Validation of the self-report classification tool to determine language dominance in Kannada-English bilinguals

Chanchal Chaudhary; Gopee Krishnan

doi:10.12688/f1000research.149595.1

Home Browse Validation of the self-report classification tool to determine language...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Validation of the self-report classification tool to determine language dominance in Kannada-English bilinguals

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Chanchal Chaudhary^1,2, Gopee Krishnan ¹

PUBLISHED 10 Jun 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Speech and Hearing, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India
² Department of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India

Chanchal Chaudhary
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Gopee Krishnan
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway.

Abstract

Background

In recent times, the efforts to profile the language characteristics of bilinguals have been extended from mere documentation of proficiency in each language to the determination of language dominance that captures both proficiency and usage (i.e., frequency & contexts) of each language. In multilingual countries, individuals are immersed in various languages in different contexts. With the broader intention to improve the linguistic profiling of bilinguals in countries with similar characteristics, we aimed to adapt and validate the Self-report classification tool in Indian Kannada-English bilinguals.

Methods

A group of 88 adult Kannada-English bilingual participants self-rated their language proficiency. We measured their language dominance with the adapted tool. Finally, to objectively measure their language abilities, we used the short version of the Bilingual Aphasia Test.

Results

Discriminant analysis of the ratings showed that the self-report classification tool accurately classified our participants into three groups based on language dominance. Both the self-rating and the objective measure of language proficiency supported the (dominance) classifications by the adapted tool.

Conclusion

Findings show that the adapted self-report classification tool is valid for determining language dominance in Kannada-English bilinguals. Further, the current study shows that this tool is adaptable to novel bilingual language dyads.

Keywords

Bilingualism, Dominance, Proficiency, Self-report, dominance classification

Corresponding author: Gopee Krishnan

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2024 Chaudhary C and Krishnan G. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Chaudhary C and Krishnan G. Validation of the self-report classification tool to determine language dominance in Kannada-English bilinguals [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2024, 13:609 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149595.1) First published: 10 Jun 2024, 13:609 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149595.1) Latest published: 10 Jun 2024, 13:609 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149595.1)

Introduction

Bilinguals are one of the fastest-growing populations worldwide (Puebla et al., 2022; Shin, 2022), and their number is on the constant rise (Guo & Yao, 2022). With approximately half of the world’s population being bilingual (Grosjean, 1992, 2010; Romaine, 2012), bilingualism is becoming a norm (Marian et al., 2007). Being a bilingual has different definitions in the literature. Initially, early studies classified a bilingual as one with equal proficiency in two languages (Lambert et al., 1959). However, the current understanding defines a bilingual as an individual who possesses different levels of proficiency and exposure to two languages (Kremin & Byers-Heinlein, 2021). Bilinguals, being a significant proportion of the population, are employed in research across various disciplines (Gertken et al., 2014). Hence, in studies where the role of language may impact the outcome of research, it becomes essential to understand and thoroughly document the language characteristics of bilinguals (Vicente et al., 2019).

Language proficiency and language dominance are essential (Vicente et al., 2019), yet separable (Birdsong, 2014) constructs that should be assessed while recruiting bilinguals for research. Language proficiency denotes the “extent to which a bilingual’s skills in one or two languages meet the age-based native speaker” (Bedore et al., 2012) where a native language can be defined as the language that is acquired from a naturalistic exposure in early childhood (Rothman & Treffers-Daller, 2014). Proficiency also incorporates knowledge of the languages in terms of vocabulary, syntax, and semantics which can be assessed through several linguistic tasks such as vocabulary, oral comprehension, and reading fluency (Gullifer et al., 2020; Marian et al., 2007). As “language is not produced in a vacuum” (Baker, 2011), the structure of languages, their patterns, and contexts of usage all deem relevant measures of communication (Baker, 2011; Lim et al., 2008; Treffers-Daller, 2019) and hence the duration of exposure to languages and the context in which these languages are spoken influence the bilinguals’ proficiency in these languages.

In the past, subjective tools were the primary means to document language proficiency (Flege et al., 2002; Jia et al., 2006; Li et al., 2006; Marian et al., 2007). Some of these tools (e.g. Flege et al., 2002; Li et al., 2006; Vaid & Menon, 2000) collected language background history, where bilinguals reported information on the age of acquisition of languages, frequency of exposure to language, and usage of languages in different contexts. Other methods include the use of (a) standardized questionnaires (e.g., Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q), Marian et al., 2007), (b) vocabulary tests, or (c) naming or verbal fluency tasks (Haman et al., 2015; Milton & Alexiou, 2009). Though numerous studies use proficiency as the only construct, studies also show that language dominance factors can alter these proficiency measures. For example, rating lower proficiency for a language when it is used less frequently (Bruin, 2019).

Language dominance is a measurable construct that can be coherently determined by dimensions and domains of language (Birdsong, 2014; Treffers-Daller, 2019; Wang 2013). Dimensions of language are determined by competence in a language along with its production and processing, whereas domains of language refer to the context and use of language (Birdsong, 2014; Treffers-Daller, 2019). Studies that have measured language dominance in bilinguals report distinct aspects of bilingualism that are used to determine dominance. While two studies (Flege et al., 2002; Tsui et al., 2019) used self-rating of proficiency along with linguistic tests, others (Bilingual Language Profile: Bedore et al., 2012; Bilingual Dominance Scale: Dunn & Tree, 2009) determined dominance based on self-ratings of proficiency along with ratings on experience, attitude, and language use. Solís-Barroso and Stefanich (2019) compared some of the most used language dominance methods (Bedore et al., 2012; Dunn & Tree, 2009; Flege et al., 2002; Gertken et al., 2014) on Spanish-English bilinguals to determine whether these methods would yield same dominance classification in the participants. The results of the correlation analysis revealed some overlaps between the classification of participants using the Bilingual Language Profile (Bedore et al., 2012) and the Bilingual Dominance Scale (Dunn & Tree, 2009). Flege et al.’s (2002) method of determining dominance with the repetition tasks did not surface to be a good predictor of dominance. Though similarities existed, many bilinguals (20 out of 29) were incorrectly classified. It can be concluded that the currently existing methods for measuring language dominance are not unified and may not provide comparable results when used on the same population (Solís-Barroso & Stefanich, 2019; Birdsong, 2014; Flege et al., 2002). It is also possible that even if the same tool is used across studies, the information used in each tool would yield a different dominance classification in participants (Kremin & Byers-Heinlein, 2021). Hence, it becomes essential that the measurement of dominance in bilinguals uses some systematic guidelines that can be replicated across studies and populations (Lim et al., 2008).

Though English is not the primary language in many countries, it is used (i.e., spoken & written) essentially in formal and educational settings (Harris et al., 2006; Lim et al., 2008). Many individuals are, thus, exposed to a second (often, e.g., English) language from the commencement of their schooling. Similarly, in many multilingual South Asian countries like India and Singapore, individuals relocate to different states for employment purposes (Gullifer, 2020). In such scenarios, they either learn a new language or communicate in a common language. For instance, India is a linguistically diverse country (Upadhyay & Hasnain, 2017), and most states have unique languages. Migration from one state to another for education and employment is frequently observed (Treffers-Daller, 2019) which changes the language experience of such migrants (Bialystok, 2009; Lim et al., 2008). Many individuals experience multilingualism in such countries (Siemund et al., 2021) and necessitates documentation of these linguistic experiences systematically. The measurement method should include proficiency ratings that can be used in any language, as it is difficult to find standardized measures in multiple languages used in such countries (Arun et al., 2013; Lim et al., 2008).

Language dominance is an important construct for many researchers, academicians, and clinicians (Schmid & Yılmaz, 2018; Vicente et al., 2019). Considering the language status of Asian population, Lim et al. (2008) proposed a systematic way to determine and document the language dominance. Lim et al. (2008) systematically included dimensions and domains in their language dominance tool that categorizes a person as dominant in a language when he/she fulfils the proficiency criteria along with language frequency and domain. That is, a language is identified as dominant only when it is used frequently (spoken, heard, read, or written) and in a majority of environments (e.g., work, social, and home). For example, individuals were identified as dominant in a language when their proficiency rating in that language varied ‘significantly’ from another. In addition to this, the same language should be spoken and heard daily as well as be read or written at least weekly. Finally, for a language to be dominant, it needs to be used in a minimum of two of the following environments: work, social, and home. In bilinguals,’usage-based approaches’ along with proficiency ratings are recommended to determine language dominance (Birdsong, 2014; Treffers-Daller, 2019). As the language characteristics of the bilinguals used in the Lim et al. (2008) study are quite similar to those in India and many other Asian countries, this tool could serve as a sensitive measure of language dominance in Asian bilinguals. Further, it may be used to document language dominance in individuals speaking different language combinations in many multilingual and multicultural contexts. The non-reliance on any vocabulary, naming, or fluency tests to determine language dominance would greatly facilitate its usage in many languages that do not possess such tests. Thus, the study aimed to validate the self-report classification tool (Lim et al., 2008) in Kannada-English bilinguals.

Methods

The linguistic premise for the current study

We conducted this study in a district of a southern state in India. This is a multilingual district where three languages are spoken primarily by the local population (Kannada, Tulu, & Konkani). Kannada, being the official language of the state of Karnataka, is the common choice among native speakers of all three languages. As stated in the introduction, English is primarily introduced through formal academic means as the second language. The usage of English for communicative purposes in young and middle-aged adults is fostered by the presence of several educational institutions where national and international students pursue their education in this district.

Participants

Ethical approval (IEC 900/2018) was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee (Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital Institutional Ethics Committee) of the parent institute on December 11, 2018. All the participants signed a written consent form before participating in this study. We recruited 100 native Kannada speakers through word-of-mouth, these included university-going students, research scholars, and working professionals residing in the district. The participants were above 18 years of age and had exposure to English before seven years of age. All individuals that were recruited for the study had Kannada and English as their first or second language. None of them had a history or complaint of any communication/neurological disorder. Median age of all the participants was 22 (18,32) with 61 females [22(18,30)] and 27 males [22 (18,34)].

Materials

In this study, we used the self-report classification tool developed by Lim et al. (2008). With permission from the corresponding author (Dr. Lim, September 11, 2018), this tool (see Lim et al., 2008, pg. 405-410) was minimally modified to suit the linguistic premises of the current study. These changes comprised replacing “Mandarin” with “Kannada” throughout the questionnaire and changing school examination grades. It categorizes the language dominance of a bilingual using three sections: “language proficiency, frequency of language use, and domain of language use” in a self-reporting manner.

To measure the language performance objectively, pertinent sections from the short version (Krishnan & Mathew, 2017) of the Bilingual Aphasia Test (BAT: Paradis & Libben, 1987) were used in English and Kannada. The BAT was originally developed to assess language deficits in bilinguals with aphasia (Paradis & Libben, 1987). However, it is a cumbersome test battery that requires several hours to administer all subtests. In this context, several languages have short versions of BAT, following the recommendations of Paradis & Libben (1987), including Kannada (Krishnan & Mathew, 2017), one of the languages considered in this study. The short version includes five main categories from the original version, viz. auditory comprehension, reading, repetition, naming, and metalinguistic ability. We used this tool as it is validated in Kannada-English bilinguals (Krishnan & Mathew, 2017).

Procedure

The participants were provided with the printed form of the self-report classification tool. They were given two weeks to return the filled forms. We sent reminders every three days up till they returned filled forms or till the end of the response period. No participants were excluded during this phase, as we received the forms from all the participants. Among the 100 respondents, data from 12 participants were excluded due to incomplete information (e.g. not filling the age of exposure (n=7), incorrectly filling the domain of language use (n=5)).

The rating of language dominance rating procedure:

Language Proficiency: The participants self-rated their language proficiency in four sections, viz. understanding (U), speaking (S), reading(R), and writing (W), on a 7-point rating scale in both languages. In addition to the proficiency rating, the participants filled in information on their age of first exposure to both languages and the rankings (1 or 2) on the four sections mentioned above.

Frequency of language use: In this section, the participants indicated how frequently (i.e., every day, every week, every month, every year, or less than once/year) they heard, spoke, read, or wrote each of the two languages.

The Domain of language use: Here, the participants indicated their usage of the two languages across three domains: viz., home, work, and social.

Following this, to obtain the objective measure of language proficiency, we administered the short version (Krishnan & Mathew, 2017) of the BAT (Paradis & Libben, 1987) to the valid (n=88) respondents in Kannada and English. Participants were informed regarding the test time, and an appointment was scheduled within the same week of obtaining the filled form. We scheduled the time slots for test administration based on participants’ convenience. The test took approximately 50-60 minutes to administer.

Results

Participants’ Language Characteristics

The participants (n=88) were divided into three groups based on their dominance rating such as: a) English-dominant (ED: n=25), b) Kannada-dominant (KD: n=16), and c) balanced bilinguals (BB: n=47). The median age of the participants in each group, their age of exposure, duration of exposure, and years of formal education in Kannada and English languages, are given in Table 1. The median age of participants across the groups was comparable. All the participants in this study were exposed to Kannada before one year of age. The participants in the ED group were exposed to English at an earlier age than the KD and BB groups. The duration of exposure to both languages across the groups was comparable. However, the number of years of formal education varied between the groups. The participants in the KD and BB groups had similar years of formal education. Most of the individuals in the ED group reported a greater number of years of formal education in English compared to the other groups. This might be due to their early enrolment in the English medium of instruction.

Table 1. Median scores (and their inter-quartile range) of language characteristics across three language dominance groups.

Variables		Dominance	Median	Q1	Q3	Kruskal-Wallis H statistic	p-value
Age (in years)		ED	22	18	33	1.387	0.500
		KD	24	18	32
		BB	22	18	34
Age of exposure (in years)	Kannada	ED	.00	.00	1.00	0.65	0.721
		KD	.00	.00	.50
		BB	.00	.00	1.00
	English	ED	.00	.00	3.00	17.20	<0.001*
		KD	5.00	4.00	6.00
		BB	4.00	2.00	5.00
Language exposure (in years)	Kannada	ED	21.00	19.00	24.00	1.37	0.504
		KD	24.00	20.00	26.50
		BB	21.00	19.00	25.00
	English	ED	20.00	19.00	22.00	5.05	0.080
		KD	19.00	16.00	20.50
		BB	18.00	17.00	20.00
Formal instruction (in years)	Kannada	ED	10.00	.00	13.00	12.75	0.002
		KD	16.00	12.00	20.50
		BB	16.00	13.00	18.00
	English	ED	17.00	16.00	20.00	4.38	0.112
		KD	15.00	12.00	17.50
		BB	17.00	15.00	19.00

Linguistic proficiency

Subjectively, the participants self-rated their language proficiency on a seven-point rating scale (Lim et al., 2008). As an objective measure of the language proficiency, we administered the short version of bilingual aphasia test (Paradis & Libben, 1987) to the participants. The findings of both these measures are described below.

Self-reported language proficiency

The participants self-rated their proficiency in understanding, speaking, reading, and writing in both the languages on a seven-point rating scale. Following Lim et al. (2008), we categorized a language as dominant if it fulfilled two of the three following criteria: “a) the difference in total scores between the languages >0, b) the difference in the scores between the languages for understanding, speaking, or reading is > +1 or < -1, and c) the difference in the scores between the languages for understanding, speaking, or writing is > +1 or <-1.” In addition to these criteria, the dominant language had to be used frequently (Spoken or heard daily, along with either reading or writing weekly). Similarly, the dominant language should be used in at least two of the three environments (i.e., home, school/work, or social).

The visual inspection of the data showed that the ED group reported higher proficiency in English [24(23,27)] compared to Kannada [18(16,20)], and the KD group reported higher proficiency in Kannada [26(24.50, 27.50)] compared to English [19.50(17, 22)]. To determine if these scores were significantly different from each other, Kruskal-Wallis test was administered as the data followed a non-normal distribution. This test is a non-parametric test that compares medians of two or more groups. The balanced group participants reported similar proficiency ratings in both Kannada and English languages (p<0.001). On English proficiency scores, significant differences were observed between ED and KD groups (p<0.001) and KD and BB groups (p<0.001), however, no (significant) differences were found between ED and BB groups (p=0.11). On Kannada proficiency, KD and BB showed similar ratings (p=0.089), whereas significant differences were observed between ED and KD (p<0.001) and ED and BB groups (p<0.001).

Bilingual Aphasia Test scores

The scoring of BAT was done per the instructions provided by the test adapters. All correct responses were scored +1, and wrong/no responses were scored zero. Raw scores were calculated for BAT in English and Kannada by adding the respective subtest scores.

The Kruskal-Wallis test was administered to determine whether there was any significant difference in the average BAT scores in English among the three dominance groups (ED, KD, & BB) as data violated the normality assumption. Findings revealed a significant difference in the average BAT scores in English between different dominance groups (p<0.001). Similarly, the BAT scores in Kannada were compared among the three dominance groups (ED, KD, & BB) and were found to be significant (p<0.001) (see Table 2). Bonferroni adjustments were used to determine the difference between BAT scores in English and Kannada across three groups. Except for the Kannada BAT scores between KD and BB groups (p=0.075), all other groups showed significant differences in English and Kannada BAT scores.

Table 2. Bilingual Aphasia Test scores across three groups.

BAT scores	Pairs of dominance	Test Statistic	P value
Kannada	ED-KD	50.80	0.000*
	ED-BB	34.23	0.000*
	KD-BB	16.57	0.075
English	ED-KD	51.24	0.000*
	ED-BB	24.31	0.000*
	KD-BB	26.92	0.001*

Frequency and domain of language use

As the frequency and domain data were categorical, mode values were used for the analysis. For the frequency of language usage, similar modal values showed that all participants spoke and heard Kannada and English languages daily (mode=1). However, stark differences were seen in English and Kannada writing. Participants across all three groups rarely used Kannada for writing (KD and BB modal value=3; ED: modal value=5) compared to English (modal value=1). This is consistent with the participants having English as the medium of formal language instruction. However, the participants in the KD group read Kannada (modal value=1) more frequently than the ED and BB groups (mode value=2). In the domain of language use, all participants across the three groups used Kannada at home. The ED group used English at work and socially, whereas the other groups (KD & BB) used Kannada at work and in social settings. Invariably at work, most of the participants spoke in English.

Validation of the self-report classification tool

Akin to the original study (Lim et al., 2008) and other studies that classify bilinguals based on the language profile (Li et al., 2006; Schmid & Yılmaz, 2018), we used discriminant analysis to determine the accuracy of the classification tool to determine the language dominance of Kannada-English bilinguals recruited for this study. In data where dependent variable is categorical in nature (e.g., groups), discriminant analysis can be used to understand how the independent (or predictor) variables contribute to these categories. Further, such an analysis can determine whether significant differences exist in these categories based on the independent variables (Al-Karkhi & Alqaraghuli, 2019; Timm, 2002). Thus, the discriminant analysis may be used to predict the accuracy of classification. The discriminant analysis was performed by keeping language dominance (based on the classification tool) as the grouping variable and the independent variables were raw scores of language proficiency, frequency of language use, and domain of language use in both languages. The results showed an overall 88.6% classification rate, which was significant (p<0.001). The results are provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Result of discriminant analysis for language dominance classification.

Bilingual Aphasia Test score	Dominance	Median	Q1	Q3	Kruskal-Wallis H statistic	P value
Kannada	ED	278.00	276.00	285.00	45.59	<0.001*
	KD	308.00	305.50	312.00
	BB	300.00	291.00	306.00
English	ED	310.00	308.00	312.00	39.94	<0.001*
	KD	286.50	276.00	293.50
	BB	303.00	296.00	308.00

The discriminant analysis classified the three groups of participants as follows: the English-dominant group - 96% (24/25), the Kannada-dominant group - 69% (11/16), and the balanced bilingual group - 91.5% (43/47). To determine if the objective language test scores supported these classifications, scores of the Bilingual Aphasia Test in English and Kannada languages were compared across the groups. The measures used for the test were auditory comprehension, reading, repetition, naming, and metalinguistic ability in both languages. The participants in the BB group obtained identical scores in their performance in English [303(296-308)] and Kannada [303(291-306)]. Participants in the English-dominant group obtained higher scores in English [310(308-312)] compared to Kannada [278(276-285)], whereas those in the Kannada-dominant group obtained higher scores in Kannada [308(305-312)] compared to English [286(276-293)].

Discussion

Across the world, the linguistic background of the bilingual population is constantly changing due to the increase of such population (Vicente et al., 2019) and migrations (Moyer & Rojo, 2007). In many countries, bilingualism is becoming a norm rather than an exception (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2020). The effect of this increase is more apparent in multilingual Asian countries where English is becoming the language of instruction from an early stage of academic training and subsequent as well as for employment (Bhattacharya & Chandrasekhar, 2020). To quantify the language abilities of bilinguals, objective measures/tools are needed. Language dominance has gained the attention of several researchers across the globe as this construct takes into account the frequency and domains of language use in bilinguals. In today’s world, bilinguals are immersed in different linguistic environments throughout their day, which requires the usage of different languages in different contexts (Romaine, 2012). Hence, dominance becomes a more relevant measure to document the language profile of bilinguals.

The current study was an attempt to validate the self-report classification tool (Lim et al., 2008) to determine language dominance for use in an Indian population. With permission from the original authors, we (minimally) modified the tool to suit the linguistic premises of the current study. Subsequently, we administered this tool to 88 Kannada-English bilingual adults to examine its suitability to determine the language dominance in these bilinguals. We chose this tool for our participants as the language characteristics in India resemble to that of the participants recruited to the original study (Mandarin-English bilinguals residing in Singapore). Further, we used a similar analysis by Lim et al. (2008) to examine if the results could be replicated. Findings from the discriminant analysis showed that the tool was able to classify the Kannada-English bilinguals used in our study as English-dominant, Kannada-dominant, and balanced bilinguals with an overall correct classification score of 88.6% that was found to be significant (p<0.001). The self-ratings of proficiency, frequency of language use, and domain of use emerged as effective measures of dominance classification.

The Bilingual Aphasia Test (Paradis & Libben, 1987) scores supported the accuracy of the language dominance-based classification of our participants. In the Asian context, there is a generalized dearth of culturally and linguistically standardized tests to determine language abilities (Grosjean, 2010; Lim et al., 2008). We chose the Bilingual Aphasia Test as this test has been validated for use in the Indian population (Bhat & Chengappa, 2003; Krishnan & Mathew, 2017). In addition to these advantages, BAT in both languages has similar items and scoring that making it easier to administer and compare the scores between languages. The participants in the English-dominant and Kannada-dominant groups performed better in English and Kannada languages, respectively. The participants in the balanced bilingual group obtained similar scores in their Kannada and English language performance. Most of the comparisons between the Kannada and English Bilingual Aphasia Test scores showed significant differences across the three dominance groups, except for the Kannada scores of Kannada-dominant and balanced bilingual groups. This could have been due to certain similarities in the participants in terms of the usage of languages. Compared to the English-dominant group who used Kannada only at home, participants in the Kannada-dominant and balanced bilingual groups used Kannada at home and in their social circles. This finding is like the participants’ performance in Lim et al. (2008), where the receptive vocabulary scores (on the “Multilingual British Picture Vocabulary Scale”, Dunn et al., 1982) between Mandarin-dominant group and the balanced bilingual group were not distinguishable. Together, these findings highlight the similarities between the language profiles of bilinguals in different Asian countries.

Other factors like age of acquisition (Paap et al., 2014), formal years of instruction, and length of exposure to both languages did not support the language dominance findings. This shows that these factors may not play a vital role in differentiating the bilingual population in terms of their language dominance when the bilinguals are exposed to both languages early in their years (Bruin, 2019).

Findings from this study show that the self-report classification tool can serve as a potential tool to accurately classify the Kannada-English bilinguals into their language dominance groups. It is essential to have such a classification tool in multilingual Asian countries like India, where bilinguals are used for research routinely. Further, the current findings entail that this tool could be confidently used to determine the language dominance in bilingual participants from bi-multilingual contexts like the one in the current study.

Limitations

Kannada is spoken across the Karnataka state of India. However, the participants were recruited from a single district where the prominent bilingual dyad was Kannada-English. Though Kannada is the native language considered in this study, the dialectical variations of this language could not be addressed due to the sampling frame.

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval (IEC 900/2018) was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee (Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital Institutional Ethics Committee) of the parent institute on December 11, 2018.

All the participants signed a written consent form before participating in this study.

Data availability statement

Open Science Framework: Self-report classification tool data, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8Z79D (Krishnan & Chaudhary, 2024a).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Extended data

Open Science Framework: Extended Data_Self report classification tool questionnaire, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KZWHT (Krishnan & Chaudhary, 2024b).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Acknowledgments

We thank the authors of the original article, for permitting us to use the tool for this study and for providing clarifications whenever needed on the dominance determination criteria.

References

Al-Karkhi AF, Alqaraghuli WA: Applied statistics for environmental science with R. Elsevier; 2019.
Arun P, Chavan BS, Bhargava R, et al.: Prevalence of specific developmental disorder of scholastic skill in school students in Chandigarh, India. Indian J. Med. Res. 2013; 138(1): 89–98. PubMed Abstract
Baker C: Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual matters; 2011.
Bedore LM, Peña ED, Summers CL, et al.: The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish–English bilingual children. Biling. Lang. Congn. 2012; 15(3): 616–629. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Bhat S, Chengappa S: Code Switching in Normal and Aphasic Kannada-English Bilinguals.2003.
Bhattacharya L, Chandrasekhar S: India’s search for link language and progress towards bilingualism (No. 2020-015). Mumbai, India: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research; 2020.
Bialystok E: Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Biling. Lang. Congn. 2009; 12(1): 3–11. Publisher Full Text
Birdsong D: Dominance and age in bilingualism. Appl. Linguis. 2014; 35(4): 374–392. Publisher Full Text
De Bruin A: Not all bilinguals are the same: A call for more detailed assessments and descriptions of bilingual experiences. Behav. Sci. 2019; 9(3): 33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Dunn AL, Tree JEF: A quick, gradient bilingual dominance scale. Biling. Lang. Congn. 2009; 12(3): 273–289. Publisher Full Text
Dunn LM, Dunn LM, Whetton C: The British Picture Vocabulary Scale: Manual for the short and long forms. NFER-Nelson; 1982.
Flege JE, MacKay IR, Piske T: Assessing bilingual dominance. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2002; 23(4): 567–598. Publisher Full Text
Gertken LM, Amengual M, Birdsong D: Assessing language dominance with the bilingual language profile. Measuring L2 proficiency. Perspectives from SLA. 2014; 208: 225.
Grosjean F: Another view of bilingualism. Adv. Psychol. 1992; 83: 51–62. Publisher Full Text
Grosjean F: Bilingualism, biculturalism, and deafness. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2010; 13(2): 133–145. Publisher Full Text
Gullifer JW, Kousaie S, Gilbert AC, et al.: Bilingual language experience as a multidimensional spectrum: Associations with objective and subjective language proficiency. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2020; 42(2): 245–278. Publisher Full Text
Guo W, Yao S: Cognitive Benefits of Being Bilingual for Young Children: A Literature Review. 2021 International Conference on Social Development and Media Communication (SDMC 2021). Atlantis Press; 2022, January; pp. 654–660.
Haman E, Łuniewska M, Pomiechowska B: Designing cross-linguistic lexical tasks (CLTs) for bilingual preschool children. Assessing multilingual children: Disentangling bilingualism from language impairment. 2015; pp. 196–240. Publisher Full Text
Harris CL, Gleason JB, Aycicegi A: When is a first language more emotional? Psychophysiological evidence from bilingual speakers. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2006; 56: 257. Publisher Full Text
Jia G, Kohnert K, Collado J, et al.: Action naming in Spanish and English by sequential bilingual children and adolescents.2006; 49(3): 588–602.
Kremin LV, Byers-Heinlein K: Why not both? Rethinking categorical and continuous approaches to bilingualism. Int. J. Biling. 2021; 25(6): 1560–1575. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Krishnan G, Chaudhary C: Self-report classification tool data.2024a. Publisher Full Text
Krishnan G, Chaudhary C: Extended Data.2024b, May 7. Publisher Full Text
Krishnan G, Mathew RE: Short version of the bilingual aphasia test in Malayalam. Ann. Indian Acad. Neurol. 2017; 20(3): 217–219. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Lambert WE, Havelka J, Gardner RC: Linguistic manifestations of bilingualism. Am. J. Psychol. 1959; 72(1): 77–82. Publisher Full Text
Li P, Sepanski S, Zhao X: Language history questionnaire: A web-based interface for bilingual research. Behav. Res. Methods. 2006; 38(2): 202–210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Lim VP, Liow SJR, Lincoln M, et al.: Determining language dominance in English–Mandarin bilinguals: Development of a self-report classification tool for clinical use. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2008; 29(3): 389–412. Publisher Full Text
Marian V, Blumenfeld HK, Kaushanskaya M: The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals.2007; 50(4): 940–967.
Milton J, Alexiou T: Vocabulary size and the common European framework of reference for languages. Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application. 2009; pp. 194–211. Publisher Full Text
Moyer MG, Rojo LM: Language, migration, and citizenship: New challenges in the regulation of bilingualism. Bilingualism: A social approach. 2007; pp. 137–160. Publisher Full Text
Paap KR, Johnson HA, Sawi O: Are bilingual advantages dependent upon specific tasks or specific bilingual experiences? J. Cogn. Psychol. 2014; 26(6): 615–639. Publisher Full Text
Paradis J, Libben G: The assessment of bilingual aphasia: the Bilingual Aphasia Test.1987.
Puebla C, Fievet T, Tsopanidi M, et al.: Mobile-assisted language learning in older adults: Chances and challenges. ReCALL. 2022; 34(2): 169–184. Publisher Full Text
Ramírez-Esparza N, García-Sierra A, Jiang S: The current standing of bilingualism in today’s globalized world: A socio-ecological perspective. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2020; 32: 124–128. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Romaine S: The bilingual and multilingual community. The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism. 2012; pp. 443–465. Publisher Full Text
Rothman J, Treffers-Daller J: A prolegomenon to the construct of the native speaker: Heritage speaker bilinguals are natives too!. Appl. Linguist. 2014; 35(1): 93–98. Publisher Full Text
Schmid MS, Yılmaz G: Predictors of language dominance: An integrated analysis of first language attrition and second language acquisition in late bilinguals. Front. Psychol. 2018; 9: 1306. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Shin JH: Adolescent Korean returnees’ perceptions of the change of language learning contexts as bilingual learners. Applied Linguistics Review. 2022.
Siemund P, Al-Issa A, Leimgruber JR: Multilingualism and the role of English in the United Arab Emirates. World Englishes. 2021; 40(2): 191–204. Publisher Full Text
Solís-Barroso C, Stefanich S: Measuring language dominance in early Spanish/English bilinguals. Languages. 2019; 4(3): 62. Publisher Full Text
Timm NH: Discriminant and classification analysis. Applied Multivariate Analysis. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag; 2002; pp. 419–444.
Treffers-Daller J: What defines language dominance in bilinguals? Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2019; 5: 375–393. Publisher Full Text
Tsui RKY, Tong X, Chan CSK: Impact of language dominance on phonetic transfer in Cantonese–English bilingual language switching. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2019; 40(1): 29–58. Publisher Full Text
Upadhyay RK, Hasnain SI: Linguistic diversity and biodiversity. Lingua. 2017; 195: 110–123. Publisher Full Text
Vaid J, Menon R: Correlates of bilinguals’ preferred language for mental computations. Spanish Appl. Linguist. 2000; 4(2): 325–342.
Vicente M, Calandruccio L, Miller MK, et al.: Language proficiency and dominance considerations when working with Spanish–English bilingual adults. Am. J. Audiol. 2019; 28(3): 724–729. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Wang X: Language dominance in translation priming: Evidence from balanced and unbalanced Chinese–English bilinguals. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2013; 66(4): 727–743. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 10 Jun 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Speech and Hearing, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India
² Department of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India

Chanchal Chaudhary
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Gopee Krishnan
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 10 Jun 2024, 13:609

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149595.1

Copyright

© 2024 Chaudhary C and Krishnan G. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Chaudhary C and Krishnan G. Validation of the self-report classification tool to determine language dominance in Kannada-English bilinguals [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2024, 13:609 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149595.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 10 Jun 2024

Views

8

Reviewer Report 18 Jul 2024

Brendan Stuart Weekes, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164076.r294865

There are two problems with this study that merit further discussion. First, the BAT is known to be quite limited in reliability and validity. I think it is necessary to explain how this tool was translated into Kannada. Specifically, data ... Continue reading

There are two problems with this study that merit further discussion. First, the BAT is known to be quite limited in reliability and validity. I think it is necessary to explain how this tool was translated into Kannada. Specifically, data on the reliability and validity of the translation for use with non-brain injured participants is essential (1). Second, there is general agreement among psycholinguists that naming objects is the gold standard for measuring proficiency in bilingual speakers. It is certainly a more reliable method and also ecologically valid. I recommend further work to examine the validity of the self rating instrument using an objective method of language proficiency. Another relevant point is the lack of methodological rationale and theoretical context provided for the research. I recommend Ramanujan and Weekes (Ref 1) 2)on proficiency measures in Hindi speakers as one possible solution.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Ramanujan K, Weekes B: Predictors of lexical retrieval in Hindi–English bilingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2020; 23 (2): 265-273 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Bilingualism

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

12

Reviewer Report 16 Jul 2024

Manaswita Dutta, Department of Speech & Hearing Sciences, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164076.r294862

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting work. The study aims to validate a self-report language dominance classification tool developed by Lim et al. (2008) for Kannada-English bilinguals in India. While the study is well-executed, the manuscript would ... Continue reading

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting work. The study aims to validate a self-report language dominance classification tool developed by Lim et al. (2008) for Kannada-English bilinguals in India. While the study is well-executed, the manuscript would benefit from further revisions. Specifically, it is recommended that the introduction be expanded to provide a more comprehensive overview of the existing literature. Additionally, more details are needed in the methodology and results section to enhance clarity and ensure replicability. Furthermore, in the discussion section, it would be helpful to explore how this classification tool could advance the field and its potential applications in clinical and research settings. It is also important to address the study's limitations in more detail. Please see below for my detailed comments/suggestions:

Abstract:
1. Please cite "the self-report classification tool" since it is the original measure you are referring to here. Or else it is not clear which tool you are referring to.

Introduction:
1. "Bilinguals, being a significant proportion of the population, are employed in research across various disciplines (Gertken et al., 2014)." -- such as? Which "various disciplines" are being to referred to here?
2. "While two studies (Flege et al., 2002; Tsui et al., 2019) used self-rating of proficiency along with linguistic tests, others (Bilingual Language Profile: Bedore et al., 2012; Bilingual Dominance Scale: Dunn & Tree, 2009) determined dominance based on self-ratings of proficiency along with ratings on experience, attitude, and language use. Solís-Barroso and Stefanich (2019) compared some of the most used language dominance methods (Bedore et al., 2012; Dunn & Tree, 2009; Flege et al., 2002; Gertken et al., 2014) on Spanish-English bilinguals to determine whether these methods would yield same dominance classification in the participants." -- this is a an awkward framing of the sentence. Please consider rephrasing. Also, when summarizing studies consider providing more information for the reader. For instance, what populations did Flege et al., 2002; Tsui et al., 2019) investigate? Do you mean all studies cited here were done on Spanish-English bilinguals?
3. "The results of the correlation analysis revealed some overlaps between the classification of participants using the Bilingual Language Profile (Bedore et al., 2012) and the Bilingual Dominance Scale (Dunn & Tree, 2009)." -- correlations among what variables. Please specify.
4. "Flege et al.’s (2002) method of determining dominance with the repetition tasks did not surface to be a good predictor of dominance." -- Please clarify for the reader what this "repetition tasks" entailed? Were these word repetition tasks or phrase level tasks? How would this help determine dominance?
5. "Though similarities existed, many bilinguals (20 out of 29) were incorrectly classified." -- You will need to add more information to clarify these findings for the reader. For instance, in this context, what does "though similarities existed" mean? When you say "bilinguals" what languages did they speak?
6. "It is also possible that even if the same tool is used across studies, the information used in each tool would yield a different dominance classification in participants (Kremin & Byers-Heinlein, 2021)." - Why is that? Please state the causes for these discrepancies clearly in the text.
7. Since you are talking about English in the preceding sentence, would it be better to say, "Many individuals are, thus, exposed to English (often as a second language) from the commencement of their schooling."?
8. "For example, individuals were identified as dominant in a language when their proficiency rating in that language varied ‘significantly’ from another. -- Please rephrase - isn't this obvious? How does this sentence add to the discussion?
9. "In addition to this, the same language should be spoken and heard daily as well as be read or written at least weekly. Finally, for a language to be dominant, it needs to be used in a minimum of two of the following environments: work, social, and home." -- This is similar to what you have said in the earlier sentence starting with "That is, a language is identified as dominant..." I recommend merging this and the previous sentence with the information you have provided before.
10. "As the language characteristics of the bilinguals used in the Lim et al. (2008) study are quite similar to those in India and many other Asian countries, this tool could serve as a sensitive measure of language dominance in Asian bilinguals." -- Not all Asian languages are similar to Indian languages structurally. So please specify the languages studied in the Lim et al. (2018) paper and elaborate on how you think there is similarity among Indian and these Asian languages. This is particularly helpful for readers who are not familiar with these Asian languages.
11. "the study aimed to validate the self-report classification tool (Lim et al., 2008) in Kannada-English bilinguals." -- Considering that your study leverages the tool developed by Lim et al. (2008), it would be important to provide more information on this tool for readers for purposes of clarity and replication. The information provided in its current form is bare minimum.
12. The rationale for the study needs to be stronger. It is not entirely clear in the manuscript how your study extends and adds to the existing literature. For instance, a discussion of tools that are commonly used in the Indian context is missing. What tools have been used in studies to evaluate Kannada-English speakers in prior studies (healthy aging and neurological impairments)? Furthermore, self-report tools have been used previously in Indian languages (e.g., Bilingual Dominance Scale by Dunn & Tree, 2009 (Ref 1) in Bose et al., 2022 (ref 2); Dutta et al., 2024(Ref 3) ; Patra A, et.al., 2020 (Ref 4) aphasia paper). Such studies are not represented in the authors' review of literature. Citing the existing studies, it would be helpful if you can highlight the shortcomings of these tools and how your validated tool would fill these empirical gaps.

Methods:
1. Consider adding some citations in the first paragraph where you introduce the language of Kannada to support your claims. Ethnography and Indian Census stats may be helpful here. Also, a brief description of the language structure (and how distinct it is from English) would be helpful. Again, this is helpful for readers unfamiliar with the languages.
2. Consider adding this adapted tool as an Appendix material just like Lim and colleagues did. It would be helpful to see how exactly the original tool was adapted for Kannada-English speakers?
3. Language was assessed using the BAT. Was any hearing/vision or cognitive screenings done to ensure participants were able to perform the study tasks appropriately? If so, please report this data.

Results: Well-summarized and appropriate statistical analyses conducted.
1. Table 1: Remind the readers the sample size in each subgroup.
2. Clarify to the reader how linguistic proficiency is different from self-reported language proficiency? Both are self-reported. Linguistic looks at overall proficiency vs. language proficiency looks at each language domain?
3. Multiple comparisons were carried out. Were the p-values corrected for in all analyses?
4. Please provide the total BAT scores for each subgroup in Table 2.
5. "The participants in the BB group obtained identical scores in their performance in English [303(296-308)] and Kannada [303(291-306)]. Participants in the English dominant group obtained higher scores in English [310(308-312)] compared to Kannada [278(276-285)], whereas those in the Kannada-dominant group obtained higher scores in Kannada [308(305-312)] compared to English [286(276-293)]." -- Are these median values and ranges? Please label the numeric data within the text.

Discussion:
1. Further discussion of the potential clinical and research implications of this validated tool is warranted. How does this validation extend the literature whereas other tools have been used in Indian languages? How does your study address the research gap?
2. Other limitations and potential directions that need to be addressed:
2.a. This tool its present form only be used with Kannada-English bilinguals; therefore there is a need for future research in other Indian languages.
2.b. Was power analysis done? If so, please report.
2.c. One of your subgroups (BB) had almost double the number of participants compared to the rest two subgroups. This could have potentially influenced the results and needs to be acknowledged in the limitations.

Minor comments:
1. "Many individuals experience multilingualism in such countries (Siemund et al., 2021) and necessitates documentation of these linguistic experiences systematically." -- it should be "this necessitates".
2. "Considering the language status of Asian population, Lim et al. (2008) proposed a systematic way to determine and document the language dominance." -- add "the" before Asian population.
3. "We administered the short version of bilingual aphasia test (Paradis & Libben, 1987) to the participants. -- Standardized test names should be in upper case (i.e., Bilingual Aphasia Test).

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. DUNN A, FOX TREE J: A quick, gradient Bilingual Dominance Scale*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2009; 12 (03). Publisher Full Text
2. Bose A, Dutta M, Dash N, Nandi R, et al.: Importance of Task Selection for Connected Speech Analysis in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease from an Ethnically Diverse Sample. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease. 2022; 87 (4): 1475-1481 Publisher Full Text
3. Dutta M, Mello TMD, Cheng Y, Dash NS, et al.: Universal and Language-Specific Connected Speech Characteristics of Bilingual Speakers With Alzheimer's Disease: Insights From Case Studies of Structurally Distinct Languages.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2024; 67 (4): 1143-1164 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Patra A, Bose A, Marinis T: Lexical and Cognitive Underpinnings of Verbal Fluency: Evidence from Bengali-English Bilingual Aphasia.Behav Sci (Basel). 2020; 10 (10). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Adult Neurogenic Communication Disorders, Bilingualism in healthy aging and neurological impairment.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

17

Reviewer Report 09 Jul 2024

Dr Vandana V P, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Aparna L V, Department of Speech Pathology & Audiology, National Institute of Mental Health & Neurosciences, Bangalore, India

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164076.r294859

The current study adapts and validates an existing self-report -based classification tool developed for language dominance. The authors used discriminant function analysis to determine the validity of the adapted tool, and they claim that it can accurately categorize dominant and ... Continue reading

The current study adapts and validates an existing self-report -based classification tool developed for language dominance. The authors used discriminant function analysis to determine the validity of the adapted tool, and they claim that it can accurately categorize dominant and balanced bilinguals, which is supported by an objective measure (Bilingual Aphasia test). It is crucial to determine language dominance while selecting the language of intervention in a bilingual context, such as India. Conducting objective measures to determine language dominance is time-consuming. Hence, self-reported questionnaires that include measures of proficiency, frequency, and language use context are quick, easy and more reliable.
Here are some comments and clarifications which will improvise the article.
Major:

The clinical application/ utility of the classification tool is majorly missing in this article. We would recommend you to highlight on the this.
For the initial recruitment of participants, what was the standard criteria/definition of bilinguals used by the researcher? Were these participants true bilinguals or did they know any more languages? If we consider the age and education of these participants, they all would have studied three languages in school. Further, the average scores on proficiency, frequency and domain (context of use) of the three language groups can be provided in a table format for the readers for better understanding (can be added within Table 1). Post hoc comparisons for proficiency, frequency and domain can also be added in the analysis.
Even though the rating and scoring for language proficiency is mentioned in the results section we would recommend you to include the rating and overall scoring in detail under the materials section.

The subheading “The rating of language dominance rating procedure” in the procedure section and the linguistic proficiency (under results section), first paragraph of Self-reported language proficiency (under results section) can be combined together and moved under the subheading of materials. This will bring clarity in how you have decided the language dominance and classified the participants before reading the results.

Please mention who administered Bilingual Aphasia Test and were they proficient in both the languages? English and Kannada versions of the test were conducted on the same day? Also, who divided the participants into subgroups based on the self-ratings? The one who analysed and classified them into ED, KD and BB and the one who administered Bilingual Aphasia Test were same?
Authors can add an example to explain how the decision of language dominance based on the score obtained in the self -report classification tool.
Authors have reported the overall 88.6% classification rate, which was significant (p<0.001). The classification rate for each subgroup would also provide some insights.

As mentioned in the article Table 3 is not providing the results of Discriminant Function analysis. This needs rectification.

The authors have done BAT separately to support the classification accuracy in the study. Was there any correlation done between total score obtained on proficiency, frequency and context of use with BAT total score?
Have the authors carried out any correlation between the age of exposure, years of language instructions, years of language exposure in the current study to say that these factors “may not play a vital role in differentiating the bilingual population in terms of their language dominance when the bilinguals are exposed to both languages early in their years” even in Indian context?

Minor:

The authors have provided the factors that are used to determine language dominance. It would be better to state a clear definition of language dominance and the distinction between language dominance and proficiency also in the introduction section.
It is written in the article that “Studies that have measured language dominance in bilinguals report distinct aspects of bilingualism that are used to determine dominance.” Please mention which studies they are referring to and what are the distinct aspect that they refer to.
“As the language characteristics of the bilinguals used in the Lim et al. (2008) study is quite similar to those in India and many other Asian countries, this tool could serve as a sensitive measure of language dominance in Asian bilinguals.” It is better to elaborate the similarities with respect to sociolinguistic environment in India and other Asian country you are referring to.
In your observation, was the highly proficient language and the dominant language were same for the participants included in the study? Does L1 and L2 differed among all the subgroups?
The self-report classification tool was only in English? Was it comprehensive to all participants (even Kannada dominant group)?

In the results “The balanced group participants reported similar proficiency ratings in both Kannada and English languages (p<0.001)”. when the groups perform similar there should not be any significance difference in scores. In that sense, p value you have mentioned seems incorrect. Please rectify.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 10 Jun 2024

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 1 10 Jun 24	read	read	read

Dr Vandana V P, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India

Aparna L V, National Institute of Mental Health & Neurosciences, Bangalore, India
Manaswita Dutta, Portland State University, Portland, USA
Brendan Stuart Weekes, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

18 Jul 2024 | for Version 1

Brendan Stuart Weekes, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

8 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

There are two problems with this study that merit further discussion. First, the BAT is known to be quite limited in reliability and validity. I think it is necessary to explain how this tool was translated into Kannada. Specifically, data on the reliability and validity of the translation for use with non-brain injured participants is essential (1). Second, there is general agreement among psycholinguists that naming objects is the gold standard for measuring proficiency in bilingual speakers. It is certainly a more reliable method and also ecologically valid. I recommend further work to examine the validity of the self rating instrument using an objective method of language proficiency. Another relevant point is the lack of methodological rationale and theoretical context provided for the research. I recommend Ramanujan and Weekes (Ref 1) 2)on proficiency measures in Hindi speakers as one possible solution.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Ramanujan K, Weekes B: Predictors of lexical retrieval in Hindi–English bilingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2020; 23 (2): 265-273 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Bilingualism

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

12 Views

16 Jul 2024 | for Version 1

Manaswita Dutta, Department of Speech & Hearing Sciences, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA

12 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting work. The study aims to validate a self-report language dominance classification tool developed by Lim et al. (2008) for Kannada-English bilinguals in India. While the study is well-executed, the manuscript would benefit from further revisions. Specifically, it is recommended that the introduction be expanded to provide a more comprehensive overview of the existing literature. Additionally, more details are needed in the methodology and results section to enhance clarity and ensure replicability. Furthermore, in the discussion section, it would be helpful to explore how this classification tool could advance the field and its potential applications in clinical and research settings. It is also important to address the study's limitations in more detail. Please see below for my detailed comments/suggestions:

Abstract:
1. Please cite "the self-report classification tool" since it is the original measure you are referring to here. Or else it is not clear which tool you are referring to.

Introduction:
1. "Bilinguals, being a significant proportion of the population, are employed in research across various disciplines (Gertken et al., 2014)." -- such as? Which "various disciplines" are being to referred to here?
2. "While two studies (Flege et al., 2002; Tsui et al., 2019) used self-rating of proficiency along with linguistic tests, others (Bilingual Language Profile: Bedore et al., 2012; Bilingual Dominance Scale: Dunn & Tree, 2009) determined dominance based on self-ratings of proficiency along with ratings on experience, attitude, and language use. Solís-Barroso and Stefanich (2019) compared some of the most used language dominance methods (Bedore et al., 2012; Dunn & Tree, 2009; Flege et al., 2002; Gertken et al., 2014) on Spanish-English bilinguals to determine whether these methods would yield same dominance classification in the participants." -- this is a an awkward framing of the sentence. Please consider rephrasing. Also, when summarizing studies consider providing more information for the reader. For instance, what populations did Flege et al., 2002; Tsui et al., 2019) investigate? Do you mean all studies cited here were done on Spanish-English bilinguals?
3. "The results of the correlation analysis revealed some overlaps between the classification of participants using the Bilingual Language Profile (Bedore et al., 2012) and the Bilingual Dominance Scale (Dunn & Tree, 2009)." -- correlations among what variables. Please specify.
4. "Flege et al.’s (2002) method of determining dominance with the repetition tasks did not surface to be a good predictor of dominance." -- Please clarify for the reader what this "repetition tasks" entailed? Were these word repetition tasks or phrase level tasks? How would this help determine dominance?
5. "Though similarities existed, many bilinguals (20 out of 29) were incorrectly classified." -- You will need to add more information to clarify these findings for the reader. For instance, in this context, what does "though similarities existed" mean? When you say "bilinguals" what languages did they speak?
6. "It is also possible that even if the same tool is used across studies, the information used in each tool would yield a different dominance classification in participants (Kremin & Byers-Heinlein, 2021)." - Why is that? Please state the causes for these discrepancies clearly in the text.
7. Since you are talking about English in the preceding sentence, would it be better to say, "Many individuals are, thus, exposed to English (often as a second language) from the commencement of their schooling."?
8. "For example, individuals were identified as dominant in a language when their proficiency rating in that language varied ‘significantly’ from another. -- Please rephrase - isn't this obvious? How does this sentence add to the discussion?
9. "In addition to this, the same language should be spoken and heard daily as well as be read or written at least weekly. Finally, for a language to be dominant, it needs to be used in a minimum of two of the following environments: work, social, and home." -- This is similar to what you have said in the earlier sentence starting with "That is, a language is identified as dominant..." I recommend merging this and the previous sentence with the information you have provided before.
10. "As the language characteristics of the bilinguals used in the Lim et al. (2008) study are quite similar to those in India and many other Asian countries, this tool could serve as a sensitive measure of language dominance in Asian bilinguals." -- Not all Asian languages are similar to Indian languages structurally. So please specify the languages studied in the Lim et al. (2018) paper and elaborate on how you think there is similarity among Indian and these Asian languages. This is particularly helpful for readers who are not familiar with these Asian languages.
11. "the study aimed to validate the self-report classification tool (Lim et al., 2008) in Kannada-English bilinguals." -- Considering that your study leverages the tool developed by Lim et al. (2008), it would be important to provide more information on this tool for readers for purposes of clarity and replication. The information provided in its current form is bare minimum.
12. The rationale for the study needs to be stronger. It is not entirely clear in the manuscript how your study extends and adds to the existing literature. For instance, a discussion of tools that are commonly used in the Indian context is missing. What tools have been used in studies to evaluate Kannada-English speakers in prior studies (healthy aging and neurological impairments)? Furthermore, self-report tools have been used previously in Indian languages (e.g., Bilingual Dominance Scale by Dunn & Tree, 2009 (Ref 1) in Bose et al., 2022 (ref 2); Dutta et al., 2024(Ref 3) ; Patra A, et.al., 2020 (Ref 4) aphasia paper). Such studies are not represented in the authors' review of literature. Citing the existing studies, it would be helpful if you can highlight the shortcomings of these tools and how your validated tool would fill these empirical gaps.

Methods:
1. Consider adding some citations in the first paragraph where you introduce the language of Kannada to support your claims. Ethnography and Indian Census stats may be helpful here. Also, a brief description of the language structure (and how distinct it is from English) would be helpful. Again, this is helpful for readers unfamiliar with the languages.
2. Consider adding this adapted tool as an Appendix material just like Lim and colleagues did. It would be helpful to see how exactly the original tool was adapted for Kannada-English speakers?
3. Language was assessed using the BAT. Was any hearing/vision or cognitive screenings done to ensure participants were able to perform the study tasks appropriately? If so, please report this data.

Results: Well-summarized and appropriate statistical analyses conducted.
1. Table 1: Remind the readers the sample size in each subgroup.
2. Clarify to the reader how linguistic proficiency is different from self-reported language proficiency? Both are self-reported. Linguistic looks at overall proficiency vs. language proficiency looks at each language domain?
3. Multiple comparisons were carried out. Were the p-values corrected for in all analyses?
4. Please provide the total BAT scores for each subgroup in Table 2.
5. "The participants in the BB group obtained identical scores in their performance in English [303(296-308)] and Kannada [303(291-306)]. Participants in the English dominant group obtained higher scores in English [310(308-312)] compared to Kannada [278(276-285)], whereas those in the Kannada-dominant group obtained higher scores in Kannada [308(305-312)] compared to English [286(276-293)]." -- Are these median values and ranges? Please label the numeric data within the text.

Discussion:
1. Further discussion of the potential clinical and research implications of this validated tool is warranted. How does this validation extend the literature whereas other tools have been used in Indian languages? How does your study address the research gap?
2. Other limitations and potential directions that need to be addressed:
2.a. This tool its present form only be used with Kannada-English bilinguals; therefore there is a need for future research in other Indian languages.
2.b. Was power analysis done? If so, please report.
2.c. One of your subgroups (BB) had almost double the number of participants compared to the rest two subgroups. This could have potentially influenced the results and needs to be acknowledged in the limitations.

Minor comments:
1. "Many individuals experience multilingualism in such countries (Siemund et al., 2021) and necessitates documentation of these linguistic experiences systematically." -- it should be "this necessitates".
2. "Considering the language status of Asian population, Lim et al. (2008) proposed a systematic way to determine and document the language dominance." -- add "the" before Asian population.
3. "We administered the short version of bilingual aphasia test (Paradis & Libben, 1987) to the participants. -- Standardized test names should be in upper case (i.e., Bilingual Aphasia Test).

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. DUNN A, FOX TREE J: A quick, gradient Bilingual Dominance Scale*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2009; 12 (03). Publisher Full Text
2. Bose A, Dutta M, Dash N, Nandi R, et al.: Importance of Task Selection for Connected Speech Analysis in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease from an Ethnically Diverse Sample. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease. 2022; 87 (4): 1475-1481 Publisher Full Text
3. Dutta M, Mello TMD, Cheng Y, Dash NS, et al.: Universal and Language-Specific Connected Speech Characteristics of Bilingual Speakers With Alzheimer's Disease: Insights From Case Studies of Structurally Distinct Languages.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2024; 67 (4): 1143-1164 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Patra A, Bose A, Marinis T: Lexical and Cognitive Underpinnings of Verbal Fluency: Evidence from Bengali-English Bilingual Aphasia.Behav Sci (Basel). 2020; 10 (10). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Adult Neurogenic Communication Disorders, Bilingualism in healthy aging and neurological impairment.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

09 Jul 2024 | for Version 1

Dr Vandana V P, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Aparna L V, Department of Speech Pathology & Audiology, National Institute of Mental Health & Neurosciences, Bangalore, India

17 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

The current study adapts and validates an existing self-report -based classification tool developed for language dominance. The authors used discriminant function analysis to determine the validity of the adapted tool, and they claim that it can accurately categorize dominant and balanced bilinguals, which is supported by an objective measure (Bilingual Aphasia test). It is crucial to determine language dominance while selecting the language of intervention in a bilingual context, such as India. Conducting objective measures to determine language dominance is time-consuming. Hence, self-reported questionnaires that include measures of proficiency, frequency, and language use context are quick, easy and more reliable.
Here are some comments and clarifications which will improvise the article.
Major:

The clinical application/ utility of the classification tool is majorly missing in this article. We would recommend you to highlight on the this.
For the initial recruitment of participants, what was the standard criteria/definition of bilinguals used by the researcher? Were these participants true bilinguals or did they know any more languages? If we consider the age and education of these participants, they all would have studied three languages in school. Further, the average scores on proficiency, frequency and domain (context of use) of the three language groups can be provided in a table format for the readers for better understanding (can be added within Table 1). Post hoc comparisons for proficiency, frequency and domain can also be added in the analysis.
Even though the rating and scoring for language proficiency is mentioned in the results section we would recommend you to include the rating and overall scoring in detail under the materials section.

The subheading “The rating of language dominance rating procedure” in the procedure section and the linguistic proficiency (under results section), first paragraph of Self-reported language proficiency (under results section) can be combined together and moved under the subheading of materials. This will bring clarity in how you have decided the language dominance and classified the participants before reading the results.

Please mention who administered Bilingual Aphasia Test and were they proficient in both the languages? English and Kannada versions of the test were conducted on the same day? Also, who divided the participants into subgroups based on the self-ratings? The one who analysed and classified them into ED, KD and BB and the one who administered Bilingual Aphasia Test were same?
Authors can add an example to explain how the decision of language dominance based on the score obtained in the self -report classification tool.
Authors have reported the overall 88.6% classification rate, which was significant (p<0.001). The classification rate for each subgroup would also provide some insights.

As mentioned in the article Table 3 is not providing the results of Discriminant Function analysis. This needs rectification.

The authors have done BAT separately to support the classification accuracy in the study. Was there any correlation done between total score obtained on proficiency, frequency and context of use with BAT total score?
Have the authors carried out any correlation between the age of exposure, years of language instructions, years of language exposure in the current study to say that these factors “may not play a vital role in differentiating the bilingual population in terms of their language dominance when the bilinguals are exposed to both languages early in their years” even in Indian context?

Minor:

The authors have provided the factors that are used to determine language dominance. It would be better to state a clear definition of language dominance and the distinction between language dominance and proficiency also in the introduction section.
It is written in the article that “Studies that have measured language dominance in bilinguals report distinct aspects of bilingualism that are used to determine dominance.” Please mention which studies they are referring to and what are the distinct aspect that they refer to.
“As the language characteristics of the bilinguals used in the Lim et al. (2008) study is quite similar to those in India and many other Asian countries, this tool could serve as a sensitive measure of language dominance in Asian bilinguals.” It is better to elaborate the similarities with respect to sociolinguistic environment in India and other Asian country you are referring to.
In your observation, was the highly proficient language and the dominant language were same for the participants included in the study? Does L1 and L2 differed among all the subgroups?
The self-report classification tool was only in English? Was it comprehensive to all participants (even Kannada dominant group)?

In the results “The balanced group participants reported similar proficiency ratings in both Kannada and English languages (p<0.001)”. when the groups perform similar there should not be any significance difference in scores. In that sense, p value you have mentioned seems incorrect. Please rectify.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] Al-Karkhi AF, Alqaraghuli WA: Applied statistics for environmental science with R. Elsevier; 2019.

[2] Arun P, Chavan BS, Bhargava R, et al.: Prevalence of specific developmental disorder of scholastic skill in school students in Chandigarh, India. Indian J. Med. Res. 2013; 138(1): 89–98. PubMed Abstract

[3] Baker C: Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual matters; 2011.

[4] Bedore LM, Peña ED, Summers CL, et al.: The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish–English bilingual children. Biling. Lang. Congn. 2012; 15(3): 616–629. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] Bhat S, Chengappa S: Code Switching in Normal and Aphasic Kannada-English Bilinguals.2003.

[6] Bhattacharya L, Chandrasekhar S: India’s search for link language and progress towards bilingualism (No. 2020-015). Mumbai, India: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research; 2020.

[7] Bialystok E: Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Biling. Lang. Congn. 2009; 12(1): 3–11. Publisher Full Text

[8] Birdsong D: Dominance and age in bilingualism. Appl. Linguis. 2014; 35(4): 374–392. Publisher Full Text

[9] De Bruin A: Not all bilinguals are the same: A call for more detailed assessments and descriptions of bilingual experiences. Behav. Sci. 2019; 9(3): 33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] Dunn AL, Tree JEF: A quick, gradient bilingual dominance scale. Biling. Lang. Congn. 2009; 12(3): 273–289. Publisher Full Text

[11] Dunn LM, Dunn LM, Whetton C: The British Picture Vocabulary Scale: Manual for the short and long forms. NFER-Nelson; 1982.

[12] Flege JE, MacKay IR, Piske T: Assessing bilingual dominance. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2002; 23(4): 567–598. Publisher Full Text

[13] Gertken LM, Amengual M, Birdsong D: Assessing language dominance with the bilingual language profile. Measuring L2 proficiency. Perspectives from SLA. 2014; 208: 225.

[14] Grosjean F: Another view of bilingualism. Adv. Psychol. 1992; 83: 51–62. Publisher Full Text

[15] Grosjean F: Bilingualism, biculturalism, and deafness. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2010; 13(2): 133–145. Publisher Full Text

[16] Gullifer JW, Kousaie S, Gilbert AC, et al.: Bilingual language experience as a multidimensional spectrum: Associations with objective and subjective language proficiency. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2020; 42(2): 245–278. Publisher Full Text

[17] Guo W, Yao S: Cognitive Benefits of Being Bilingual for Young Children: A Literature Review. 2021 International Conference on Social Development and Media Communication (SDMC 2021). Atlantis Press; 2022, January; pp. 654–660.

[18] Haman E, Łuniewska M, Pomiechowska B: Designing cross-linguistic lexical tasks (CLTs) for bilingual preschool children. Assessing multilingual children: Disentangling bilingualism from language impairment. 2015; pp. 196–240. Publisher Full Text

[19] Harris CL, Gleason JB, Aycicegi A: When is a first language more emotional? Psychophysiological evidence from bilingual speakers. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2006; 56: 257. Publisher Full Text

[20] Jia G, Kohnert K, Collado J, et al.: Action naming in Spanish and English by sequential bilingual children and adolescents.2006; 49(3): 588–602.

[21] Kremin LV, Byers-Heinlein K: Why not both? Rethinking categorical and continuous approaches to bilingualism. Int. J. Biling. 2021; 25(6): 1560–1575. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] Krishnan G, Chaudhary C: Self-report classification tool data.2024a. Publisher Full Text

[23] Krishnan G, Chaudhary C: Extended Data.2024b, May 7. Publisher Full Text

[24] Krishnan G, Mathew RE: Short version of the bilingual aphasia test in Malayalam. Ann. Indian Acad. Neurol. 2017; 20(3): 217–219. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] Lambert WE, Havelka J, Gardner RC: Linguistic manifestations of bilingualism. Am. J. Psychol. 1959; 72(1): 77–82. Publisher Full Text

[26] Li P, Sepanski S, Zhao X: Language history questionnaire: A web-based interface for bilingual research. Behav. Res. Methods. 2006; 38(2): 202–210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] Lim VP, Liow SJR, Lincoln M, et al.: Determining language dominance in English–Mandarin bilinguals: Development of a self-report classification tool for clinical use. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2008; 29(3): 389–412. Publisher Full Text

[28] Marian V, Blumenfeld HK, Kaushanskaya M: The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals.2007; 50(4): 940–967.

[29] Milton J, Alexiou T: Vocabulary size and the common European framework of reference for languages. Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application. 2009; pp. 194–211. Publisher Full Text

[30] Moyer MG, Rojo LM: Language, migration, and citizenship: New challenges in the regulation of bilingualism. Bilingualism: A social approach. 2007; pp. 137–160. Publisher Full Text

[31] Paap KR, Johnson HA, Sawi O: Are bilingual advantages dependent upon specific tasks or specific bilingual experiences? J. Cogn. Psychol. 2014; 26(6): 615–639. Publisher Full Text

[32] Paradis J, Libben G: The assessment of bilingual aphasia: the Bilingual Aphasia Test.1987.

[33] Puebla C, Fievet T, Tsopanidi M, et al.: Mobile-assisted language learning in older adults: Chances and challenges. ReCALL. 2022; 34(2): 169–184. Publisher Full Text

[34] Ramírez-Esparza N, García-Sierra A, Jiang S: The current standing of bilingualism in today’s globalized world: A socio-ecological perspective. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2020; 32: 124–128. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] Romaine S: The bilingual and multilingual community. The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism. 2012; pp. 443–465. Publisher Full Text

[36] Rothman J, Treffers-Daller J: A prolegomenon to the construct of the native speaker: Heritage speaker bilinguals are natives too!. Appl. Linguist. 2014; 35(1): 93–98. Publisher Full Text

[37] Schmid MS, Yılmaz G: Predictors of language dominance: An integrated analysis of first language attrition and second language acquisition in late bilinguals. Front. Psychol. 2018; 9: 1306. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[38] Shin JH: Adolescent Korean returnees’ perceptions of the change of language learning contexts as bilingual learners. Applied Linguistics Review. 2022.

[39] Siemund P, Al-Issa A, Leimgruber JR: Multilingualism and the role of English in the United Arab Emirates. World Englishes. 2021; 40(2): 191–204. Publisher Full Text

[40] Solís-Barroso C, Stefanich S: Measuring language dominance in early Spanish/English bilinguals. Languages. 2019; 4(3): 62. Publisher Full Text

[41] Timm NH: Discriminant and classification analysis. Applied Multivariate Analysis. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag; 2002; pp. 419–444.

[42] Treffers-Daller J: What defines language dominance in bilinguals? Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2019; 5: 375–393. Publisher Full Text

[43] Tsui RKY, Tong X, Chan CSK: Impact of language dominance on phonetic transfer in Cantonese–English bilingual language switching. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2019; 40(1): 29–58. Publisher Full Text

[44] Upadhyay RK, Hasnain SI: Linguistic diversity and biodiversity. Lingua. 2017; 195: 110–123. Publisher Full Text

[45] Vaid J, Menon R: Correlates of bilinguals’ preferred language for mental computations. Spanish Appl. Linguist. 2000; 4(2): 325–342.

[46] Vicente M, Calandruccio L, Miller MK, et al.: Language proficiency and dominance considerations when working with Spanish–English bilingual adults. Am. J. Audiol. 2019; 28(3): 724–729. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[47] Wang X: Language dominance in translation priming: Evidence from balanced and unbalanced Chinese–English bilinguals. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2013; 66(4): 727–743. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Validation of the self-report classification tool to determine language dominance in Kannada-English bilinguals

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

The linguistic premise for the current study

Participants

Materials

Procedure

Results

Participants’ Language Characteristics

Table 1. Median scores (and their inter-quartile range) of language characteristics across three language dominance groups.

Linguistic proficiency

Self-reported language proficiency

Bilingual Aphasia Test scores

Table 2. Bilingual Aphasia Test scores across three groups.

Frequency and domain of language use

Validation of the self-report classification tool

Table 3. Result of discriminant analysis for language dominance classification.

Discussion

Limitations

Data availability statement

Extended data

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated