Language Experience: The Perception of Foreign Language Acquisition Among University Adults

The University of Southern Mississippi The University of Southern Mississippi

The Aquila Digital Community The Aquila Digital Community

Honors Theses Honors College

5-2023

Language Experience: The Perception of Foreign Language Language Experience: The Perception of Foreign Language

Acquisition Among University Adults Acquisition Among University Adults

Lileth A. Stricklin

Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses

Part of the Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, and the First and Second

Language Acquisition Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Stricklin, Lileth A., "Language Experience: The Perception of Foreign Language Acquisition Among

University Adults" (2023).

Honors Theses

. 894.

https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses/894

This Honors College Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College at The Aquila Digital

Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of The Aquila

Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].

Language Experience: The Perception of Foreign Language Acquisition Among

University Adults

Lileth A. Stricklin

A Thesis

Submitted to the Honors College of

The University of Southern Mississippi

in Partial Fulfillment

of Honors Requirements

May 2023

iii

Approved by:

Carmen Carracelas-Juncal, Ph.D., Thesis Advisor,

School of Social Science and Global Studies

Edward Sayre, Ph.D., Director,

School of Social Science and Global Studies

Sabine Heinhorst, Ph.D., Dean

Honors College

ABSTRACT

While bilingualism has always existed within the history of the U.S. and is the

global norm, mainstream approaches to learning have traditionally been monolingually

centered and fail to employ approaches that produce sustainable motivation towards

foreign language acquisition in students. This study sought to investigate the perceptions

adult individuals display towards acquiring foreign language skills, emphasizing

distinctions exhibited between monolinguals and their multilingual counterparts. A

mixed-method approach in the analysis of 506 survey responses yielded results that

suggest that university adults generally display positive perceptions towards foreign

language learning. Distinctions in perception between monolinguals and multilinguals

were very few with main ones centering on differences in the intensity of sentiments felt

for positive, neutral, and negative statements on foreign language; differences in lived

experiences from which anecdotal evidence is drawn; and expressions of regret and/or

unrealized desire. Findings also support the existing theory found in Masgoret & Gardner

(2003), that suggests that level of motivation remains the determinant factor of whether

one is likely to be persistent in the learning process to achieve success. This study intends

to contribute to the discussion of how to create better educational curricula and social

initiatives that encourage openness to acquiring and utilizing languages other than

English within the U.S.

Keywords: Foreign language acquisition, monolingual, multilingual, perception,

qualitative, mixed method

DEDICATION

This thesis is in dedication to those in my life who have invested in me and my education

and fostered my curiosity for Spanish.

It is due to your nourishing efforts that I have become the well-formed

scholar and person that I am today.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the Honors College at The University of Southern

Mississippi for providing me with a holistic educational experience and supporting me in

all my undergraduate endeavors. For every challenge and dream that I had, I knew that I

could always turn to them for help. I also want to give special thanks to Dr. Sabine

Heinhorst for being a great and understanding professor of HON 300 & 301 when she

taught it, and for being a great Interim Dean of the Honors College.

Dr. Michelle McLeese must be recognized for her willingness to help me navigate

qualitative analysis software when I didn’t quite know what I was doing, and for lending

me her book to use while I powered through the laborious process. Her weekly Pilates

class at the Payne Center was a perfect outlet for releasing my frustrations when they

arose.

My greatest thanks goes to Dr. Carmen Carracelas-Juncal, who served as my

Spanish advisor, thesis advisor, and professor over the last three years. It has been under

her direction that I have been further exposed to the world of Spanish beyond what I

could have ever imagined. Not only has she been a knowledgeable and passionate

professor I could always turn to, but she was the one who pushed me to take advantage of

opportunities outside the classroom such as studying abroad in Spain, interning in

Washington, D.C., and applying to take a gap year abroad post-graduation. Even though

the thesis process was arduous at times, Dr. C’s guidance and reassurance provided me

with the confidence needed to complete my first grand project. To her, I express deep

gratitude.

 
vii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................................................ xii 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... xiii 
 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................................... 3 
Research on Orientation/Attitude and Motivation .......................................................... 5 
Globalization and Shifting Trends—Their Significance and Implications................... 11 
 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 15 
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 16 
Participants .................................................................................................................... 16 
Research Design............................................................................................................ 17 
Qualitative Design and Analysis ............................................................................... 17 
Theoretical Issues...................................................................................................... 19 
Data Collection Procedures........................................................................................... 22 
Instrument ................................................................................................................. 23 
Demographic Collection ....................................................................................... 23 
Language Probe .................................................................................................... 23 
Likert Scales.......................................................................................................... 24 
Extended Response ............................................................................................... 25 

 
viii 
Data and Analysis ......................................................................................................... 26 
Limitations of the study ................................................................................................ 29 
 RESULTS ................................................................................................ 32 
Quantitative Analysis .................................................................................................... 32 
Demographic Information ......................................................................................... 32 
Likert Scales.............................................................................................................. 36 
Positive Likert Statements .................................................................................... 37 
Neutral Likert Statements ..................................................................................... 38 
Negative Likert Statements ................................................................................... 40 
Qualitative Analysis ...................................................................................................... 43 
Prompt 1: People who know more than one language are better than those who only 
know one. .................................................................................................................. 45 
Theme 1: Attributes .............................................................................................. 46 
Theme 2: Motivation............................................................................................. 46 
Theme 3: Instrumentality ...................................................................................... 47 
Prompt 2: Anyone could learn a foreign language if they wanted to. ...................... 49 
Theme 1: External Conditions .............................................................................. 50 
Theme 2: Internal Conditions ............................................................................... 52 
Comparison ........................................................................................................... 53 
Prompt 3: Studying/knowing a foreign language will make me more useful........... 54 

 
ix 
Theme 1: Instrumental Benefits (Context). .......................................................... 54 
Theme 2: Instrumental Benefits (Manner) ............................................................ 54 
Comparison ........................................................................................................... 56 
Prompt 4: Every person should know more than one language................................ 56 
Theme 1: Benefits (Recognition) .......................................................................... 56 
Theme 2: Situated Context (Evaluation)............................................................... 57 
Theme 3: Ultimate Decision (Conclusion) ........................................................... 58 
Comparison ........................................................................................................... 59 
Prompt 5: (Optional): Based on the type of prompts you have encountered today, are 
there any other thoughts and/or opinions you would like to express regarding foreign 
language? .................................................................................................................. 60 
Comparison ........................................................................................................... 60 
 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .................................................................. 64 
 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 72 
 SURVEY ................................................................................................. 76 
 LIKERT SCALE RESULT VISUALIZATIONS ................................... 80 
 CODE LISTS .......................................................................................... 86 
Code List 1: S1MoreLanguageBetterThan ................................................................... 86 
Code List 2: S2AnyoneLearnLanguage ........................................................................ 86 
Code List 3: S3LanguageMakesMeUseful ................................................................... 87 

Code List 4: S4EveryoneShouldKnowLanguage ......................................................... 87

Code List 5: Q5FreeReponseOptional .......................................................................... 88

IRB Approval letter ................................................................................. 89

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 90

 
xi 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table 1.1. Demographic Information of Respondents ...................................................... 32 
Table 1.2. Language Background of Respondents ........................................................... 34 
Table 1.3. Language Background of Respondents’ Parents ............................................. 36 
Table 2.1. Positive Likert Statements ............................................................................... 38 
Table 2.2. Neutral Likert Statements ................................................................................ 40 
Table 2.3. Negative Likert Statement ............................................................................... 42 
Table 3.1. Prompt to Code List ......................................................................................... 44 
 
 

 
xii 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
Figure 1. Thematic Model................................................................................................. 64 
Figure 2.1. Positive Likert Items—Monolingual .............................................................. 80 
Figure 2.2. Positive Likert Items—Multilinguals ............................................................. 81 
Figure 2.3. Neutral Likert Items—Monolingual ............................................................... 82 
Figure 2.4. Neutral Likert Items—Multilinguals .............................................................. 83 
Figure 2.5. Negative Likert Items—Monolinguals ........................................................... 84 
Figure 2.6. Negative Likert Items—Multilinguals ........................................................... 85 
 
 
 

xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ELL English Language Learners

ESL English as a Second Language

ICC Intercultural Communication

L2 Second Language

INTRODUCTION

This project investigates the perceptions adult university students display towards

acquiring foreign language skills with an emphasis on distinctions exhibited between

monolinguals and their bilingual/multilingual counterparts. For a long time now, it has

been in the interest of institutions to promote language learning in some form, whether it

be teaching students, helping non-native speakers assimilate to their country of residence,

conducting diplomatic transactions, community organizing, etc. While bilingualism has

always existed within the history of the United States and is the global norm, mainstream

approaches to learning have traditionally been monolingually centered, emphasizing and

considering factors of monolingual learners rather than those who already exhibit

characteristics of multilingual ability. It is very probable that multilingual individuals

present different perceptions on the importance of language learning from their

monolingual counterparts, or if not, reasoning behind their purported perceptions do.

There has not been adequate qualitative investigation of factors that influence how we

regard something as important as language learning, and while more work is required to

collect and study material that is inherently subjective, there is much value in information

that may be more psychological and personal in nature.

It is the intention of this investigation to better understand existing incentives,

deterrents, and general perceptions regarding learning a foreign language as reported by

participants. Findings may help contribute to the creation of better educational curricula

or promotional campaigns that encourage openness to acquiring and utilizing another

language other than English. It is likely that inquiries from this study into people’s

reported postures may reveal a plethora of other considerable factors contributing

towards the general adult perception of language. To address concerns that this

investigation is too duplicative in nature to other previously conducted self-report survey

studies, it is important to consider that demographics in the United States are

continuously in flux, and measurement of public opinion and perception must be updated

to effectively create models that align and address these realities. Therefore, this research

aims to help provide more updated analyses of attitudes towards language acquisition

among adults that emphasize qualitative aspects adding to existing literature within the

field.

While multilingual is typically used to refer to those who speak more than two

languages, the researcher for this study has chosen to incorporate those who speak two

languages (bilinguals) or more under the label multilingual and will be used as such

throughout this study. The next chapter will provide a review of literature that highlights

key ideas found in previous studies pertaining to language learning and the impact

globalization has had on the demand, or lack thereof, for linguistic diversity. Following

the review of literature, the next chapters will discuss the methodology, results,

discussion of results, and conclusion of the study.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Independent from its setting, language acquisition often seems to be a matter of

motivation and is determined by perceived necessity and/or desire to learn such language

by each individual. Qualitative inquiry is best suited to reveal descriptive insight into the

motives that either drive or dissuade one from partaking in this endeavor. This chapter

will examine key findings from previous research on attitudes and motivation pertaining

to language learning. Additionally, trends of globalization and its impact on foreign

language demands will also be discussed.

Previous studies on second language have largely focused on established

correlational trends among school-age test populations and are often conducted within

pedagogical contexts (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005; Merisuo-

Storm, 2007; Acheson, Nelson, & Luna, 2015; Russel & Kuriscak, 2015; Byers-Heinlein,

Behrend, Said, Giris, & Poulin-Doubois, 2017). Distinct groups are often emphasized in

research to produce further insight into characteristics displayed by such groups and to

provide material for comparison: native versus heritage speakers, monolinguals versus

bilinguals, anglophones versus others, control group versus experimental, etc. (Acheson

et al., 2015; Byers-Heinlein et al., 2017; Merisuo-Storm, 2007; Russel & Kuriscak,

2015). Among such studies, a quantitative research approach is the typical method

employed with variables being operationalized in such a manner that allows for statistical

analysis and interpretation by researchers. Quantitative inquiry has come to have an

important place within the social sciences and is difficult for many to completely

abandon with ease; however, overreliance on its methods and interpretive approach can

pose problems for inquiry into issues centered around elements of perception, values,

beliefs, and attitudes that largely require a qualitative approach.

While quantitative evidence may serve to enhance credibility of declared

hypotheses and interpretation of outcomes, lack of qualitative procedures leaves a gap in

material used for evaluative interpretation by researchers. As Saldaña (2003) notes,

classic quantitative instruments used to measure “values, attitudes, and beliefs about

selected subjects” tend to use scales that “assume direction and intensity […]

necessitating a fixed linear continuum of response (e.g., less to more, strongly agree to

strongly disagree) rather than a three-dimensional ocean allowing for diverse responses

and varying levels of depth” (pp. 91–92 as cited in 2016, p. 135). Saldaña (2016)

summarizes the role of qualitative inquiry as “provid[ing] richer opportunities for

gathering and assessing, in language-based meanings, what the participant values,

believes, thinks, and feels about social life” (p. 135). Acheson et al. (2015) note that

further qualitative measures would need to be implemented in future research “to provide

language educators with a deeper understanding of such things as learners’ motivation to

study another language, their personal values and orientations, or the extent of their

interactions with speakers of other languages” (p. 212). Researchers’ inferences are

inadequate in providing insight into the causes and rationale behind participants’

behaviors without some form of qualitative data. Such inference of interpretation between

data and conclusions provide opportunities for the creation of studies in which

participants may offer elaboration of their own explicit beliefs, opinions, and attitudes

that helps supplement existing quantitative research as will be discussed next.

Research on Orientation/Attitude and Motivation

Studies on language learning traditionally center on measuring some aspect of

motivation, attitude, or orientation using foundations derived from R. C. Gardner’s

socioeducational model comprised of five interrelated variables: integrativeness, attitudes

toward the learning situation, motivation, integrative orientation, and instrumental

orientation (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). As research in the field has progressed, the

conceptualization and names of these variables have evolved to include several

interpretations of how such criteria may be observed among diverse test populations in

differing contexts. Nevertheless, Gardner’s framework on motivation/attitude has

remained the foundational basis for research on language learning and motivation

(Ushioda, 2017, pp. 474–475; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). Among all variables of

Gardner’s socioeducational model, motivation and its factors of integrativeness,

instrumentality, and their respective orientations have been proposed to be the most

influential in determining success in second language learning, as will be discussed

below (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003).

Instrumentality is a characterization of motivation concerned with “the pragmatic

incentives” that exist around language learning and acquisition (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005,

p. 21). According to Cook (2001), “instrumental motivation means learning the language

for an ulterior motive unrelated to its use by native speakers—to pass an examination, to

get a certain kind of job, and so on” (p. 115). Traditionally, instrumentality has been

defined by its utilitarian aspect that is typically generated by extrinsic motives.

Integrativeness, on the other hand, has traditionally been defined as “an openness to

identify, at least in part, with another language community” (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003,

p. 172) that generally reflects a positive association with the target language and a desire

to engage in its culture (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005, p. 20; Cook, 2001, p. 114). Both

instrumentality and integrativeness can easily and mistakenly be regarded as distinct and

mutually exclusive concepts; however, as will be discussed later in this section, the two

overlap considerably when forming motivation.

Two main issues that have arisen from traditional notions of

instrumental/integrative classification among researchers are the conflation between

motivation and orientation, and the inability to clearly distinguish when participant data

is either instrumental or integrative due to limited theoretical scope. According to

Masgoret and Gardner (2003), motivation is a “goal-directed behavior (cf. Heckhausen,

1991)” (p. 173) that presents several features within an individual:

The motivated individual expends effort, is persistent and attentive to the task at

hand, has goals, desires, and aspirations, enjoys the activity, experiences

reinforcement from success and disappointment from failure, makes attributions

concerning success and/or failure, is aroused, and makes use of strategies to aid in

achieving goals. That is, the motivated individual exhibits many behaviors,

feelings, cognitions, etc., that the individual who is unmotivated does not. (p.173)

Orientation, on the other hand, has a closer likeness to attitude which is more likely to

reflect one’s mental disposition or posture towards a particular concept. As Gardner

makes clear throughout his research, orientation and motivation do tend to display a

positive correlation with one another; however, motivation is not necessarily always a

reflection of orientation and therefore cannot be considered equal (Masgoret & Gardner,

2003, pp. 175–177). Masgoret and Gardner (2003) provide the following example to

illustrate this distinction:

Noels and Clément (1989), for example, demonstrated that some orientations are

associated with motivation and some are not. That is, one might profess an

integrative orientation in language study but still may or may not be motivated to

learn the language. Similarly, one might profess an instrumental orientation, and

either be motivated or not to learn the language. (p. 175)

Success in language learning seems to be primarily determined by motivation more than

any other factor in the socio-educational model. Therefore, it does not necessarily matter

whether one displays either an integrative or instrumental orientation/attitude, so much as

whether they possess a strong enough motivation capable of driving an individual to

achieve their goal regardless of how the motivation is characterized (Masgoret &

Gardner, 2003, p. 175). With that being said, the socio-educational model does propose

that motivation itself can be influenced by other variables such as integrativeness,

instrumentality, and orientation, and therefore can have an indirect effect on outcomes

generated from motivation (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003, p. 205). Of all tested variables,

integrative motivation has displayed the highest correlation with outcomes of success and

is generally thought to be the most important factor in contributing to achievement in

second language acquisition (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003, p. 201). Gardner’s model is

foundational in the study of language learning as it pertains to attitude and motivation;

however, certain difficulties arise when considering how to apply such theoretical

concepts in a practical fashion.

Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) remark on how the popularized concept of

integrativeness has led to its incorporation into “several theoretical constructs of L2

motivation” despite its exact nature remaining obscure (pp. 20–21). Simply put, nuance

and complexities found within people’s reasonings behind language learning make it

difficult to easily identify and classify what qualifies as being integrative or not; this

same issue can be extended to instrumentality. To illustrate this difficulty, Dörnyei (1994,

2002) points out how things traditionally considered as utilitarian benefits (e.g., obtaining

employment; entrance admissions, etc.) might not be as relevant to certain participant

groups as other things not normally considered under this label such as traveling, making

friendships, understanding foreign media for pleasure, etc. Moreover, the characterization

of instrumentality and integrativeness as “antagonistic counterparts” has never been

endorsed by Gardner, but rather have always been acknowledged as being

complementary, with Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) going as far as to propose that

instrumentality can in fact feed into integrativeness as a “primary contributor” (p. 27).

Such extensive amounts of overlap between instrumentality, integrativeness and the

ambiguity contained within each warrants an expansion of what is understood to classify

under the instrumental category while also reconceptualizing the idea of integrativeness

itself.

To reconceptualize existing ideas within literature, it is often helpful to look to

other fields of study for inspiration. Building off the “possible selves” framework of

Markus and Nurius (1986), Csizér and Dörnyei propose Higgin’s (1987, 1996) concepts

of the “ideal self” and “ought self” as a better alternative to integrativeness (Csizér &

Dörnyei, 2005, p. 29). The ideal self is a representation of “attributes a person would like

to possess” and contains a “promotion focus, concerned with hopes, aspirations,

advancement, growth, and accomplishments”, while the “ought self” represents

“attributes people believe they ought to possess” and has a “prevention focus, regulating

the absence or presence of negative outcomes, concerned with safety, responsibilities,

and obligations” (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005, p. 29). Moreover, they propose that

instrumentality can be divided into two distinct classes “depending on the extent of

internalization of the extrinsic motive” that make up the concept (2005, p. 29). Less

internalization will produce increased association with the ought self, while increased

internalization produces increased association with the ideal self/Ideal L2 Self (Markus &

Nurius, 1986 as cited in Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005, pp. 22; 29–30). Csizér and Dörnyei

(2005) ultimately propose that the “Ideal L2 Self” replace the traditional label of

integrativeness as it is more expansive in the interpretation of the concept and better

accommodates aspects of motivation and attitude together (p. 30). Regardless of how one

chooses to characterize the concepts, integrativeness and instrumentality are the two most

common descriptions of orientation and motivation used in the study of language learning

and will likely continue to be so. In addition to the characterization of motives and

motivation, exposure also plays a notable role in influencing attitudes formed in language

learners as will be discussed below.

Levels and types of exposure to foreign languages and their respective cultural

groups have great potential to shape attitudes towards learning. Because

attitude/orientation is positively correlated with motivation, negative attitudes are likely

to reduce learner motivation whereas the opposite is true for positive attitudes (Merisuo-

Storm, 2007, p. 228). Some researchers of bilingual education suggest that foreign

language as a medium of communication through which one receives new information

increases the likelihood of a learner developing more positive attitudes towards the

language overall (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 207; Curtain & Martinez, 1990 as cited

in Merisuo-Storm, 2006, p. 227). Not only is it imperative that students be exposed to

foreign language in some substantial form, but it must be ensured that such exposure

must itself be positive and highlight the importance of cross-cultural exchange and

communication (Kubota, 2016). Acheson et al. (2015) suggest intercultural

communication (ICC) instruction as an instructional approach used to foster positive

attitudes toward languages and cultures by serving as a supplement to standard language

curriculum that addresses “the practices, products, and perspectives of culture that

emphasize[s] the development of intercultural competence” (pp. 204–206). Similar

sentiments are expressed by Kubota (2016) who proposes that “dispositional

competence” must be addressed by language professionals to cultivate individuals who

display increased willingness to communicate, accommodate, learn, and respect other

languages, cultures, and people (p. 477). In sum, to create positive attitudes towards

foreign languages and L2 cultures, increased positive exposure that facilitates cultural

exchange and mutual respect is necessary to cultivate competent communicators.

To summarize, attitude and motivation are integrally tied together as each one

influences the other and are shaped by similar factors. Instrumentality is largely

concerned with utilitarian incentives for language learning, while integrative incentives

can be characterized by a view of promotion that involves unifying an aspect of oneself

with that of a target language and/or its culture. Neither is mutually exclusive and both

factors can shape the nature of one’s motivational posture. Additionally, levels and types

of exposure have been shown to correlate with the type of attitude one holds towards a

target language and its speakers. Current trends of socio-cultural and economic

globalization have caused researchers to consider how increasingly extrinsic forces will

influence motivation of language learners, particularly monolinguals. In terms of the

demand for certain languages and its necessity for certain demographics, researchers

offer a variety of predictions for what they believe will be the future of language learning

further discussed in the next section.

Globalization and Shifting Trends—Their Significance and Implications

Interaction with foreign language and its related byproducts has increased in

recent times due to globalization and widespread commercialization. The process of

globalization has increased in its “intensity, scope, and scale” with its sheer magnitude

and depth threatening the traditional notion of “one nation—one language” ideology

along with its “nationing” mechanism (Fishman 1972, as cited in Lo Bianco, 2014, p.

313). Expanded forms and characteristics of human movement in recent decades have

resulted in plurilingual societies, particularly for countries that serve as immigration

destinations such as the U.S. (Budiman, 2020, para. 1 & 11). As Kubota (2016) points

out, competency in English is extremely useful “for socio-economic mobility” in today’s

globalized society where proficiency in another language helps “to develop a competitive

edge” over others in seeking global career opportunities (pp. 467–468). English has been

predicted to “become commonplace in the world’s labor markets” as proficiency in the

language continues to grow globally (Ushioda, 2017, p. 470). Monolinguals and even

bilinguals are expected to lose out to their multilingual counterparts over time, thereby

losing their competitive advantage in the global marketplace (Ushioda, 2017, p. 470). As

eloquently stated by Graddol (2007) in his English Next review for the British Council,

The competitive advantage which English has historically provided its acquirers

(personally, organizationally, and nationally) will ebb away as English becomes a

near-universal basic skill. The need to maintain the advantage by moving beyond

English will be felt more acutely. (Lo Bianco, 2014, p. 322)

One would think that if multilinguals are to develop a greater competitive advantage in

the global market, there would be more incentive for individuals (particularly

monolingual anglophones) to further develop language skills under an instrumental

motivation/utility basis; however, current research has shown mixed results regarding this

assumption. Some research suggests that the spread of global English negatively affects

motivation to learn other languages for anglophones despite increasingly pluralist and

diverse societies continuing to grow (Dörnyei, Csizér, & Németh, 2006; Taylor &

Marsden, 2014 as cited in Ushioda, 2017, p. 470). With conflicting predictions and

research on global trends and language demands present, one must more closely analyze

other factors outside the linguistic scope to perhaps acquire a better understanding of

existing incentives and deterrents.

Why is it then that in an increasingly globalized society, the proliferation and

dominance of English persists? Lo Bianco (2014) proposes economic globalization as a

principal factor determining the selection of languages taught in education systems and

beyond (pp. 316–317). To reflect this trend, there has traditionally been a high demand

for English in non-English-speaking countries, and a low demand for foreign language in

English-speaking ones (Lo Bianco, 2014, p. 317). This emphasis on developing English

as a skill demonstrates the common practice of human capital investment and is a

development process that stems from utilitarian motivation (Kubota, 2016, p. 469 as cited

in Ushioda, 2017, p. 472). Lo Bianco (2014) argues that such hyper-demand for English

often removes utilitarian reasoning for foreign languages in countries that speak English

(p. 317). However, he also notes an exception to this low-utilitarian demand for foreign

language in the U.S. caused by “continually replenished Spanish-speaking migration”

that produces a need for Spanish proficiency (p. 317). As more multilinguals learn and

utilize the established dominant language of a cultural setting, it is very reasonable to

suggest that monolinguals will eventually lose out to their counterparts who hold greater

competitive advantage.

Ushioda (2017) argues that an instrumentalist approach driving language learning

policies is detrimental to deeper, long-term promotion of languages since it essentially

pits economic interests against more holistic approaches to learning, stating that:

current ideologies and discourses shaping language education policy and

curriculum […] is often explicitly linked to factors such as economic and utility

value, employability, social prestige, necessity, or global and national security.

While such factors may help explain growth in uptake of certain languages

accorded important global or critical status […] this instrumentalist view would

seem to communicate a rather narrow rationale for learning languages that may

not resonate with the motivations and priorities of everyone. (pp. 471, 479)

Ushioda (2017) suggests the promotion of an approach embodying “ideal multilingual

selves” serves as a better alternative to help individuals who may be uninterested and

disengaged from linguistic plurality and overall language learning (pp. 478–479). This

suggestion would seem to be in line with Csizér and Dörnyei’s (2005) suggestion of the

“Ideal L2 Self” being the most important factor shaping motivated behavior in language

learning rather than the standard instrumentalist approach (pp. 22 & 29). The decision of

how to frame and teach languages in educational curricula is primarily dependent on

whether an institution or person views the task as an instrumentalist or integrative

endeavor.

To conclude, personal postures or perceptions people hold towards a particular

phenomenon are greatly influenced by factors of motivation and attitude. While there is

much interplay between variables that determine motivation and attitude as discussed in

the prior section, it is known that characterization of such variables as being either

integrative, instrumental, or both are key in predicting long-term motivation and learning

outcomes. Moreover, increased globalization and its effects on the socio-cultural and

economic dynamics of countries has given researchers reason to believe there will arise a

shift in the demand for foreign language learning, hitting monolingual speakers the

hardest. An integrative approach is suggested to be most effective for language

instruction and could be used to better serve students and those traditionally disengaged

from languages as a whole. The context of this study takes place among a population that

is primarily monolingual in English, therefore it would be expected to observe a number

of the trends listed in the review of literature among the results. The next chapter will

discuss the methodology of this study and describe its research questions, participant

population, research design, data collection and analysis procedures, and limitations.

METHODOLOGY

As discussed in the previous chapter, motivation and attitude are important factors

influencing success in language acquisition. Competitive advantages stemming from

multilingual ability are predicted to rise as global markets continue growing. This trend

suggests that monolinguals would increasingly view foreign language ability as either a

necessary or desirable trait to possess. A qualitative approach to research has great

potential to descriptively detail reasonings behind why both monolinguals and

multilinguals either seek to engage in language learning or not. The focus of this

investigation will be centered on insights offered by participants on the study of foreign

language with the expectation that findings will reflect ideas discussed in Chapter II.

In their study, Russell and Kuriscak (2015) found it reasonable to expect

multilingual adults to attribute more value and display more positive attitudes towards

foreign language learning than their monolingual peers. This hypothesis can be inferred

on the assumption that multilingual individuals have experienced more exposure and

positive utilization of foreign language(s) than their monolingual counterparts. However,

it is also possible that monolingual adults who have had sufficient positive interaction

with other languages and their respective cultural groups display similar positivity despite

not speaking the language. Equally, there exists the possibility that neither

monolingualism nor multilingualism has any significant influence on one’s personal

stance towards language, but rather a set of other unforeseen factors that may not be

measurable in this study and therefore would remain a topic for further research.

Research Questions

Due to this study being exploratory in nature, a qualitative approach was deemed

to be best for investigating the opinions that adult individuals hold towards foreign

language acquisition. Due to the context of this study being situated in higher education,

the overarching question of this study centers on the perceptions of university adults on

foreign language, while the second question narrows the scope to two specific groups to

provide for comparison. The research questions are as follows:

• What perceptions do adult university students display towards foreign language

acquisition?

• Are there any distinctions exhibited in the perceptions between monolinguals and

multilinguals?

Participants

To generate a large enough sample size to provide enough data for adequate

comparison, the participants of this study only need be self-selected adult individuals

willing to complete an online survey. To fulfill the “adult” context of this study, all

participating individuals must be 18 years or older—the only requirement for

participation. It was the hope of the researcher that naturally, a substantial number of

people would answer the survey who would either by default be monolingual or happen

to be multilingual, thereby offering enough data for comparison between the two. To

distribute the survey most efficiently, a mailing list of all enrolled undergraduate and

graduate students at The University of Southern Mississippi was used.

Research Design

A mixed-methods approach was selected as the most appropriate design for this

study’s investigation. Although the purpose of this study heavily centers on the

qualitative aspects of collected results, quantitative metrics are useful in being able to

help identify potential trends observed within the qualitative analysis of the data set. A

series of questions and Likert scales were employed to collect information pertaining to

participants’ demographic and linguistic background, as well as their

attitudes/orientations toward foreign language acquisition. Results were then tabulated

and exported for further analysis in MAXQDA.

Qualitative Design and Analysis

Qualitative research can have several variations in its implementation, however a

traditional approach commonly “consists of preparing and organizing the data […] for

analysis; then reducing the data into themes through a process of coding and condensing

the codes; and finally representing the data in figures, tables, or discussion” (Creswell &

Poth, 2018, p. 183). This study follows the “data analysis spiral” approach illustrated by

Creswell and Poth (2018), and consists of five main steps (pp. 185–198):

• Managing and organizing data

• Reading and memoing emergent ideas

• Describing and classifying codes into themes

• Developing and assessing interpretations

• Representing and visualizing data

Effective storage, organization, and management of data is imperative for

increased ease of analysis conducted by the researcher. Once organizational methods are

decided upon, one can begin to engage in the analysis process by becoming familiar with

the dataset through preliminary reading and scanning of text that allows the researcher to

“build a sense of the data as a whole without getting caught up in the details of coding”

(Creswell & Poth, 2018, p.188). In the meanwhile, it is suggested to create and prioritize

“memoing” throughout the entire analytic process to help keep track of the development

of ideas that may emerge within the researcher that may guide adjustments made in the

classification and/or interpretation phase (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 189). The next step

in the data spiral approach is to engage in coding procedure that will provide a foundation

for later thematic analysis.

Coding allows for the identification and interpretation of prevalent ideas among

the dataset that should allow for later classification into themes by the researcher. A

common way to approach coding is to begin with detailed description or descriptive

coding that summarizes what the researcher clearly observes among the text (Creswell &

Poth, 2018, p. 189; Saldaña, 2016, p. 102). Working in tandem with description,

“prefigured” coding, also known as “provisional coding,” stems from preparatory

investigation and can be “revised, modified, deleted, or expanded to include new codes”

as data continues to be analyzed (Saldaña, 2016, p. 168). While the number and types of

codes one chooses to use can vary and should be best suited to what the researcher

intends to measure, Creswell and Poth (2018) suggest “lean coding” that later “expands

as review and re-review of the database continues” (p. 190). This approach is meant to

make the proceeding process of theme classification easier and engage in the practice of

actively “winnowing” data to reduce review and use of redundant answers (Wolcott,

1994 as cited in Creswell and Poth, 2018, p. 190). Once adequate application of codes

has been completed after several rounds of review, one can begin the classification of

information contained in codes into broader themes.

Classification of themes requires aggregating several codes into a common idea

with the intent of generating several themes (or categories) that characterize the entire

dataset (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 194). From grouping codes into themes and themes

into larger units of categorization, a researcher may begin to engage in abstracting

beyond what is simply stated in codes and themes to find “the larger meaning of the data”

(Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 195). As Creswell and Poth (2018) discuss in greater detail,

approaches through which interpretation of data takes place depend on the form and

interpretative framework the researcher chooses to employ. The two main outcomes they

propose should arise from this assessment phase of the analytic spiral process are (p.

187):

• Contextual understandings and diagrams

• Theories and propositions

Lastly, it is up to the researcher to choose an appropriate method to represent findings

produced from this final phase of assessment and interpretation.

Theoretical Issues

Several issues arise when determining how to approach coding qualitative data, of

which Creswell and Poth (2018) highlight four main ones: the question of whether codes

should be counted (numerically), the use of preexisting codes, origin of code names, and

the type of information a researcher codes (pp. 192–194). The ability of preliminary

counts and code frequencies to be reported by researchers is something of a debatable

topic regarding how relevant it should be in qualitative research. Many see reporting code

frequency as inconsequential to a qualitative study, meanwhile Creswell and Poth (2018)

suggest taking into consideration code counts but not reporting it in the final study due to

them viewing numerical emphasis as being “contrary to qualitative research,” conveying

the ideas that all codes are equal, and disregarding the possibility that coded passages

could in actuality “represent contradictory views” (pp. 192–193). As discussed

previously, this study produces code lists that contain provisional, as well as “emergent”

elements; however, over-reliance on prefigured codes has the danger of limiting analysis

to content contained in previous literature rather than emphasizing what the data may

reveal itself (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 193). Codes can be named in a variety of ways

based on the approach and perspective of the researcher and therefore must be carefully

determined to reflect accurate and credible interpretation of data. As Saldaña (2016)

notes in his explanation of Values Coding, a “researcher is challenged to code [a]

statement any number of ways depending on the researcher’s own systems values,

attitudes, and beliefs” (p. 135); therefore, great care must be taken to mitigate any

extreme biases a researcher may carry when participating in the analysis process. Lastly,

there are several data analysis strategies one could utilize when reviewing qualitative data

that may tend to highlight one type of content while overlooking another based on what

the researcher is looking to code. Examples Creswell and Poth (2018) provide reference

data material pertaining to different research types such as narrative, phenomenological,

grounded theory, ethnography, and case study (p. 193).

Validation and reliability are two important quality criteria that have traditionally

been the standard all quantitative research must meet to be considered legitimate;

however, the way these criteria translate in qualitative research is different from

quantitative contexts and has several proposed perspectives for what such criteria should

be (Creswell & Poth, 2018, pp. 254–259). Creswell and Poth (2018) highlight intercoder

agreement as a method of ensuring reliability that requires multiple individuals to code

and analyze the same data sets with the goal of meeting a certain threshold of agreement

(pp. 264–266). Due to the nature of this research project being an undergraduate honors

thesis, such intercoder and other triangulation methods were neither available nor feasible

for the researcher to employ in this study. Therefore, it should be known that the creation,

classification, and interpretation of all codes and themes in this study was at the complete

discretion of the single researcher. Coupled with lack of triangulation methods, a single

coder, analyzer, and interpreter inherently increases the element of researcher bias in this

study. To combat this, disclosure of researcher bias and increased reflexivity provides for

increased transparency that may bolster trust in the researcher as an actor with integrity

(Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 261). Such disclosure will be provided in the following

section.

It should be known that the researcher of this study is an undergraduate world

language (Spanish) student who is bilingual. The researcher acknowledges her positive

disposition towards foreign languages and generally perceives the benefits of foreign

language learning, proficiency, exposure, exchange, etc. to outweigh its costs in most

respects. Due to being considered bilingual herself, the researcher expects overlap

between beliefs/opinions expressed by multilingual respondents of this study and her own

to be present. She is aware of the increased likelihood of being able to more easily

identify elements of respondents’ answers that confirm her preconceived notions of each

lingual group based on information from previous research literature combined with her

own personal experience. Aware of this bias, the researcher was purposeful in

formulating the focus of this study and its research questions to be more descriptive in

nature rather than explanatory, although certain interpretations will be proposed only as

considerations in Chapter IV. Moreover, none of the statements utilized in the survey

stem from the researcher’s own beliefs, but rather were taken either from pre-existing

items of literature or created with the intent to measure an aspect of perception based on

general findings in previous research literature.

Data Collection Procedures

This study utilized an electronic survey created through Qualtrics and was

estimated to take at least 15 minutes to complete. Skip-logic was used in the design of the

survey to allow for seamless and efficient presentation of relevant prompts to the user.

The survey was mass distributed through university email to all undergraduate and

graduate students who attend the University of Southern Mississippi. The survey was

published and actively open online for a period of one week between July 8

, 2022–July

, 2022. Consent to participation was implied by completion of the survey. Those who

did not wish to participate were instructed not to proceed with the survey and close their

browser. All participants who completed the survey remained anonymous and the use of

direct quotes does not contain personal identifiers. All data from the survey was

tabulated, visualized, and exported from Qualtrics as either a default report or to

Microsoft Excel for data cleaning. After data was organized, it was then imported to

MAXQDA for coding and thematic analysis.

Instrument

An electronic survey consisting of a questionnaire and prompts was employed to collect a

combination of both quantitative and qualitative data from respondents.

Demographic Collection. The survey begins with a Demographic Collection

question set that asks participants to identify their age group, sex, race/ethnicity,

Hispanic/Latino/Spanish origin, education level, and status of familiarity within the

United States. It was preferred that people select the age group to which they belonged to

rather than explicitly list their age as a matter of expediency, and to address the fact that

many participants may have felt discouraged from participating in the questionnaire had

they been required to list their age. The status of familiarity within the U.S. for each

participant refers to the extent one was born and raised in or outside the U.S.; this was

done to later be able to distinguish between those who are native and foreign-born within

both monolingual and multilingual groups and provide categories for potential

comparison. Specific demographic questions can be referenced in Appendix A.

Language Probe. This question set is designed to collect background information

on which languages a participant and their parents speak and whether they have engaged

in language learning either in the past or present. The question set distinguishes whether

participants and their parents are monolingual or multilingual, languages spoken by both

the participant and parents, the participant’s first language(s), and whether they are

learning a foreign language (or have in the past). A language menu was provided for

participants to select which languages applied to their answers, with an “other” text box

offering text input for languages not listed. Data collected from this question set was

used to classify participants as either monolinguals or multilinguals for analysis and

comparison. Additionally, this question set is purposed to gather information to help

determine the extent of exposure a participant has had to other language usage and

environments since correlation between exposure and attitude has been suggested to be

important in determining overall perception. For specific questions see Appendix A.

Likert Scales. Adult perception towards foreign language in this study focuses on

the measurement of attitude/orientation, coupled with opinions and beliefs held by

participants. Likert scales are a common instrument used in surveys and questionnaires to

measure distinct grades of attitude and hence, were incorporated into this survey to offer

quantitative data on attitude/orientation. To avoid participants from defaulting to an

indifferent response in the survey, the common “neutral” scale option was removed, and

instead a six-degree ascending scale was used ranging from “strongly disagree” to

“strongly agree”. It was the intention that the removal of a “neutral” option would cause

participants to consider their sentiments more carefully when responding and prevent

excessive inconclusiveness. Likert responses were scored with the lowest degree of

favorability option given a value of 1 and the highest degree of favorability option given

a value of 6. A total of three Likert scale sets were used that provided prompts based on

categorizations of positive, neutral, and negative. Statements are classified under

category types based on their emotional characterization regarding languages and

language learning. All sets were scored 1–6 with “strongly disagree” given a value of 1

and “strongly agree” given a value of 6 in ascending order. The positive set contained a

total of five statements, the neutral set contained two statements, and the negative set

contained a total of four statements. The mean and standard deviation were calculated for

each Likert statement for the entire data set, and then separately for monolinguals and

multilinguals for comparison. Several statements from the Revised Attitude and

Motivational Battery Items List found in the Appendix of the Acheson, et al. study (2015)

were included and are identified in Appendix A of this study. Specific Likert statements

can be referenced in Appendix A.

Extended Response. The survey concludes with an extended response section

designed to collect all qualitative responses from participants and is the focus of this

study. This section includes three selected statements from previous Likert scale sets

(positive, neutral, negative), along with a newly generated fourth, to which an extended

response box was provided for the participant to “elaborate and respond fully to each

statement as [they] wish” (see Appendix A). Statements selected were chosen with the

intention that they would slightly provoke participants’ emotional dispositions. It was the

researcher’s intent that the somewhat biased nature of several extended response

statements, combined with limited choice to express attitude in the previous Likert scale

section, would encourage participants to take advantage of the opportunity to fully

express their thoughts as accurately and extensively as they felt needed. The expectation

was that participants’ answers would reflect elements of concepts such as value,

motivation, priority, confidence, and instrumentality as they pertained to foreign

language acquisition, and monolinguals v. multilinguals that could be descriptively

identified and thematically analyzed. The set concludes with an optional portion where

participants may express any remaining thoughts or opinions regarding foreign language

based on questions and prompts shown to them in the survey, or their own experiences.

Data and Analysis

Data organization for this study was done through storage and preliminary

analysis offered in Qualtrics. A default report was generated and exported for the

reporting of information from the demographic collection and language probe question

sets. Data collected from Likert scales was used to calculate the mean and standard

deviation of every Likert scale item for all respondents, all monolinguals, and all

multilinguals. The mean and standard deviation were used to compare averages and

dispersion of sentiments between each group. The statistical significance for each item of

these groups was not calculated and used for analysis since this study prioritizes focus on

its qualitative findings. All survey information was then exported to Microsoft Excel for

data cleaning to later be exported to MAXQDA. Data cleaning consisted in eliminating

respondents who were not able to complete the survey (those younger than 18 years),

those who did not answer any extended response prompts (“N/A,” invalid text, etc.), and

redundant variable information. After cleaning, the respondents’ survey information was

imported into MAXQDA, where the analysis focus was centered on the last five extended

response statements of the survey for each respondent.

The next step was to briefly review all extended response statements to allow the

researcher to familiarize herself with the data set and begin the coding process. Answers

that yielded little to no descriptive information such as “yes,” “no,” “agree,” “I guess”

were moved to a miscellaneous folder to reduce the reading load and direct attention to

answers that contained more detail from respondents. Quick scanning allowed for the

identification of common ideas prevalent among responses and aided in generating a

preliminary list of codes for each prompt used in later rounds of coding beginning with

descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2016, p. 102). All responses for the first prompt were read

and assigned a descriptive code from the preliminary list that matched its content. If upon

reading through responses, other ideas not found on the preliminary list emerged, a new

code was generated and applied to all applicable answers upon the next round of review.

This process of using both “prefigured” and “emergent” codes upon several rounds of

review allowed for the identification of themes inspired from previous research literature

(“prefigured”), while still providing room for views of participants to be reflected

(“emergent”) (Crabtree & Miller, 1992 as cited in Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 193). The

use of “memoing” was useful in helping track the development of other concepts outside

the focus of the study that could potentially be explored for further research. From

“memoing,” other codes were generated that were either added or replaced those created

on the preliminary list. Preliminary codes that were originally created upon initial review

but later proved to be redundant were also removed. As rounds of analysis continued,

code lists were steadily revised until all answers for every prompt had been reviewed and

most descriptively coded.

The next step was to identify common criteria for which codes could begin to be

categorized into themes for each prompt. The categorization process was identical for all

five prompts with some codes being categorized under others to become sub-codes and

main codes being grouped together based on some commonality in their topic and/or

content to create main themes. The ideas contained within each theme were thoroughly

explained, in addition to the reasons why codes and themes were categorized as they

were by the researcher. After several rounds of classification, all themes created were

then analyzed and categorized once more to produce four master themes that would be

used to summarize and characterize the content of the entire extended response data set.

These four themes were then arranged to create a theoretical model the researcher

believed was most appropriate for illustrating the thought process of respondents

regarding how they perceive and produce conclusions about foreign language learning

and acquisition. This theoretical model and content contained within themes and their

codes seeks to answer the first main research question of this study:

• What perceptions do adult university students display towards foreign language

acquisition?

However, to adequately answer the second research question regarding whether any

distinctions exist between monolinguals and multilinguals, further qualitative comparison

had to be conducted.

Crosstabulation and Interactive Quote Matrix functions in MAXQDA were

utilized by the researcher to effectively separate and compare extended response data of

monolinguals and multilinguals. Crosstabulation allows for the comparison of code

frequencies between selected groups activated by document variables. The researcher

chose to compare code frequencies between the two groups by percentage to be able to

identify whether there were any descriptive concepts mentioned significantly more by

one group than the other in proportion to their total number of codes assigned. Codes

with significant percentage differences between the two groups were flagged so that the

researcher could then utilize the Interactive Quote Matrix to individually review answers

provided by monolinguals and multilinguals in a side-by-side comparison. Despite

reviewing flagged codes, only some contained notable differences in content provided by

the two groups while others did not. Regardless, a final side-by-side review and

comparison for every code from all extended response answers was conducted using the

Interactive Quote Matrix function. When respondents from both the monolingual and

multilingual groups expressed by majority the same types of ideas for a particular (code),

the researcher would note this sameness in a master chart. However, when either group’s

answers revealed significant nuances or notable differences from the other, such

observation was noted and a summary developed for the specific code and group in the

master chart as well.

The final stage in the analytic process was to compare findings from the

qualitative and quantitative methods employed in this study to evaluate whether they

either corroborate or contradict observations found in the other. Corroboration by

quantitative findings would provide strong suggestion of accurate qualitative analysis and

interpretation by the researcher. Contradiction, on the other hand, would not necessarily

disprove qualitative observation and interpretation of data, but instead might highlight

potential variables not accounted for by the study’s research design and analysis methods.

Such variance may provide for discussion on strengths and weaknesses of each research

method, potential variables not considered, and suggestions for further research to help

clarify and improve potential shortcomings of this study.

Limitations of the study

Aside from theoretical limitations revealed in the research design of this study,

several other limitations arose during the preparation and execution of this investigation

that warrant address. The first is that the population from which the data set of this study

is derived is only a sample representative of mostly a university demographic. Therefore,

results from this investigation only provide description for the several hundred who

participated in the survey but are not necessarily representative of adult populations from

other university groups and potentially even less so from other geographic areas

(Hattiesburg, MS versus other U.S. locations). In terms of reliance on the method of self-

reporting, a common limitation is that social desirability bias may influence the level of

honesty participants are willing to offer and result in inconsistencies between what is

internally felt and externally reported by participants despite guarantees of anonymity

and confidentiality (Dörnyei, 1994; Wesely, 2012 as cited in Acheson et al., 2015, p.

212). While numerous challenges exist in attempting to accurately measure attitude, this

study simply did not have the tools to account for all controls and is something that

further research could account for in its research design.

One great challenge of qualitative research is determining the best method(s) to

obtain the best type of information suited for the study’s research question and whether

such methods are feasible for the researcher to execute. This investigation was originally

designed to allow for follow-up with respondents who consented to a brief interview for

elaboration on their survey responses. Interviewing participants would have allowed for

more insight into respondents’ answers and overall perspective. Moreover, it would have

added an interpersonal element to a study that, for the most part, is removed from human

interaction. Due to time constraints and lack of clear criteria for participant selection by

the researcher, it was determined that the interview element of the study was to be

eliminated if the project timeline was to be maintained and enough attention given to

extended response answers provided in the survey.

In sum, theoretical issues of this study that have been addressed include

subjectivity of qualitative coding, lack of triangulation methods, researcher bias,

generalizability limits, time constraints, and the potential effect of social desirability bias

on participants. Subjectivity of both participant and researcher is bound to manifest itself

in some form in the research process; however, measures can be taken to increase

transparency in procedures, analysis, and interpretation through qualitative forms of

validity and reliability strategies. Time constraints were the greatest challenge for the

researcher to handle when engaging in data collection, organization, management, and

analysis. Nonetheless, procedures were able to be adjusted to accommodate for changes

in timeline that still fit within the intended mixed-method framework. The next chapter

will present survey results beginning with quantitative collection and then transition to

the main qualitative portion.

RESULTS

The electronic survey designed for this study recorded data from 514 respondents,

of which 506 successfully completed the survey. All demographic data collected was

exported from Qualtrics as a default report and is presented in Table sets 1–3. Table items

with an asterisk indicate that multiple answer selection was applicable for the question.

For specific survey details, see Appendix A.

Quantitative Analysis

Demographic Information

Age categories as reported by participants show 18–24-year-olds making up the

largest percentage (43%), with 32–38-year-olds the second largest group (16%), followed

by 25–31year-olds (15%), 39–45-year-olds (12%), and those between 46–50 and over

being the smallest age categories (6% & 9%). Respondents were overwhelmingly women

(70.75%), white (62.85%), and non-Hispanic/non-Latino (93.87%), with most born and

raised in the United States (91.11%). It is not surprising that the educational background

of participants reflects that of a university sample since this is the context in which the

study takes place with a majority of respondents either completing or having completed a

bachelor’s degree (37.94%), master’s degree (23.32%), or doctoral degree (17.19%) as

the top three categories.

Table 1.1. Demographic Information of Respondents

Category

Percentage

Frequency

Monolingual & Multilingual Parents

as Reported by Participants

Parents Who Speak One Language

85.88%

432

Parents Who Speak Two or More

Languages

14.12%

Language Spoken by Monolingual

Parents as Reported by Participants

English

97.19%

415

Spanish

1.41%

French

0.23%

German

0.23%

Other

0.94%

Languages Spoken by Multilingual

Parents as Reported by Participants*

English

35.81%

Spanish

21.62%

French

8.78%

Tagalog

2.70%

Mandarin

0.68%

Vietnamese

0.68%

Arabic

2.70%

Korean

0.68%

German

6.08%

Italian

2.03%

Portuguese

0.68%

Other

17.57%

Likert Scales

Results from all Likert scale sets were tabulated and distinguished by three

groups: all respondents, monolinguals, and multilinguals.

Positive Likert Statements. The positive Likert set is meant to propose statements

that frame foreign language in “positive” terms, such as suggesting benefits of increased

utility, enhanced status, self-development, cross-cultural understanding, etc. Agreement

among both groups for all prompts in the positive Likert set was the clear consensus;

however, comparison of means shows that multilinguals tend to display greater levels of

agreement than monolinguals with every statement. Both groups agreed the least with

Statement 1 (“People will respect me more if I know a foreign language”); while

Statement 2 (“Learning a foreign language is important for understanding a culture”)

displayed the largest gap in agreement between both groups. Multilinguals are generally

more clustered toward the higher end of the Likert scale and displayed a greater tendency

to select the “strongly agree” option than their counterpart group for all prompts, thereby

demonstrating higher degree of positive attitude. One could propose that while both

groups acknowledge and affirm potential benefits that come from foreign language,

multilinguals tend to positively regard foreign language and its benefits more intensely

than monolinguals. They attribute particular importance to foreign language in contexts

requiring cultural understanding and it is reasonable to infer that a cause behind more

positive regard for languages likely stems from them having experienced its benefits

more than monolinguals. For visualization of Likert results between monolinguals and

multilinguals, see Appendix B.

Table 2.1. Positive Likert Statements (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree: 1–6

Point Scale)

Mean

Std

Deviation

All Respondents

People will respect me more if I know a foreign language

3.99

1.35

Learning a foreign language is important for understanding a

culture

4.98

1.12

Studying a foreign language will make me more

knowledgeable

5.13

0.93

Studying/knowing a foreign language will me more useful

5.13

1.03

More opportunities are available to those who study/know

foreign languages

5.13

1.04

Monolinguals

People will respect me more if I know a foreign language

3.89

1.37

Learning a foreign language is important for understanding a

culture

4.83

1.13

Studying a foreign language will make me more

knowledgeable

5.04

0.95

Studying/knowing a foreign language will make me more

useful

5.04

1.05

More opportunities are available to those who study/know

foreign languages

5.04

1.08

Multilinguals

People will respect me more if I know a foreign language

4.33

1.19

Learning a foreign language is important for understanding a

culture

5.48

0.95

Studying a foreign language will make me more

knowledgeable

5.43

0.80

Studying/knowing a foreign language will make me more

useful

5.43

0.87

More opportunities are available to those who study/know

foreign languages

5.43

0.84

Neutral Likert Statements. Statements included in the neutral Likert set are not

centered on foreign language as the subject, but rather the respondents themselves. Both

items included in this set are meant to reflect how confident participants are in both

themselves and others when faced with the prospect of learning a language. Statement 1

(“I have capabilities for learning a foreign language”) is meant to measure levels of self-

confidence respondents display, while Statement 2 (“Anyone could learn a foreign

language if they wanted to”) measures levels of confidence respondents have in others’

abilities. Similar to the positive Likert set, results between monolinguals and

multilinguals generally mirror one another with both groups showing more agreement

with Statement 1 than Statement 2. More agreement with Statement 1 would indicate that

both monolinguals and multilinguals display higher levels of confidence in their own

abilities to learn a foreign language than in others’ abilities to learn a language. However,

a comparison of mean and standard deviation in Statement 1 between monolingual and

multilingual groups shows a higher level of agreement that is more clustered together for

multilinguals, indicating greater self-confidence among multilinguals than their

counterparts. Moreover, because the highest average with the smallest deviation is

displayed under Statement 1 for multilinguals (multilingual self-confidence) among all

other statements for all groups, it can be said that the most confidence in learning

languages is displayed among multilinguals. This observation is a reasonable expectation

since achievement often reinforces confidence and motivation, which in turn reinforces

achievement. It is likely that by virtue of being multilingual (someone who has L2

proficiency or more), confidence in their own abilities has already been reinforced by

their achievement in L2 proficiency. This increased confidence through achievement of

L2 proficiency contrasts with monolinguals who, by virtue of being monolingual

(someone who only speaks one language), have not experienced achievement of L2

proficiency either through not having attempted it, or having attempted and failed.

Table 2.2. Neutral Likert Statements (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree: 1–6

Point Scale)

Mean

Std Deviation

All Respondents

I have capabilities for learning a foreign language

4.97

1.01

Anyone could learn a foreign language if they

wanted to

4.58

1.16

Monolinguals

I have capabilities for learning a foreign language

4.82

1.02

Anyone could learn a foreign language if they

wanted to

4.45

1.19

Multilinguals

I have capabilities for learning a foreign language

5.47

0.80

Anyone could learn a foreign language if they

wanted to

4.99

0.98

Negative Likert Statements. Negative Likert statements are meant to frame the

study of language more “negatively” by minimizing its importance and inciting emotion

(likely negative) that would arise from the suggestion associating status with language

ability (Statement 4). Because items in this set are valued on an ascending 1–6 scale, yet

statements 1–3 imply a more negative view of language, interpretation of numerical

Likert values is reversed for these three items:

• Higher numerical value = more agreement = less priority given to language,

language learning, etc.

• Lower numerical value = less agreement = more priority given to language,

language learning, etc.

Statement 4 highlighted in Table 2.3 is the only exception to this reversed interpretation.

Numerical values in Statement 4 should be interpreted as one would interpret the positive

or neutral sets, with higher numerical values equating to more positive sentiments toward

multilingualism and a lower scale value the opposite.

As expected, both groups’ levels of agreement were reflected inversely from what

was previously shown in the positive and neutral sets, with all respondents disagreeing

with most statements (exception for monolinguals in Statement 3) and multilinguals

disagreeing more than monolinguals for all items (exception in Statement 4).

Multilinguals show the most disagreement with Statement 2 (“I would not study a foreign

language if it was not an academic requirement”), while monolinguals show the most

disagreement with Statement 4 (“People who know more than one language are better

than those who only know one”). The greatest gap between both groups is found in

Statement 3 (“Knowing a foreign language is not necessary for the type of lifestyle I

live”) with monolinguals agreeing more with this statement whereas multilinguals

disagree more and at higher levels.

Statement 4 assigns superior status to language ability and is meant to “pit” both

groups against the other by slightly antagonizing the monolingual group while validating

the multilingual one. Both groups disagreed with the statement by majority; however,

multilinguals were shown to disagree with this idea less than monolinguals. Framed

another way, monolinguals disagree with this statement slightly more and are more

clustered together than their counterparts and disagree the most with this statement out of

all in the set. Interpretations that could be derived from this set’s data would suggest that

because foreign language is not deemed necessary by more monolinguals than their

counterparts, it would inform why they express more agreement with ideas that

minimizes its priority in exchange for another option. Also, regarding the question of

superior status to those who speak two or more languages, it would make sense that

monolinguals would disagree with this idea since it essentially casts them as inferior.

Moreover, to the extent that multilinguals disagree with their “superiority” statement less

than monolinguals could be suggestive of some multilinguals actually believing in some

aspect of the idea despite not agreeing/liking the sentiment behind it.

Table 2.3. Negative Likert Statement (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree: 1–6

Point Scale)

Mean

Std

Deviation

All Respondents

I would rather spend my time on subjects other than

languages

3.66

1.21

I would not study a foreign language if it was not an

academic requirement

2.77

1.44

Knowing a foreign language is not necessary for the type of

lifestyle I live

3.50

1.44

People who know more than one language are better than

those who only know one

2.48

1.35

Monolinguals

I would rather spend my time on subjects other than

languages

3.82

1.21

I would not study a foreign language if it was not an

academic requirement

2.96

1.46

Knowing a foreign language is not necessary for the type of

lifestyle I live

3.76

1.37

People who know more than one language are better than

those who only know one

2.39

1.30

Multilinguals

I would rather spend my time on subjects other than

languages

3.12

1.03

I would not study a foreign language if it was not an

academic requirement

2.11

1.18

Knowing a foreign language is not necessary for the type of

lifestyle I live

2.66

1.36

People who know more than one language are better than

those who only know one

2.76

1.47

Qualitative Analysis

Descriptive and thematic analysis of respondents’ extended response answers

required several extensive rounds of review to produce individual code lists for each

prompt. Each code list contains specific code labels (key words) applied to the text of

respondents’ answers where specific ideas emerged. Such codes/key words will appear

italicized when cited in this analysis and full code lists can be found in Appendix C.

Several more rounds of review were also required in the revising of each list as analysis

continued, categorizing codes into themes, categorizing themes into master themes, and

comparing responses between the monolingual and multilingual groups. Table 3.1

illustrates the early process of generating code lists for each extended response prompt.

Statements selected as prompts were taken from items found in the positive, neutral, and

negative Likert sets (one item selected from each) with a newly generated fourth prompt.

Prompt 1 is purely inciteful and meant to capture respondents’ emotional reaction to the

statement’s idea that language ability is associated with status. Prompt 2 was selected

with the intention of gathering respondents’ views on what levels of ability and

motivation are required to learn a foreign language. Prompt 3 captures which types of

instrumentality respondents attribute to foreign language. Prompt 4 was created to

evaluate how much value and priority respondents assign to foreign language as a social

initiative. The last prompt simply provides an opportunity for respondents to express

anything else they would like that was not addressed prior in the survey.

Table 3.1. Prompt to Code List

Prompt

Reviewed Answers

People who know more than one

language are better than those who

only know one.

494 responses → Code list 1

Anyone could learn a foreign language

if they wanted to.

494 responses → Code list 2

Studying/knowing a foreign language

will make me more useful.

494 responses → Code list 3

Every person should know more than

one language.

494 responses → Code list 4

(Optional): Based on the types of

prompts you have encountered today,

are there any other thoughts and/or

opinions you would like to express

regarding foreign language?

301 responses → Code list 5

There arose several categories within each code list that were developed into

themes and are summarized below. All themes were analyzed and eventually classified by

the researcher to produce master themes that would inform the creation of a theoretical

model. Before delving into a review of themes produced, there are several points that

should be considered:

• Respondents’ answers often contain multiple codes that are categorized and split

across multiple themes. Therefore, respondents should not be thought of as fitting

exclusively under one particular thematic categorization based on their answers.

Rather, themes reflect the multiple ideas contained within respondents’ answers

that, when put together, reflect nuanced thoughts and opinions of the participants.

• Motivation: As demonstrated in previous literature, motivation contains several

facets that could each separately be considered, but when put together constitute

the motivation of an individual. Aspects that would fall under motivation include

dedication, effort, desire, will, drive, commitment, time, patience, discipline, and

more. Anything that either explicitly mentioned motivation or any of its aspects

was assigned a specific code and grouped together. For specific codes see

Appendix C.

• Unless otherwise noted, it should be assumed that all ideas mentioned under

themes are shared by both monolingual and multilingual respondents.

Prompt 1: People who know more than one language are better than those who only

know one.

Most respondents do not think that knowing more than one language makes

someone better than another but do acknowledge certain factors that distinguish those

who do know more than one language from those who do not. Many expressed feeling

uncomfortable with “making value judgements” on people based on their abilities. Even

those who did choose to acknowledge advantage (whether implicitly or explicitly) were

against any notion of multilingual superiority over monolinguals. Themes 1 and 3

contrast most in their characterization since Theme 1 contains ideas that traditionally fit

under an integrative category, while the ideas under Theme 3 are instrumental and

particularly utilitarian. Motivation is acknowledged as the differentiating factor between

those who have achieved multilingualism versus those who have not, with many leaving

the impression that language learning is either a matter of circumstance, necessity, or

privilege.

Theme 1: Attributes. Respondents tended to make more observational statements

distinguishing between those who learn or know more than one language as being

different from those who do not by using phrasing such as “people who know more than

one language tend to... ,” “they are more... ,” and “they tend to be more... .” Of the

distinctions made, the idea of being more knowledgeable, either by possessing more

knowledge or having more potential access to it, was one of the most cited descriptions

for those who can succeed in learning another language:

I do not think they are better people for knowing more than one language, but I do

think that they have a higher chance to have more knowledge and be more well-

rounded than those who only know one. (RESP129)

Coinciding with knowledgeability was the view that languages are key to understanding

and engaging with other cultures in a manner that increases one’s tendency to be more

empathetic. It was believed that with increased exposure to other groups and ways of

thinking through language, one becomes more “open-minded”, culturally “aware” or

“adept,” and appreciative. Such ideas are exemplified in this individual’s response,

“people who speak multiple languages tend to have more cultural appreciation and

understanding and are better equipped to function within different groups and societies”

(RESP048). Aside from descriptive traits, compliments of increased intelligence, better

“brain function,” and expanded forms of critical thinking were expressed towards those

who operate with more than one language.

Theme 2: Motivation. The mention of motivation is characterized by two distinct

foci: those who acknowledge others who learn another language as having displayed high

motivational traits, and those who emphasize lack of motivational traits as reasons for not

learning another language. It was shown that respondents’ answers typically contain

elements of both types of aspects, where one would acknowledge or praise those who

display high motivational factors and then diverge to highlight how such motivation is

not present in everyone and whether such was admissible in their eyes. Most did not

make any value judgements on whether presence or absence of motivation was a good or

bad thing and therefore did not make associations with those who possess more

motivation with being “better” as the prompt suggests. For those who chose to expound

upon the absence of motivation, aspects of desire and necessity were components

emphasized as needed in order for an individual to choose to learn a language. Some

attribute multilingual ability as being a matter of circumstance and necessity (individuals

raised that way, work and lifestyle requirements, constant exposure, etc.) and others go so

far as to affirm that where there lies a lack of necessity, one need not learn another

language. Additionally, language learning was viewed by some as being the result of

access to resources and/or opportunities to learn. In sum, ideas of necessity, circumstance,

and access generally characterize language learning as being either a matter of need or

privilege in some respect.

Theme 3: Instrumentality. An overwhelming majority of respondents deem

knowing another language as being potentially helpful, useful, or beneficial in certain

circumstances. Some were able to refer to personal experiences of when their knowledge

of another language proved useful, or when they wished they would have had such

abilities to aid other language speakers in a particular instance. Overall, many felt it was

more accurate to modify the prompt's statement from “People who know more than one

language are better than ...” to “more useful” or “knowledgeable” (as mentioned in

Theme 1); however, even such suggestions were conditional as some did not agree with

this assessment and qualified that usefulness depends on circumstance. More

opportunities were stated as being the overall benefit of knowing another language. Most

opportunities were classified in the professional sense, but a significant portion also

referred to more individualized, personal opportunities. A considerable number of people

chose to define multilingual ability as being a skill that adds to one's skillset that likely

makes someone an asset depending on the demand of a given circumstance (e.g.,

employability, versatility, helping others, translation, addressing clients, etc.). There were

only a handful of respondents that explicitly characterized knowing another language as

an advantage over knowing only one, but they make it clear that they do not agree with

the sentiment behind one being “better than” the other. It can be implicitly interpreted

from respondents’ acknowledgement of increased opportunities resulting from language

knowledge (both professional and personal) that knowing another language is an

advantage in circumstances where needed, but that such advantage does not equate to any

sort of superiority over those who are monolingual, and some even deemed unnecessary:

I don’t feel as if anyone who knows more than one language is better than the

next person. In my opinion, there is no serious need for a second language. Of

course, it could be a good quality in certain situations, but there is no urgent need

for it. (RESP312)

There were others who emphasized the usefulness of multilingual ability growing as

societies continue to become multi-lingual and multi-cultural:

As American culture becomes more culturally diverse, those who are able to

communicate in various formats will be stronger assets in the workforce and

society. Those who are already bilingual, or trilingual, are already ahead. There

will always be a need for an individual to express thoughts from one language to

another. (RESP067)

Others acknowledged usefulness in such settings, but then made the caveat that such

situations are the only times when knowing another language would be useful. Answers

that fit under this categorization limited utility of multilingualism to only settings where

people don't speak the same language.

Prompt 2: Anyone could learn a foreign language if they wanted to.

Answers to this prompt contain much more ambiguity than one would expect due

to several interpretations of commonly used terms such as “motivation,” “barriers,”

“disability,” and “resources”. Nevertheless, the researcher believes she was able to draw a

clear conclusion from meanings derived from all responses despite imprecise definitions

and is presented as follows:

• Everyone has the capabilities to learn a foreign language (default) → unless they

have a disability (exception).

• If everyone has capabilities to learn a foreign language (default), then to learn it is

either a matter of some motivational factor AND/OR access

(resources/circumstance).

• Learning will either be “easier” or “harder” for each person.

There was no explicitly clear explanation of what makes language learning either easier

or harder for individuals. At best, the researcher would associate items contained within

examples found in answers for what she believed respondents were referring to when

citing topics of motivation, barriers, disability, and resources in particular. The

conclusion was that language learning being either “easier” or “harder” can be attributed

to two causes that are not mutually exclusive: external conditions and internal conditions.

Motivation is characterized as an internal condition while access and its associated items

are characterized as external conditions. It is unclear whether these conditional factors are

considered within a person’s control or not. Moreover, respondents vary in what they

consider necessary to meet conditions of sufficient motivation and access, regardless of

whether they are or are not in the person’s control.

Theme 1: External Conditions. Items categorized under external conditions

mainly refer to concepts of exposure, resources, and barriers. The researcher intended

this theme to encompass factors she considered to be generally outside the immediate

control of an individual but acknowledges this category’s criteria is especially susceptible

to debate. Such an example is the classification of disability. When mentioning barriers,

disability was the most cited exception to the default standard that anyone could learn a

foreign language if they wanted to, yet a large problem for the researcher remained in the

ambiguity of what respondents were actually referring to. Some mention cognitive

barriers/limited mental capabilities that both explicitly included disability and did not.

Additionally, there was a lack of specificity on what kinds of disabilities hindered one

from being able to engage in language learning. Another item categorized as a potential

impediment to language learning was age, of which everyone who mentioned it was

under the impression that language learning becomes more difficult as one progresses

with age. Both disability and age, while inherently a characteristic personal to each

individual, were framed as factors that could hinder a person’s learning process even if a

strong desire is present. This conveyed meaning was perceived to be two sorts of

limitations outside one’s control, hence why they are classified under external conditions.

Respondents are in consensus that the best way to learn and maintain a language

is through immersion in an environment of the target language or having contact with

others who speak the target language to practice with, otherwise, it is difficult to maintain

foreign language skills. “Resources” was often used to refer to various things such as

education, money, time, and technology, as well as more specific things such as books,

internet, courses/classes, apps, and other instructional material. A “lack of resources” was

a phrase often used that in several instances either referred to lack of time to learn a

language, lack of money to acquire necessary materials and instruction, lack of access to

a quality education, etc. Answers addressing education were diverse, with some referring

to it as a resource that people do or do not have access to that impacts one’s ability to

learn another language. Others stress the role an education system plays in helping

prioritize language learning, while some mentioned that increased access to other free

tools (public libraries, internet, apps, books, tapes, YouTube, etc.) serves as an alternative

to relying on a traditional education system for instruction. Drawing from these

descriptions, the researcher concluded that there arise two distinct ways that respondents

characterize the role resources play in language learning. The first characterization is that

language learning should be easier to partake in due to increased access to a variety of

resources that do not necessarily rely on traditional methods such as formal class and

instructional materials. The second characterization is that language learning is largely

dependent on access to resources which is something not everyone has, causing them to

either be unable to or have a harder time learning:

Learning a foreign language requires resources that some people may not be able

to access due to monetary costs or lack of free time. It can also be very difficult

for some people to learn another language even if they have access to all the

resources they need. (RESP230)

Regardless, the main takeaway from answers under this theme is that respondents

generally would like to suggest that anyone has the capacity to learn a foreign language

but feel compelled to consider why such might not be a reality for many.

Theme 2: Internal Conditions. Motivation is the sole item classified as being a

factor of internal condition; however, several codes highlighting different aspects of the

concept were included to reflect the word choice of respondents more closely. While

different words may highlight distinct components of motivation that hold different

definitions, they also work in tandem with one another. For example, it is inferred that

discipline and dedication would require some degree of effort sustained over time,

however, one could put forth a great amount of effort due to having a large desire, but not

be able to apply it over time, causing the effort to be short lived. The conclusive message

gathered from respondents was that anyone can achieve what it is they wish if motivation

is present and significant barriers are absent. Time is particularly broad since it was

distinguished as either being a condition required in the sustained application of effort to

achieve an end as part of sustained motivation (“with enough time and effort” one can…),

or as a constraining factor on language learning (“lack of time” as cited in Theme 1).

With these two types of characterizations, the researcher determined time to be both an

internal and external condition, recognizing that its interpretation is largely dependent on

how each respondent thinks of the concept. Only a handful of respondents mentioned

factors of patience, discipline, dedication, and commitment that are normally required in

learning and require a greater amount of effort. For the few who did, they insisted that

such factors are arguably more important than other factors of motivation such as desire

if successful outcomes are to be reached: “Everyone does not possess the patience and

time required to learn a foreign language. Even if he/she wanted to learn a foreign

language, some would give up due to frustration” (RESP023). Despite the suggestion that

desire is all that is required for someone to engage in language learning, a number of

respondents also state that motivation is simply not present in some individuals like

others causing them not to attempt pursuing learning another language. It is unclear,

however, if lack of motivation is due to lack of motives and whether motivation itself is

something that is more intrinsically part of certain people than it is others.

Comparison. Both monolinguals and multilinguals describe the same ideas of

various technological options serving as language learning resources that increase

accessibility under Theme 1. However, monolinguals were more likely to mention and

emphasize barriers to technological resources than multilinguals, claiming that while

there are numerous technological options, people may not have access to them. Both

groups often provided anecdotal accounts of their successes or failures at learning and/or

retaining another language that seemed to inform their stance regarding the prompt’s

suggestion e.g. “I learned a language while living in Alabama and northern Florida,

anybody can do it!” (RESP167). Respondents’ personal experiences and opinions at times

aligned (anyone can learn because I did), while other times they did not (anyone can

learn, even though I didn’t).

Prompt 3: Studying/knowing a foreign language will make me more useful.

Theme 1: Instrumental Benefits (Context). This category is defined by the

environment in which one operates that determines the necessity of knowing another

foreign language and its level of utility. Codes listed under this theme were

globalization/global factor and diversity & demographics, to characterize social

environment as being either geographically or demographically based. Respondents

whose answers contained elements found under this theme note how the importance of

language can potentially be determined by the demands of a particular setting or “age”

(e.g., “global age”) and with society becoming ever more diverse and globally connected,

language can be a useful tool. However, there were other respondents who emphasized

the circumstantial aspect of language utility suggesting that if a circumstance where

foreign language is needed does not arise, then foreign language does not remain as

useful.

Theme 2: Instrumental Benefits (Manner). Elements categorized under this theme

were based on their common characteristics that demonstrate how foreign language can

be or has been useful to individuals in various manners. Once again, the most cited

advantage of knowing a foreign language was the benefit of increased opportunities,

mostly in the professional sense: “Being bilingual is a great asset in many workplace”

(RESP363). Commonly mentioned was the suggestion that knowing another language

makes one more marketable and/or versatile in many contexts (mainly professional), with

a few outright stating that multilinguals have a clear advantage over monolinguals in

conditions where a demand for language is present. The language that was mentioned by

the most respondents as being in high demand, the most important to know, or the most

useful was Spanish. A significant number of respondents disclosed themselves as

educators who stress the importance and need for Spanish to adequately communicate

with their ESL/ELL students and parents. Additionally, many respondents revealed

working in or entering the medical/healthcare field and cite the same need for Spanish

and other languages to address patients who do not speak English. Reflecting on the

potential benefits Spanish could have afforded them:

I am going into the medical field and I wish I spoke Spanish fluently in order to

communicate more efficiently than I can now. I could do more to help others if I

spoke another language. (RESP158)

It would have been very useful to know Spanish at my position that I held for 13

years in the medical field. (RESP042)

Of those who mentioned their personal experiences in their field of work, it was apparent

that more listed wishing to have continued learning (or are currently in the process of

learning) a foreign language after having experienced the inability to communicate with

their target population (clientele, patients, students, etc.). The mention of translators and

interpreters was split between those who seem fine with delegating the task of foreign

language communication to others (therefore creating an increased demand for

translators/interpreters) and those who would prefer directly communicating with others

to eliminate the need for these mediators.

Comparison. Both monolinguals and multilinguals acknowledge the various

instrumental benefits knowing another language provides with the only consistent

difference between the two being that multilinguals can provide more personal examples

of when they were required to utilize their language skills for some benefit compared to

monolinguals who could not. This difference is most apparent in the discussion of

translators. Both groups were in agreement about their utility in several professional

fields, but only multilinguals were able to provide personal accounts (anecdotal

examples) of when they acted as translators in either professional or social situations,

whereas no monolingual was able to do such thing.

Prompt 4: Every person should know more than one language.

Upon review, the researcher was not able to distinguish any notable differences between

content contained in monolingual and multilingual responses to this prompt. Therefore,

themes for this prompt derive from respondent opinion that includes both monolinguals

and multilinguals together. The following themes summarize what both monolinguals and

multilinguals think in response to Prompt 4.

Theme 1: Benefits (Recognition). Theme 1 is characterized as the Recognition

portion of Prompt 4. This theme contains all positive benefits that result from knowing or

learning another language as cited by respondents that generally repeat those mentioned

in previous sections of the survey (see Themes 1 and 3 under Prompt 1; see Theme under

Prompt 3). While not mutually exclusive, benefits listed overall can be distinguished as

being either more oriented towards an integrative, “ideal L2 self” (Csizér & Dörnyei,

2005) framework or a more utilitarian, instrumental one. Answers of respondents

generally contain elements of both orientations with most acknowledging in some fashion

the diversification of society and its increasingly globalized nature.

Theme 2: Situated Context (Evaluation). Theme 2 is characterized as the

Evaluation portion of Prompt 4. This theme includes elements of respondents’ answers

that point out and describe the given context in which they find themselves situated in

terms of country, demographics of social environment, education system, and career that,

when considered together, create current demands, or lack thereof, for foreign language

and language learning. For simplicity, the researcher has taken all codes listed under this

theme and provided her narrative summary for all content mentioned most by

respondents:

The United States of America has been and remains a largely monolingual

country that speaks English. However, this nation also contains a diverse

population that speak languages other than English. Some manage to retain their

lingual heritage, but many either by compulsion or choice, have learned English

for easier integration into U.S. society. The U.S. education system and culture

generally does a poor job at prioritizing foreign language learning for its students

and citizens; however, a double standard exists for monolingual anglophones and

monolinguals of other languages, with others being "forced" to learn English

(through ELL and ESL programs), while monolingual anglophones are not forced

to learn any other language. Given the increased and unceasing migration of

Spanish-speaking populations to the U.S., Spanish has become an in-demand

language in various fields that the U.S. is not and has not been prepared to meet

(particularly in the fields of education and healthcare).

Theme 3: Ultimate Decision (Conclusion). Theme 3 is characterized as the

Conclusion portion of Prompt 4. It is interesting to note that the statement to this prompt

does not specify what is implied by the word “should,” but that respondents understood it

to equate to languages being mandatory, forced, required, or compulsory in nature. The

majority consensus among respondents is that language learning should be optional for

each individual and not a requirement. On one hand, many do not deem knowing foreign

languages as necessary for their lives and therefore do not want a “mandate” because

“some people’s lifestyles would not ever require them to know a second language”

(RESP457). On the other hand, those who view language learning most favorably

acknowledge the benefits languages would bring to individuals and agree with the

suggestion of learning them; however, they do not go as far as to support any compulsory

aspect of language learning. As best phrased by one respondent, languages may be

beneficial but not beneficial for everyone and so it should be left up to individual choice:

While it would be nice if everyone did know more than one language, to say that

people “should” seems to suggest that it is beneficial to every single person.

Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but while I do think knowing multiple

languages is useful in general to either a society or the person learning it

themselves, I don't think it is useful for every single person, and while anyone can

learn a language, it does take time, focus, and effort that for some may best be

applied somewhere else. (RESP444)

Also mentioned by respondents was the suggestion that enforcing increased language

learning is logistically unrealistic in the context of the U.S. Only a handful of individuals

were willing enough to be completely aligned in all their sentiments to express either full

agreement or disagreement with the prompt’s suggestion. E.g., “No, most people

wouldn't have any use for a second language” (RESP308). Those in complete

disagreement would often cite how language learning is not an interest for everyone, is

not necessary, and should not be pushed no matter how useful. Those in complete

agreement supported everyone learning a foreign language due to the plethora of benefits

it offers (both integrative and/or instrumental) to both the individual and society.

Comparison. Both groups generally express the same ideas in themes contained

under this prompt with the only slight difference being that monolinguals have a greater

tendency to emphasize sentiments against making language learning mandatory or a

requirement more than multilinguals. Codes under which this is most apparent are culture

and communication & connection, where both recognize the benefits language provides

to cultural understanding and exchange, but multilinguals express more commitment in

supporting the “should” element of the prompt’s statement while monolinguals express

more hesitancy and are more willing to make concessions to those who advocate against

learning languages. Phrased in a different manner, monolinguals are not as willing to say

“yes” to the prompt, even while acknowledging the same benefits as multilinguals who

are more committed. This is not to say that all multilinguals believe that everyone should

learn a foreign language, but rather there are proportionately less likely to disagree with

the prompt than those who are monolingual.

Prompt 5: (Optional): Based on the type of prompts you have encountered today, are

there any other thoughts and/or opinions you would like to express regarding foreign

language?

Although there were 301 recorded responses for this optional prompt, most

answers consisted in answering the question in the negative rather than providing

descriptive information. After filtering, only 77 responses were usable for analysis, with

23 belonging to multilinguals and 54 to monolinguals. Therefore, while different topics

were mentioned that resulted in the creation of codes, no themes were able to be formed

from this prompt. The following codes are topics addressed by both monolinguals and

multilinguals that are discussed in further detail in the following section: English in the

U.S., personal connection, early exposure, education/early education, judgement, and “I

wish” statements.

Comparison. Monolinguals overwhelmingly and exclusively expressed regret or

unrealized desire regarding language learning that multilinguals do not. Commonly

mentioned were wishes to have studied languages more while in school or younger,

wanting increased accessibility to learning languages, wanting language learning to have

been introduced at an earlier stage in life/education (particularly as part of the U.S.

education system), or wishing for more variety of languages to be offered other than

those traditionally taught (Spanish and French). The only multilingual respondent who

expressed a wish desired only for others to know and understand the “social and health

benefits” knowing other languages produces. In addition to earlier introduction to

languages in the U.S. education system, monolinguals also suggested a greater push for

Spanish and programming that utilized an immersive approach. Several respondents used

this section to provide a personal anecdote or two about their experience with languages.

Multilinguals’ reflections were generally more positive and complete, detailing all they

have been able to accomplish through language, while monolingual reflections were more

varied. The most prevalent experiences detailed by monolinguals were that some studied

language but were never able to maintain it or become conversant, others wished to have

learned, some having learned and then forgotten the language, and some clarifying that

they know some foreign language, but not enough to classify themselves as bilingual.

One of the most interesting codes that caught the researcher’s attention was

judgment. Monolinguals under this code provided a variety of reflections and opinions

that generally express displeasure with negative judgments predicated on whether

someone is fluent in more than one language or not. While not explicitly stated, the

researcher inferred that such displeasure with negative judgments was more a result of

judgement against those who only speak one language, rather than those who speak

several. One respondent openly discussed her frustration with low views on Americans

for not being multilingual when they have no need to be:

I spoke with my husband today about how lots of children in Europe are required

to learn English as a second language. At least that is what my foreign friends told

me. I find that interesting. People like to make fun of Americans for not knowing

multiple languages and being stupid. The way a lot of people feel about that is

“what’s the point?” Why would Americans learn multiple languages when

everyone else is learning to speak ours. Obviously these are generalizing

statements, but you get my point. I don’t believe the number of languages one

knows is directly linked to their intelligence. [… .] I just get frustrated when

people associate the number of languages you speak with your intelligence or

level of education. I could go on and on. (RESP217)

Other ideas mentioned by monolinguals were that foreign languages and language

learning are “romanticized” concepts that only add pressure to one when deciding

whether or not to attempt the endeavor and the double standards that exist between the

view of low versus high income language learners.

Multilinguals, on the other hand, are more concerned with social and cultural

perceptions of those who speak languages other than English or who are multilingual in

general:

It is unbelievable how we are in 2022, and most un-educated or unknowledgeable

people see the ability to speak two or more languages as a weakness and

discriminate against it. People assume that an accent defines your level of

education, but they do not stop to think that perhaps that accent means that person

can speak more than one language. Possibly their education level could be

outstanding. (RESP384)

They often described these views on their group as frustrating, problematic, and

hypocritical, citing the idea of how people look down on those who speak non-English

languages, stereotypes, and expectations of assimilating into the English language (while

no push for monolingual anglophones to learn other languages):

I just think it is worth noting that foreigners are expected to learn English and it is

never expected for native English speakers to learn another language. I believe if

more English speakers sought out learning another language, it would greatly

benefit society in America. (RESP469)

Overall, multilinguals who participated in this survey did not disregard the importance of

knowing English with some even citing it as the only language necessary to learn, but the

majority seem to disagree with the sentiment behind the idea of English conformity and

exclusivity.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Each extended response prompt was meant to reveal information on respondents’

beliefs and/or opinions on languages and language learning in the categories of value,

utility, motivation, and capability/confidence. Analysis of all themes and their contents

resulted in an interpretation and classification of four master themes that characterize the

nature of the entire data set as a process—benefits, internal conditions, external

conditions, and conclusion. This model reflects respondents’ answers as an integrated

form rather than isolated concepts. Deriving her understanding from data results and

intensive interaction with extended responses, the researcher understood most

participants to arrive at some conclusive stance on foreign language acquisition by

considering three main interrelated factors relating to self (benefits, internal conditions,

and external conditions) as illustrated and described below (Figure 1):

Figure 1. Theoretical Model for Thematic Data Results

• Benefits: Benefits that either knowing or studying a foreign language can afford to

an individual (can be instrumental and/or integrative).

• Internal Conditions: Tendencies and characteristics of an individual that may or

may not make him/her more inclined towards foreign language acquisition

(personality, interest, motivation, etc.).

• External Conditions: Elements of an environment or social context that may

either reinforce or suppress elements of an individual’s internal condition.

• Conclusion: Interaction between all three aforementioned factors that determine

an individual’s outlook and behavior towards foreign language learning.

Explanation of the process behind this theoretical model is best explained by

Prompt 4’s theme descriptions (Recognition, Evaluation, and Conclusion) that are

essentially a summary of answers provided by respondents as to whether foreign

language is something that should be learned. Among all answers, respondents are clearly

able to identify and define all benefits that foreign language provides to its learners. Most

then begin to consider other conditions (either internal or external) that may influence

whether language learning is deemed worth the effort. The identification and

acknowledgment of language benefits, internal conditions, and external conditions

constitute Recognition. Internal conditions pertain more to one’s dispositions, whereas

external conditions are what one is exposed to and can include social circles, societal

expectations, educational systems, work environments, and cross-cultural contact.

Depending on what the characterizations of the internal and external conditions are, the

extent to which they are either positive or negative can determine whether these

conditions themselves become barriers or aids to language learning and its benefits—this

process of consideration and assessment is the Evaluation portion of the theoretical

process. Finally, after considering each factor against the other, a determination is made

as to whether foreign language acquisition is an endeavor worth partaking in and decisive

action is either taken or not by the individual, thereby constituting the Conclusion portion

of the theoretical process.

The conclusive stage of the theoretical model assumes the final formation of

attitude/orientation and motivation, which as previously stated, are not equal in producing

“goal-directed behavior” (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003, p. 173). For the sake of simplicity,

attitude can be characterized as an outlook that has the potential to influence motivation

pertaining to some goal. However, one’s outlook in and of itself is not enough to

determine whether one will act towards achieving said goal—that is instead the role of

motivation (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). Therefore, it is possible that one may deem

foreign language as worth learning yet not proceed with taking actionable steps towards

engaging in the learning process. Conversely, someone may also conclude that a foreign

language is worth learning and follow through with behavior that engages in the learning

process. Based on answers reviewed in their entirety, the researcher believes that both

types of individuals were present in this survey and that this finding was able to be

distinguished through a monolingual and multilingual comparison.

As stated in Masgoret and Gardner (2003), even though orientation and

motivation are not equal in producing “goal-directed behavior,” orientation can still

influence and even express itself in motivation and therefore be considered a secondary

factor (pp. 169–170; 173). The researcher believes that findings of this study align with

Gardner’s argument that orientation types (instrumental, integrative, etc.) do not matter as

much as the level of motivation that coincides with these orientations (Masgoret &

Gardner, 2003). In this study, both groups expressed similar positive opinions on foreign

language in the extended response portion of the survey. Moreover, Likert results

consistently showed that both groups generally displayed a positive orientation towards

foreign language learning and acquisition. The only consistent difference most apparent

between the two groups was the intensity of sentiment behind expressed ideas as shown

in the Likert results. Therefore, if general perceptions between both monolinguals and

multilinguals is the same with the only difference between the two being the intensities of

sentiment behind the same beliefs (a factor of motivation), then it can be proposed that a

motivational difference (or some aspect of motivation) is likely a distinguishing factor

between those who have achieved foreign language proficiency (multilinguals) and those

who have not (monolinguals) in the context of this particular study. Gardner’s (2003)

argument is also manifested in this study’s high acknowledgement of foreign language

but frequent statements of low and/or lacking motivation by respondents. Such

discrepancy could potentially prove as an explanation as to why the majority of

respondents were able to praise the benefits of foreign language acquisition while not

supporting its insistence on being something everyone should learn.

Another concept encountered was the variance in code meanings previously

discussed as a theoretical limitation of methodology. As Creswell and Poth (2018) make

clear, code counts convey the message that all codes are equal when in reality they

disregard “that the passages coded may actually represent contradictory views,” or as was

found in this study, ambiguous ones (pp. 192–193). Such was the case with codes such as

resources, disability, and easier/harder where overgeneralization and lack of specificity

often required that the researcher infer the message implied by respondents’ answers.

Other codes such as opportunities and communication & connection were commonly

cited, yet upon closer review it became apparent their use often referred to various ideas

differing in characterization (e.g., communication & connection for strictly utilitarian

purposes versus integrative ones). Overemphasis on statistical dimensions of a study does

little to inform researchers of the substance and meaning of what is being suggested by

participants. For this reason, it is important that qualitative methods be implemented to

ensure a full picture is being provided for a data set. Thankfully, a mixed-methods

approach allowed for additional verification on findings revealed through either the

quantitative or qualitative portions of this study.

An observation worth addressing is the reflections offered by respondents that

contained similar ideas to those coded under judgement found under Optional Prompt 5.

Both monolinguals and multilinguals expressed frustrations with judgements made based

on how many or what languages one speaks. Both groups cite double standards that exist

for non-English speakers and monolingual anglophones, where the former are pushed

with more urgency to learn English while the latter are not expected to learn other

languages in similar earnest. Some monolinguals expressed displeasure with the notion

that their lack of L2 proficiency indicates in any sense a lack of intellect or effort, but

rather stress that they are products of circumstances that never emphasized or required

that foreign language be seriously considered and treated as a worthwhile endeavor in the

same manner other countries treat English. Those in favor of foreign language acquisition

generally expressed a desire for a greater embrace of diversity and an abandonment of

sentiments that inspire the antiquated notion of English superiority. While it seemed to be

the common belief among respondents that foreign language acquisition would naturally

lead to increased communication & connection between people and cultures, developing

language skills in and of itself may not be enough to facilitate positive communication as

one desires. In his examination of neoliberal ideology and language learning, Kubota

(2016) argues that learning and operating in one common language (English, or any

other) does not necessarily lead to “constructive interaction” or “mutual respect and

understanding,” but rather is dependent on a “willingness to communicate constructively”

particularly with others distinct from us (pp. 468–470). It is his suggestion that educators

“address dispositional competence, such as willingness to communicate, willingness to

develop cultural and historical knowledge, mutual accommodation, and non-prejudiced

or anti-racist attitudes, in order to foster more sustainable relationships with Others”; this

is his potential solution to problems that arise when such values are not present in

curriculum (Kubota, 2016, p. 477).

Something that aroused suspicion in the researcher was the apparent frequency of

similar terminology used by respondents in their extended response answers to that of

Likert items presented to them prior in the survey. It could be a coincidence that the same

terms as presented by survey items were most used by respondents in answers that are

supposed to reflect their own opinions since most ideas expressed are commonly

associated with language learning. However, the possibility cannot be ruled out that

processes like cued recall took place when respondents were answering prompts that

were repeated survey items. Such might explain why several of the most coded words in

respondents’ answers are words contained in Likert items such as

understand/understanding, culture, knowledgeable, useful, opportunities, capabilities,

necessary/not necessary, and lifestyle. Regardless of whether such suspicion can be

confirmed or not, it is the suggestion of the researcher that open-ended questions be

presented prior to any Likert scale items to decrease the chance of cued association and

increase organic elements of originality. Moreover, interviews as part of a study’s data

collection methods may offer both the researcher and participant the opportunity for

further clarification and elaboration of answers collected.

In sum, results from this study suggest that most university adults display a

positive perception towards foreign language acquisition, with multilinguals displaying

greater levels of positive disposition towards foreign language than their monolingual

counterparts. These findings somewhat corroborate the researcher’s hypothesis that

multilinguals would display more positive perceptions toward foreign language than their

monolingual counterparts; however, this was only able to be proven through data

collected from the Likert scale portion of the study (quantitative), rather than observed in

the content of respondents’ extended responses (qualitative). Thematic analysis of

respondents’ extended responses found that most opinions and beliefs regarding foreign

language are nuanced and that both monolinguals and multilinguals generally hold the

same thoughts, although there were slight differences in the characterization of their

answers. Therefore, it can be said that there is not much difference in what monolingual

and multilingual adults think, but rather in the intensity of sentiment that powers such

thoughts. These results would support findings from Masgoret & Gardner (2003) that

suggest that motivation (as it is influenced by attitude/orientation) is the distinguishing

factor in determining success in foreign language learning, rather than the types of ideas

one holds about the concept (instrumental versus integrative). This study differs slightly

from previous ones due to its centralized focus on qualitative findings rather than purely

quantitative results from Likert scales. By using a mixed-method approach, the researcher

was able to validate whether any significant trends shown in the Likert portion of the

survey coincided with any notable observations in the qualitative analysis portion of the

study.

CONCLUSION

This study sought to investigate the perceptions that adult university students may

hold towards foreign language acquisition with an emphasis on distinctions between

monolinguals and multilinguals. Findings from this study corroborate existing theories on

attitude and motivation as they pertain to language learning among university adults.

Distinctions in perception between monolinguals and multilinguals were very few with

main ones centering on differences in the intensity of sentiments felt for positive, neutral,

and negative statements on foreign language; differences in lived experiences from which

anecdotal evidence is drawn; and expressions of regret and/or unrealized desire by

monolinguals. Opinions, attitudes, and beliefs on foreign language acquisition of

university adults were positive with extended response answers containing elements of

both instrumental and integrative aspects. Despite positive perceptions of foreign

language acquisition, most respondents were insistent on leaving language learning as a

matter of choice to each individual and were therefore not in favor of any compulsory

measure to promote foreign languages. Several themes were able to be generated from a

descriptive coding process to produce a master theoretical model incorporating the

processes of Recognition, Evaluation, and Conclusion through three key factors of

Benefits, Internal Conditions, and External Conditions. Through this model it was

revealed that, while foreign language learning and acquisition evaluated on its own merits

is considered a beneficial endeavor to partake in for both the individual and society by

most, the concept generally requires that benefits outweigh costs as a pre-requisite for

deciding to engage in the learning process. Additionally, level of motivation remains the

suggested determinant factor of whether one is likely to be persistent in the learning

process to achieve success: “Motivation is KEY, and having a growth mindset”

(RESP210).

Results from thematic analysis of this investigation suggest that the largest

deterrents for learning a foreign language according to respondents are lack of resources,

lack of motivation, and lack of necessity. While respondents were able to list potential

benefits of knowing a foreign language, information was not conclusive enough to

determine what the greatest incentives were for learning a foreign language that would

result in motivated behavior. A suggestion for further research would be to evaluate and

compare results between different demographic groups that were not the focus of this

study. As expressed by respondent one, “It would also be interesting to see people’s

outlooks on hearing languages they don’t understand, and how that relates to their

personal feelings towards learning foreign languages” (RESP255). Inquiry with

underrepresented groups such as recent immigrants, non-English speaking immigrants

and/or citizens, expatriates, etc., could serve to continue addressing gaps in literature as it

pertains to perceptions societal groups hold.

To conclude, data gathered from university adults on their perceptions towards

foreign language acquisition demonstrates a positive regard for foreign languages. While

a plethora of benefits from foreign language acquisition were provided by survey

respondents, the researcher does not believe there was enough conclusive evidence to

determine existing incentives for respondents that actually resulted in actionable

measures being taken to engage in the learning process. In contrast, existing deterrents to

language learning are reported as lack of necessity, lack of motivation, and lack of

resources, particularly by monolinguals who disclosed drawing from experience. The

greatest challenge derived from this study is the consideration of how to generate

increased sustainable motivation in individuals who do not demonstrate a propensity to

be highly motivated toward language learning, and whether such can even be achieved by

any teaching approach whether it be utilitarian or based in the ideal self (Higgins 1987,

1996 as cited in Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005). Moreover, can more earnest promotion of

language be executed effectively while still honoring the aspect of individual choice as is

seen to be paramount to an almost unanimous majority? It seems unlikely that increased

and earlier promotion of foreign languages in the U.S. educational system could take

place without some level of institutional imposition. It is difficult to determine whether

strong sentiment against the imposition of language learning is a by-product of some

American cultural aspect, but one must imagine it as a possibility. The essence of

sentiments expressed by most respondents is best captured by the following:

I don’t think it is necessary for everyone to know more than one language. Would

it be nice? Of course. I think most of us Americans could use some knowledge of

other languages and cultures outside of our own. I think the most important thing

would be that everyone should know how to respectfully communicate with

someone no matter what language they speak. I think that if you’re an individual

who is frequently part of a community or group that speaks a language different

from your own that you should put some effort into learning that language. For

some people, that isn’t their reality, so learning a new language isn’t so practical.

I really think it’s a person to person decision. For some, it is probably best to

know more than one language. For others, it simply is irrelevant. (RESP217)

It was the intention of this study to capture thoughts such as this one to provide further

insight into the rationale and motives of adult individuals regarding foreign language

acquisition. The biggest suggestion the researcher has for those who wish to conduct

further study in this line of inquiry is that they spend more time conducting thorough

analysis of respondents’ answers to better reflect the nuance that is so inherent in human

thought.

SURVEY

*All coding commands omitted

Demographic Collection

Instruction: Please answer each question as it pertains to you.

How old are you?

• 18-24

• 25-31

• 32-38

• 39-45

• 46-50

• Over 50

Sex

• Male

• Female

• Prefer not to say

• Other:

Race/Ethnicity

• White

• Black

• Asian

• Pacific Islander

• Native-American

• Mixed race

• Other:

• Prefer not to say

Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

• Yes

• No

• Prefer not to say

Highest level of education achieved/completed

• High school GED

• High School Diploma

• Bachelor’s degree

• Master’s degree

• Doctorate/PhD

• Other:

• Prefer not to say

Please select what most accurately applies to you (to the greatest extent):

• I was born and raised in the U.S.

• I was born and raised outside the U.S.

• I was born outside the U.S. but raised in the U.S.

• I was born in the U.S. but raised outside the U.S.

• Other (please specify):

• Prefer not to say

Language Probe

How many languages do you speak?

• One

• Two or more

Which language do you speak?

• English

• Spanish

• French

• Tagalog

• Mandarin

• Vietnamese

• Cantonese

• Arabic

• Korean

• Russian

• German

• Italian

• Portuguese

• Other:

Which language(s) did you learn first?

Are you currently learning a foreign langauge?

• Yes

• No

Have you ever learned or attempted to learn a foreign language in the past?

• Yes

• No

Do your parents/guardians speak more than one language?

• Yes

• No

Which language do they speak? (For two or more selection: Which languages do they

speak Select all that apply)

• English

• Spanish

• French

• Tagalog

• Mandarin

• Vietnamese

• Cantonese

• Arabic

• Korean

• Russian

• German

• Italian

• Portuguese

• Other:

Likert scales (6 answer options: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree,

Somewhat Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree)

Postive

• People will respect me more if I know a foreign language. (Prompt #26 from

Acheson, et al., 2015, p. 217)

• Learning a foreign language is important for understanding a culture.

• Studying a foreign language will make me more knowledgeable. (Prompt #45

from Acheson, et al, 2015, p. 217)

• Studying/knowing a foreign langauge will make me more useful.

• More opportunities are available to those who study/know foreign languages.

Neutral

• I have capabilities for learning a foreign language.

• Anyone could learn a foreign language if they wanted to.

Negative

• I would rather spend my time on subjects other than languages. (Prompt #28 from

Acheson, et al., 2015, p. 217)

• I would not study a foreign language if it was not an academic or professional

requirement. (Prompt #36 from Acheson, et al., 2015, p. 217)

• Knowing a foreign language is not necessary for the type of lifestyle I live.

• People who know more than one language are better than those who only know

one.

Extended response [open box response answers]

Instructions

You will now see prior prompts to which you previously responded. You will have the

opportunity to elaborate and respond fully to each statement as you wish. Remember, all

answers are anonymous and/or confidential, therefore be sure to respond truthfully stating

what you think, any experiences, suggestions, etc. There will be a total of four

statements.

• People who know more than one language are better than those who only know

one (value; multilingual vs. monolingual)

• Anyone could learn a foreign language if they wanted to (ability/motivation)

• Studying/knowing a foreign langauge will make me more useful (utility)

• Every person should know more than one language (value)

Optional:

Based on the type of prompt you have encountered today, are there any other thoughts

and/or opinions you would like to express regarding foreign language?

Interview

OPTIONAL

If you are willing to be available for a potential interview asking to elaborate on your

responses, please consent below and provide the following contact information. Your

answers and information will remain confidential. Interviews will be conducted on a

rolling basis and should not last longer than 15-30 minutes.

*Selection is based on the discretion of the researcher. An interview is not guaranteed,

and you will not be obligated to participate if you do not wish.

• Yes, I would like to be interviewed about my answers

o Name:

o Phone number:

o Email:

• No, I do not want to be interviewed about my answers

LIKERT SCALE RESULT VISUALIZATIONS

Figure 2.1. Positive Likert Items—Monolingual

Figure 2.2. Positive Likert Items—Multilinguals

Figure 2.3. Neutral Likert Items—Monolingual

Figure 2.4. Neutral Likert Items—Multilinguals

Figure 2.5. Negative Likert Items—Monolinguals

Figure 2.6. Negative Likert Items—Multilinguals

CODE LISTS

1 "I Wish" Statements

Code List 1: S1MoreLanguageBetterThan

2.1 Theme #1: Attributive Distinction/Attributes

2.1.1 Cognitive Function

2.1.2 Understanding/Empathy

2.1.2.1 Openness

2.1.2.2 Appreciation

2.1.3 Knowledge/Knowledgeable

2.2 Theme #2: Motivation/Motivational distinctions

2.2.1 Necessity/Circumstance

2.2.1.1 Resources

2.3 Theme #3: Instrumental Aspect/Instrumentality

2.3.1 Helpful/Beneficial/Useful

2.3.1.1 Opportunities

2.3.1.1.1 Career Opportunities/Work-Related

2.3.1.1.2 Advantage

2.3.1.2 Travel

2.3.1.3 Skill/Skillset

2.3.1.4 Diversity Setting

2.4 Connection/Communication

Code List 2: S2AnyoneLearnLanguage

3.1 Statement 2 Personal Examples from Respondents

3.2 Theme #1: External Conditions

3.2.1 Environment

3.2.1.1 Application & Practice

3.2.2 Easier/Harder

3.2.2.1 Resources

3.2.2.1.1 Education

3.2.2.1.2 Technology

3.2.2.1.2.1 Internet/Online

3.2.2.1.2.1.1 Apps/(Duolingo)

3.2.2.2 Barriers

3.2.2.2.1 Disability

3.2.2.3 Age

3.3 Theme #2: Internal Conditions

3.3.1 Motivation

3.3.1.1 Patience

3.3.1.2 "Setting/Putting Your Mind/Body To"

3.3.1.3 Willingness/Openness

3.3.1.4 Desire

3.3.1.5 effort

3.3.1.6 discipline/commitment/dedication

3.3.1.7 time

Code List 3: S3LanguageMakesMeUseful

4.1 Theme: Instrumental Benefits

4.1.1 Communication & Connection

4.1.2 Helpful/Beneficial/Useful

4.1.2.1 Convenience

4.1.2.1.1 Travel

4.1.3 Process

4.1.3.1 Career/Work-Related

4.1.3.1.1 Translators/Interpreters

4.1.3.1.1.1 Spanish

4.1.3.1.1.1.1 Medical/Healthcare

4.1.3.1.1.1.2 Educator/Education

4.1.3.1.1.1.2.1 Esl/Ell

4.1.3.1.2 Business

4.1.3.2 Marketability & Versatility

4.1.3.3 Opportunities

4.1.3.4 Advantage

4.1.4 Context/Setting

4.1.4.1 Diversity & Demographics

4.1.4.2 Globalization/Global Factor

4.2 Statement 3 Personal Examples Respondents Mention

Code List 4: S4EveryoneShouldKnowLanguage

5.1 Theme #1: Benefits

5.1.1 Self-Development & Improvement

5.1.2 Jobs/Career/Opportunities

5.1.3 Culture

5.1.4 Global/Globalization

5.1.5 Communication & Connection

5.2 Theme #2: Situated Context (of sample population)

5.2.1 America/U.S./American

5.2.2 Education/Education System

5.2.3 Spanish & Asl

5.3 Theme #3: Ultimate Decision/Reality (Conclusion)

5.3.1 Conditional, "But" And "If" Statement

5.3.2 Helpful/Beneficial/Useful

5.3.3 Choice

5.3.4 Unlikely/Unrealistic

5.3.5 Ideal

5.3.6 No Mandate/Not Necessary/Etc.

5.4 Statement 4 Personal Connection

Code List 5: Q5FreeReponseOptional

6.1 Other Languages/Special Languages

6.2 English In The U.S

6.3 The Future

6.4 Personal Connection

6.5 Early Exposure/Exposure

6.5.1 Education/Early Education

6.6 Judgement

IRB APPROVAL LETTER

REFERENCES

Acheson, K., Nelson, M., & Luna, K. (2015). Measuring the impact of instruction in

intercultural communication on secondary Spanish learners’ attitudes and

motivation. Foreign Language Annals, 48(2), 203–217.

https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12132

Byers-Heinlein, K., Behrend, D. A., Said, L. M., Giris, H., & Poulin-Doubois, D. (2017).

Monolingual and bilingual children’s social preferences for monolingual and

bilingual speakers. Developmental Science, 20(4), n/a-N.PAG.

https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12392

Budiman, A. (2020). Key findings about U.S. immigrants. Retrieved from

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-

immigrants/

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing

among five approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching (3

ed.). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning motivation

and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The Modern

Language Journal, 89(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-

7902.2005.00263.x

Kubota, R. (2016). Neoliberal paradoxes of language learning: xenophobia and

international communication. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development, 37(5), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1071825

Lo Bianco, J. (2014). Domesticating the foreign: Globalization’s effects on the place/s of

languages. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 312–325.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12063.x

Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language

learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates.

Language Learning, 53(1), 167–210. https://doi-

org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/10.1111/1467-9922.00227

Merisuo-Storm, T. (2007). Pupils’ attitudes towards foreign-language learning and the

development of literacy skills in bilingual education. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 23(2), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.024

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching

ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Russel, B. D., & Kuriscak, L. M. (2015). High school Spanish teachers’ attitudes and

practices toward Spanish heritage language learners. Foreign Language Annals,

48(3), 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12145

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angles; London:

SAGE Publications.

Ushioda, E. (2017). The impact of global English on motivation to learn other languages:

Toward an ideal multilingual self. The Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 469–

482. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12413