52.8% (N=19)  Enhance mastery
of L2
Strongly 8.3% (N=3)  Indicator of being
agree a bilingual
 Enhance mastery of L2
and it will help in
acquiring L2
TOTAL 100% (N=36)
Table 4.4.4: Respondents’ Agreement/Disagreement with Statement 4 and
Rationale

Based on Table 4.4.4, majority of the respondents stated they agreed with

the statement of daily usage of their second language will make them a bilingual.

52.8% of the respondents agreed because it will enhance their mastery of L2. 36.1%

of the respondents stated they are neutral regarding the statement. This is because

they feel that daily usage of L2 will only help them improve proficiency but it does

not help them with being a bilingual. 8.3% of the respondents stated they strongly

agree with the statement because daily usage act as an indicator of being a bilingual,

45
enhance their mastery of L2 and acquiring L2. The remaining 2.8% of the

respondents do not agree with the statement because daily usage does not make you

a bilingual.

STATEMENT 5: I have enough exposure in my second language to call

myself as bilingual.
Percentage Rationale
(%)/Frequency
(N=n)
Strongly -
disagree
Disagree 8.3% (N=3)  Still learning L2
Neutral 47.2% (N=17)  Still learning L2
 Do not have enough
exposure
Agree 41.7% (N=15)  Ample exposure in
learning environment
Strongly 2.8% (N=1)  Exposure is important
agree
TOTAL 100% (N=36)
Table 4.4.5: Respondents’ Agreement/Disagreement with Statement 5 and
Rationale

Based on Table 4.4.5, majority of the respondents are neutral with the

statement with the percentage of 47.2% is because they feel like they do not have

enough exposure and they are currently still learning their L2. 41.7% of the

respondents stated that they agree with the statement is due to ample exposure to

L2 in their learning environment even though they are still learning their L2.

However, 8.3% of the respondents do not agree with the statement because they are

still a novice L2 learners and 2.1% of the respondents strongly agree with the

statement because they think that exposure is important when it comes to being a

bilingual.

46
STATEMENT 6: I have a native-like control of my second language.

Percentage Rationale
(%)/Frequency
(N=n)
Strongly 2.8% (N=1)  Do not speak like
disagree native
 Use Malaysian English
Disagree 8.3% (N=3)  L1 interference
 Lack of necessary skills to
achieve native-like
control
Neutral 66.7% (N=24)  Influenced by
their L1
 Not fluent in l2
Agree 22.2% (N=8)  Able to use L2 well
Strongly - -
agree
TOTAL 100% (N=36)
Table 4.4.6: Respondents’ Agreement/Disagreement with Statement 6 and
Rationale

Based on Table 4.4.6, 66.7% of the respondents stated they are neutral on

this statement. This is because their L2 is influenced by their L1 and thus making

them not being able to have a native-like control on their L2. Other than that, they

also stated that due to their inability to speak fluently in L2 hinders their native-like

control of L2. However, 22.2% of the respondents stated that they agree with the

statement; they do have a native-like control of their L2. The reason behind their

agreement is because the respondents are able to utilise their L2 well in their lives

thus making them feel that they have a native-like control over their L2. 8.3% of

the respondents do not agree with the statement because of their L1 interference

and lack of necessary skills in order to achieve native-like control. 2.8% of the

47
respondents strongly disagree with the statement because the respondents think that

they do not speak like the native (no accent) and they mainly use Malaysian English

instead of British English or American English.

STATEMENT 7: The number of years in learning my second language

makes me a bilingual.

Percentage Rationale
(%)/Frequency
(N=n)
Strongly -
disagree
Disagree 13.9% (N=5)  Number of years
does not influence
 Should focus more on
acquiring skills instead of
learning the details
(Grammar)
Neutral 38.9% (N=14)  It does not matter
Agree 44.4% (N=16)  More time to
acquire/learn the language
Strongly 2.8% (N=1)  Learn from young
agree age
 Have complete mastery
once entered university
TOTAL 100% (N=36)
Table 4.4.7: Respondents’ Agreement/Disagreement with Statement 7 and
Rationale

Based on Table 4.4.7, 44.4% of the respondents stated they agree with the

statement that states the number of years of learning L2 makes them a bilingual.

This is because since majority of the respondents started learning L2 at a young

age, they have more time to acquire, learn and practice their L2 over those who

48
have less years of learning L2. 38.9% of the respondents stated that they are neutral

on this statement because to the respondents, years of learning L2 does not have

significant impact on being a bilingual. 13.9% of the respondents do not agree with

the statement they think that bilinguals should focus on acquiring the basic skills

(listening, speaking, reading and writing) instead of learning the details of L2

(Grammar). Only 2.8% of the respondents strongly agree with the statement. This

is due to the fact that they have been exposed to their L2 earlier that their peers and

they have complete mastery of their L2 when they entered university.

STATEMENT 8: I am able to express myself in my native and second

language well to be considered as bilingual.

Percentage Rationale
(%)/Frequency
(N=n)
Strongly - -
disagree
Disagree 2.8% (N=1)  It does not matter
Neutral 41.7% (N=15)  Able to express myself in
my native language better
than my L2
Agree 44.4% (N=16)  Able to express myself in
both language equally
Strongly 11.1% (N=4)  Ability to express myself
agree in both language fluently
shows a complete mastery
of those languages thus
making me a bilingual
TOTAL 100% (N=36)
Table 4.4.8: Respondents’ Agreement/Disagreement with Statement 8 and
Rationale

49
Based on Table 4.4.8, majority of the respondents agree with the statement with the

percentage of 44.4%. The rationale behind their agreement is due to the fact that

they think they are able to express themselves in both language equally whereas

41.7% of the respondents are neutral regarding this statement because they think

they are better at expressing themselves in their native language in comparison to

their L2. 11.1% of the respondents stated they strongly agree with the statement

because these respondents are able to do so in both language fluently and it shows

a complete mastery of both their native language and L2 thus making them a

bilingual. However, only 2.8% of the respondents do not agree with the statement

because they think that the ability to express themselves in their native language

and L2 does not matter and it does not contribute to the factor of being a bilingual.

50
 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter, implications of the findings reported in the previous chapters are

discussed. Practical recommendations for dealing with the issues are also raised,

focusing on the students’ perceptions on bilingualism and the rationales of students’

perceptions on bilingualism, followed by recommendations for future research, and

limitations of the research.

5.2 Discussion of Research Results

Since the present study aimed to determine students’ perceptions on bilingualism

and the rationale of students’ perceptions on being a bilingual, it was a descriptive

survey that employed the inductive approach, using questionnaire’s close-ended

questions and open-ended questions to explore students’ perceptions and rationales.

Meanwhile, the present study survey questionnaire was designed to collect more

data and information by means of quantitative measures that had usefully

supplemented and extended the qualitative analysis (Gray, 2004).

5.2.1 Students’ Perceptions on Bilingualism

This study is to determine students’ perceptions on bilingualism. Certain

factors are linked to self-reports of being bilingual such as the years of exposure,

daily usage of L2, level of proficiency of L2, having a native-like control of L2 and

the ability to express themselves in L2. Based on the study conducted, it can be

51
concluded that the respondents have adopted the more recent, elastic definitions of

bilinguals instead of the traditional, more restrictive interpretations of the concept.

This can be seen in Part B of the questionnaire in which they are required to choose

which definition of bilingualism fits them the best. Based on the findings, majority

of the respondents perceived a bilingual as a person who speaks more than one

language (Table 6).

For participants in this study, having English (respondents’ L2) as a second

language seems to be a determining factor in self-categorisation as bilingual or not

bilingual. It may be that access to English through various media and common use

as a lingua franca provides English L2 users with sufficient exposure to see

themselves as bilingual while English L1 speakers have fewer (or make fewer)

opportunities to interact in their L2s, so they do not see themselves as bilingual

(Sia, 2006). It will be interesting to see what light future research sheds on this

factor.

One could have expected the bilinguals to have spent, on average, more

time in the L2 environment in the present or the past. However, these two factors

did not have much effect. Whether the participant is currently living in an L2

environment and how long it had been since the participant had previously lived in

the L2 were significant. Bilinguals are either currently in or had been in the L2

environment more recently than not bilinguals.

While all of the linguistic variables differ significantly, speaking and

listening skills show the most significant differences. The differences between

bilinguals and not bilinguals were relatively smaller for reading and writing, but

52
 still remain significant. Not surprisingly, the decision of whether or not one is

bilingual depends clearly on one’s self-perceived abilities in different language

skills. The difference between bilinguals and not bilinguals was stronger for the

oral than written skills. This could suggest that oral proficiency is more salient in

one’s mind when categorizing as bilingual or not. Oral communication is usually

more stressful than written communication; not being able to express oneself

fluently in conversation or having to ask an interlocutor to repeat a sentence is

probably more stressful or embarrassing than struggling to understand a word in

the newspaper or grabbing for the dictionary when writing a letter.

The impression of L2 attrition might therefore be stronger for oral than

written communication. This fits also with the recency effect discussed earlier. The

shorter the period since the L2 was last used orally in the L2 environment, the more

likely one will still identify as bilingual.

5.2.2 Students’ Rationale of Their Perceptions on Bilingualism

This study is to determine the rationale of students’ perceptions on

bilingualism. Based on the findings, certain factors are linked to students’ rationale

of their perceptions on bilingualism which are proficiency, daily usage of L2, years

of learning, able to express themselves in L2 effectively, years of exposure to L2,

complete mastery of the 4 skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing), and

having a native-like control of L2.

53
 This is in line with the previous research that was conducted by Sia and

Dewaele in 2006. According to Sia and Dewaele (2006), people categorise

themselves as bilinguals due to linguistic factors which are self-rated proficiency,

years of exposure (daily usage, years of learning), complete control of all 4 skills

and native-like control.

Proficiency was ranked as the first factor on determining a person is a

bilingual due to several reasons. Based on Table 4.2.2, most respondents stated that

by being proficient in their L2 is the benchmark of categorising themselves as

bilinguals just simply because it will act as a proof that they are able to converse in

their L2 fluently and at the same time, it marks their identity as a bilingual. Their

rationale can be related to their perception on the definition of bilingual in which

they prefer the simple definition by Grosjean (2013) in which it says a bilingual is

a person who can speak in more than one language.

Years of exposure to their L2 is ranked as the second factor that influences

students’ perceptions on bilingualism. This is mainly due to the fact that majority

of the respondents are still currently an active learner of their L2 since they are

students of Diploma in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL). In

addition, bilinguals tend to be studying their L2s (Sia, 2006). The fact of being not

only an L2 user but also an active L2 learner appears to have an impact on self-

categorisation as bilingual. The years of exposure and the on-going learning on L2

may convince the learners that their L2 is still developing. However, since they are

exposed to their L2 at such an early age of their lives, they may therefore feel that

would be mature to claim the status of bilingual.

54
 Having a complete mastery of L2 and having a native-like control of L2

does not seems to have a major influence over determining themselves as a

bilingual. This is because the respondents prefer a more flexible interpretation of

being a bilingual over the more traditional definition of bilingual which can be

reflected from the findings. Other than that, the respondents also stated that they do

not think by mastering their L2 and have a native-like control influences their

perceptions on being a bilingual because of their L1 interference and the usage of

Malaysian English in their daily life. Learners of second language tend to transfer

the forms, meaning, and culture of their L1 to their L2 their L1 culture when

attempting to speak the language. By learning L2 habits, L1 habits are also

transferred and then the errors occur (Bebbe, 2006). This in return gives birth to

Malaysian English which is defined as a variety of English resulting from various

non-linguistic and linguistic factors and it is one of the varieties of English that is

acknowledge within the notion of World Englishes (Mohd Nor, 2015). Hence, it

become a reason for the respondents did not consider having a native-like control

and complete mastery of L2 as a defining factor of them becoming a bilingual.

5.3 Conclusion on Research Findings

The purpose of this study was not to determine a clear-cut definition of

bilingual or a schema for determining a bilingual. The purpose was to determine

students’ perceptions on bilingualism and the rationale of their perceptions. It has

been proven that, on several points that their rationales are influenced by their

perceptions. Majority of the students perceived bilingual as a person who can speak

more than one language and the rationale of their perception are influenced by

55
 linguistic factors such as proficiency, daily usage of L2, years of exposure to L2,

native-like ability and complete mastery of necessary skills in acquiring language

(Sia, 2006). Each of the students’ rationale differ from each other due to

differences in the respondents’ background which in return will affect their

perception on being a bilingual. Until further study has been done to more deeply

understand those differences, it is paramount for further studies to be conducted in

order to provide a clearer picture on being a bilingual.

5.4 Limitations of the Study

This study does have its weaknesses namely being about a rather elusive or

perhaps often subjectively defined concept of bilingual. Perhaps with a more

defined concept of bilingual will provide a concrete result on this matter.

Secondly, since the questionnaire is designed to determine students’

perceptions on bilingualism and the rationale of their perceptions (linguistic and

sociobiological factor), it does not seem to provide enough evidence of their

perceptions and rationale as it was done in a small scale with only 36 participants

and the participants are limited to TESL students only. Other than that, the

researcher is unable to verify the respondents’ proficiency as the respondents rated

their own proficiency and it might differ with their real proficiency if it was rated

by someone else.

56
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research

Future research could not only ask participants if they are bilingual or not

but could also ask them why or why not, or for their understanding of the concept

or definition and use of the word. Additionally, specific research into different

perceptions of bilingual from different L1 perspectives could explain the difference

found in this study. Further, as the above paragraph discusses, personality variables

may be equally important and could be studied specifically in conjunction with a

study aimed at investigating how people label themselves in terms of their linguistic

identity.

Future research could not only ask participants if they are bilingual or not

but could also ask them why or why not, or for their understanding of the concept

or definition and use of the word. The limited number of participants prevents

further investigation of the L1 variable; however, future research into the different

perceptions of bilingualism would shed light onto this intriguing finding.

57
References
Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research. California: Wadsworth.
Beardsmore, H. B. (1982). Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Bebbe, M. (2006). Exploring similarities and differences between L1 and L2. Studies in
Second Language Studies, 2477-2483.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: Allen and Unwin.
Cook, V. (1999). Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching. TESOl
Quarterly, 185-209.
Cook, V. (2003). Introduction: The Changing L1 in the L2 User's Mind. In V. Cook,
Effects og Second Language on the First (pp. 1-18). Clavedon.
Creswell, J. C. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston: Pearson.
Crossman, A. (2017, May 17). ThoughtCo. Retrieved from ThoughtCo.com:
https://www.thoughtco.com/qualitative-research-methods-3026555
Crystal, D. (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Edwards, J. (2004). The Handbook of Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Grosjean, F. (1994). Individual Bilingualism. In F. Grosjean, The Encyclopedia of
Language (pp. 1656-1660). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying Bilingualism: Methodological and Conceptual Issues.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 131-149.
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of Language. New York: Basic Books.
Hakuta, K. (1992). Bilingualism. In W. Bright, International Encyclopedia of Linguistics
(pp. 175-178). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harcourt, H. M. (2010). Collins Dictionary. Retrieved from Collins Dictionary:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/rationale
Hoffman, C. (1991). An Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Longman.
J. M Dewaele, A. H. (2003). Bilingualism: Beyond Basic Principles. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
J. Sia, &. J. (2006). Are you bilingual? BISAL, 1-19.

58
Lew, J. (2014, June 28). MNN Lifestyle. Retrieved from MNN:
https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/stories/9-of-the-worlds-most-
multilingual-countries
Li, W. (2000). The Bilingualism Reader. London: Routledge.
Mackey. (1974). Language teaching analysis. New York: Longman.
Mackey, W. (1974). Language Teaching Analysis. New york: Longman.
Mackey, W. (2000). The Description of Bilingualism. In W. Li, The Bilingualism Reader
(pp. 26-54). London: Routledge.
Nor, Z. M. (2015). Lexical features of Malaysian English in a local English-Language
movie: Ah Lok Cafe. International Conference of Linguistics, Literature and
Culture, 282-299.
Pavlenko, A. (2003). I Never Knew I was a Bilingual: Reimagining Teacher Identities in
TESOL. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 251-268.
Saraceni, M. (2010). English in the World: Global roles, global rules. Continuum, 40-50.
Stewert L. Tubbs, S. M. (1990). Human Communication. New York: McGraw Hill.
Wagers, R. (2015). FluentU. Retrieved from FluentU:
https://www.fluentu.com/blog/advantages-of-learning-a-foreign-language/

59
APPENDIX

60