4.3 Article

When a seven is not a seven: Self-ratings of bilingual language proficiency differ between and within language populations

Journal

BILINGUALISM-LANGUAGE AND COGNITION
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 516-536

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1366728918000421

Keywords

bilingualism; language dominance; self-ratings; MINT; Oral Proficiency Interview

Funding

  1. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [011492]
  2. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [050287, 051030, 079426]
  3. National Science Foundation [BCS1457159]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Self-ratings of language proficiency are ubiquitous in research on bilingualism, but little is known about their validity, especially when the same scale is used across different types of bilinguals. Self-ratings and picture naming data from 1044 Spanish-English and 519 Chinese-English bilinguals were analyzed in five between- and within-population comparisons. Chinese-English bilinguals scored more extremely than Spanish-English bilinguals, and in opposite directions at different endpoints of the self-ratings scale. Regrouping bilinguals by dominant language, instead of language membership, reduced discrepancies but significant group differences remained. Population differences appeared even in English, though this language is shared between populations. These results demonstrate significant problems with self-ratings, especially when comparing bilinguals of different language combinations; and subgroups of bilinguals who speak the same languages but vary in acquisition history and/or dominance. Objective proficiency measures (e.g., picture naming or proficiency interviews) are superior to self-ratings, to maximize classification accuracy and consistency across studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available