INTRODUCTION

Multilingualism is a situation whereby more than two languages constitute the

linguistic repertoire of an individual or communities. Bilingualism on the other hand can also
mean to have linguistic competence in two languages when defined from a coordinate
bilingual perspective. However, the complexity of multilingualism, influenced by varying
sociolinguistic variables, necessitates its measurement owing to the submission of scholars
that speaking two or more languages is not synonymous to linguistic competence. This allows
for further refinement in the actual description to cover different levels of communal use of
the various languages.

Bilingualism/Multilingualism has been more of a societal phenomenon. It is

discovered that majority of the nations of the world are multilingual/bilingual. Nigeria is a
good example of a multilingual nation because, according to Ethnology, she has more than
500 languages. A multilingual individual may not be absolutely competent in all the
languages he/she might have acquired either simultaneously or successively. A basic
difference between bilingualism and multilingualism is evident in the distinction between the
individual and societal levels of bi/multilingualism. At the individual level, bilingualism and
multilingualism refer to the speaker’s competence/proficiency in the use two or more
languages. At the individual level, multilingualism is generally subsumed under
“bilingualism” because it is perceived that not many of the people in the world are competent
and habitually multilingual or use more than two languages. At the societal level the terms
bilingualism and multilingualism refer to the use of two or more languages in a speech
community. It does not imply that all the speakers in that community are competent in more
than one language.

The current study is designed to measure the extent of bi/multilingualism in Obafemi

Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, in Osun state, Nigeria. It is necessary to mention that despite
the community (institution) studied being officially monolingual, there is still a
bi/multilingual community existing within the larger community of the university. Of all the
departments in OAU, Language studies department can pass for a small community,
officially endorsed to instruct learners in several languages. If we must measure bilingualism
and multilingualism in OAU, then it is under casual interactional settings outside the lecture
room. Yet if in a formal situation, then it will result from the lack of a ready expression to
project the intended idea in the language of instruction, as evident in instances of code

1
switching during lessons. Or it will be in an effort to cite examples and make the discourse
more understandable. Hence, a demand is placed on the other language of the speaker, which
is widely intelligible.

The measurement of bilingualism and multilingualism in an educational institution as

this, will require an investigation into both individual and societal (community) bilingualism.
In relation to the language state of the OAU community, it can be said that the institution is
officially monolingual in a wider sense, considering English being the main official language
of instruction. Therefore it is necessary to examine the developmental trajectories, linguistic
proficiency, linguistic competence and the extent to which OAU students are bi/multilingual
in different domains.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The aim of the study is to examine the practical ways in which bi/multilingualism can be
measured in OAU.

The specific objectives of this research are to;

a) investigate how OAU students acquire their languages,

b) examine the extent to which OAU students are bilingual or multilingual,

c) examine their level of proficiency and competence in the acquired languages.

EXPECTED CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE

The study shall shed more light on the application of the instrument to be used in measuring
bi/multilingualism in relation to sociolinguistics. This study shall also shed more light on the
on sociolinguistics variables that come to play in the attainment of bilingualism such as age,
users, learning situation and domains of language use.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

There are several educational institutions in Nigeria. However, in scope, this work will focus
only on the measurement of bilingualism and multilingualism in Obafemi Awolowo
University, in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. This study is limited to undergraduate and post graduate
students in Obafemi Awolowo University. The students are picked randomly in order to save
time in the collection and analysis of data. The student population forms the main focus of

2
this investigation, because the students constitute the largest population on the campus. Also,
the OAU is called a learning institution. Hence, the essence of the atmosphere in the named
tertiary institution revolves around the students, more than the other members of the
population.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The data for this study were gathered from undergraduate and postgraduate students in
Obafemi Awolowo University in Ile-Ife. The students were purposively selected at random to
reflect the extent to which OAU students are bilingual, in order to give genuine information
as regard the research.

Questionnaires designed in accordance with the instrument used by sociolinguists to measure

bi/multilingualism, were administered to thirty students; Fifteen to undergraduate students
and fifteen to postgraduate student so as to investigate the effect of bilingualism and
multilingualism on language users in this institution and to determine the number of language
systems available, through which individuals in a tertiary institution as OAU express their
ideas, as determined by their level of competence as well as the context of use, that is under
(formal and informal) circumstances. Questionnaires were enough to get quality data from
the students because they were all proficient in English Language and were able to
understand the content of the questionnaire without the help of either translators or
interpreters. The questionnaires were administered by the researcher. The statistical analysis
of the collected data was done through the use of SPSS in order to have a valid representation
of data.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Language has an inexhaustible depth, which affords continuous research into its
nature, and the roles it plays in different aspects of life. Language is a core identifying feature
of human beings. It plays a very important role in the communicative venture of man. Robins
(1972) describes Language as

man’s ability to make noises with the vocal organs and marks a
paper or some other materials by means of which groups of people
speaking the same language are able to interact and cooperate as a
group.

3
 Bilingualism on one hand is defined by Lambert (1977) in Akindele and Adegbite
(1999) as the existence of two languages in the repertoire of an individual or a speech
community. It is a situation where an individual or a society uses two languages to
communicate. On the other hand, multilingualism according to Clyne (2003:301) can refer to
either the language use or the competence of an individual. It involves the use of more than
two languages by an individual or a community for the purpose of communication.

CONCEPTUALISING MEASUREMENT OF BILINGUALISM AND

MULTILINGUALISM

Determining the level to which a person or society is bilingual or multilingual has

been a rising and unresolved issue among scholars in a while. Concerns have been voiced out
as regard the possibility of having an exact measurement of the extent to which a person or
society is bilingual or multilingual. This is because the object of measurement is not well-
defined and the potential purpose of the measurement can be manifold. This is reflected in the
attempt to characterise different types of bilingualism, among which are ideal vs partial
bilingualism and coordinate vs subordinate bilingualism (Weinreich 1953), incipient
bilingualism (Diebold 1964), receptive bilingualism and semi-bilingualism (Hocket 1958).
While some of these terms refer to conditions of bilingualism (and multilingualism) that are
external to the bilingual individual or speech community, others are based on the assumption
that there are differences in the representation of the two languages in the speaker’s mind.

It is natural and meaningful to try to categorize the complexity of individual

differences in bilingualism (Bakers 2001). Bilinguals make better sense when we attempt to
measure and categorize them; we also make sense of our world by continual classification.
People are constantly compared and contrasted yet the simplification of categorization often
hides the subtle complexity of the reality of measuring bilinguals. The measurement of
bilinguals attempts to locate similarities, order and pattern (Bakers 2001). Hence there has
been no agreement on what exactly defines bilingualism and how bilingual competence can
be determined. Many researchers have decided to opt for Haugen’s (1953) ‘minimalist’
position, which suggests that the measurement of bilingualism and multilingualism requires
that the notion ‘language’ be made to operate at the phonological, lexical, semantic,
morphological, syntactic, discourse and interactional levels, in a way that is feasible.
However, there is presently no generally acceptable theory of language that integrates these
aspects and can readily be operational for a given set of two or more languages. Thus,

4
linguists have developed indirect, yet global approaches to the measurement of linguistic
abilities such as proficiency rating scales, having observed the loophole in the minimalist
approach. Fishman (1965) posits that the performance of any individual will vary not only
from language to language, but also according to who they are talking or listening to, what
they are reading and writing and where they are at the time. Therefore, several suggestions
have been made in different language-related fields on what to look out for in the
measurement of bilingualism and multilingualism. Among these are the sociolinguistics,
linguistics, education and psychology/psycholinguistics.

Attempts have been made to measure bilingualism and multilingualism with different
approaches, which can be examined within certain language-related fields, as extensively
discussed by Pienemann and Kebleris (n.d.). Sociolinguists have sought to answer the
question “who speaks what language to whom?” (Fishman 1965). In the bilingual context
therefore, they study such fundamental notions as ‘code-switching’ and ‘domain’ as well as
attitudinal and political factors in the choice of language. That is, they investigate bilingual
language use and its relationship to factors in the society. Questionnaires for the collection of
census data have constituted a key instrument used by researchers. Questions such as ‘what is
your native language?’ or ‘which language do you speak at home’ are often asked. Prominent
scholars in this field are Clyne (1982) in Australia, Fishman (1971) and Haugen (1956) in
United States as well as Beardsmore (1982) and Romaine (1989) and Baker (2001), who
views the approach under the distributive purpose of measuring bilingualism. Government
and education authorities often rely on census data for provision of a reliable basis for
policies formation and decision making. However, the weakness of this perspective lies in the
fact that the notion of ‘native language’ is not clear; is it the strongest, most natural or most
preferred language of the respondent? Hence, it is based on the assumption that the questions
asked are not ambiguous or that the respondent has given the accurate response, which is not
always the case. This approach relates with the current study in the use of questionnaires and
an investigation into the native language of the respondent, as well as the domain of language
use.

Bakers (2001) recognised some selected purposes for the measurement of bilinguals,
which corresponds to the educational perspective on bilingualism. It focuses on the cognitive,
social and academic effect of bilingual programs and bilingualism in the society. Thus, it
entails the measurement of school performance (partly in relation to measures of
bilingualism), linguistic and cognitive development. Bilinguals therefore, can be

5
distinguished as a separate group for selection purposes. For example a school may decide to
allocate pupils into classes based on their bilingual proficiency or language background.
Some works in this perspective have focused on demonstrating that bilingual education is not
detrimental to academic achievement, to cognitive development and to bilingual language
acquisition, as seen in the works of Swain and Lapkin (1982), as well as Cummins (1976),
who made a case for bilingual programs as observed by Pienemann and Kebleris (n.d.). They
carried out educational studies in the context of the Canadian bilingual programs at the
Ontario Institute of Studies in Education (OISE). Rating scales and lexical richness
assessment are some tools used here. The present study relates to this perspective because it
concentrates on bilingualism in an academic setting.

The linguistic approach measures of bilingual development are based on corpora of

natural speech. This approach has proven that linguistic system used by a speech community
is neither static nor homogenous. The main objective of language acquisition research is to
explain how a learner moves from not knowing a language to near target-like use of the
language. Leopold (1939; 1947) is widely acclaimed for keeping a diary of the speech of his
German-English bilingual child. His main purpose was to ensure that the regularities inherent
in the child’s language are described in their own terms rather than in terms of the adult
language or merely in terms of the distance to the adult language.

The essence of the studies of bilingualism in psycholinguistics, as pointed out by Pienemann

and Kebleris (n.d.) is concerned with how languages are processed in one mind.
Psycholinguists have been concerned with which of the languages is ‘dominant’ in the mind
of the bilingual. Some of the measures of dominance that have been used in the past are
synonym tests, word naming, self-rating and fluency in picture naming. Arias et al (2005)
noted that dominance has been used with reference to two concepts which are; the preferred
use of one language by a bilingual individual; and the dominance of one grammatical system
over the other in the bilingual individual. They examined extensively a list of formal
measures of dominance and advocate a set of grammatical criteria that can be used in the
context of linguistic profiling.

Bakers (2001) has put these views together under the broad title, purpose of
measurement of bilingualism, where he identified such purposes as ‘distribution’ (using
census questionnaires to estimate the number, size, and distribution of bilinguals in a
particular area/speech community), selection (for categorisation), formative (use of

6
assessment device that gives feedback during learning or to aid further development) and
summative (usedto indicate the highest level attained by bilinguals in their language learning
journey).

The following are examples of measurement of bilinguals.

LANGUAGE BACKGROUND SCALES

Language background or functional bilingualism scales are self- rating scales. They endeavor
to measure actual use of two languages as opposed to proficiency (adapted from Baker,
2001).

Some questions about the language in which one talks to different people, and the
language in which certain people speak to one in different context were asked. However,
these scales have limitations. It is not exhaustive of targets (people) or of domains.

LANGUAGE BALANCE AND DOMINANT MEASURE

Psychometric tests are employed to measure language balance and dominance. For example:

 Speed of reaction in a word association task: This measures whether a bilingual can
give an association to stimulus words more quickly in one language than the other.
E.g., house, then measuring the time taken to produce an association, window, door,
and ceiling.

 Quantity of reactions to a word association task. Bilinguals are measured for the
number of association given within 1 minute when stimulus word, e.g., colour is
presented. An approximately equal number of responses might indicate a balance
between these two languages.

 Detection of words using both languages. Words in both languages are to be

extracted from a non-sense word such as DANSONODEND

 Amount of mixing two languages. The borrowing (interference) and switching (code
switching) from one language to another.

A major problem with such balance and dominance tests lies in the representativeness
of the measure of language proficiency and performance because such tests would appear to
tap only a small part of a much larger and more complex whole (language ability or language

7
use). This type of test covers only a small sample of language sub-skills. E.g., attributes of
individual from a wide definition of language.

COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TESTING

Shoham (1983) asserts that multiple choice language tests, dictations, reading comprehension
tests and spelling tests are all well- worn paths in the testing of language skills. Reducing
everyday language competence to test of specific skills is like measuring Michael Angelo’s
art solely by its range of colors.

A radical alternative is seeing how bilinguals perform in both languages in a range of

real communicative situations. Observing a bilingual in a shop, at home, at work, on the
street,in the restaurant, lecture room, hostels and during leisure activity might seem the ideal
way of measuring bilingual competence, though it is time based. To collect data that is
realistic and representative, we need to know how situations (domains) relate with one
another, that is, the use of language in different context.

Oral Interview is a test that attempts to approximate conditions. The example is the US
Foreign Service oral interview in four stages. The stages are: following a warm-up period, a
check on the level of language proficiency, a deeper probe of that level and finishing with a
wind-down. This takes about a half of an hour. The interviewers decide and score using
prescribed criterion. A person is assigned to a level ranging from 0 (no competence) to 5
(educated native speaker competence).

Therefore, it is necessary to measure bilinguals for clarification on language

competence, to stimulate our innate perspicacity on the popular assumption that one who
speaks two or more languages is competent in all. Measurement of bilingualism enables
classification according to the ability/proficiency in the languages.

8
 ANALYSIS

OBJECTIVE 1

This table shows the Percentage Distribution of how the languages are acquired by the
respondents.

When did you acquire Frequency percentage

the language

Early stage 28 93.3

Mid stage 2 6.7

How did you acquire the

languages you speak

Sequentially 11 36.7

simultaneously 19 63.3

Where did you acquire

your mother tongue

school enviroment 1 3.3

At home 26 86.7

Peer group 3 10.0

Where did you acquire

your second language

school environment 23 76.7

At home 6 20.0

Peer group 1 3.3

The table above represents the percentage distribution of how respondents acquire their
languages. The first aspect of the table shows when (the stage) the respondents acquire the
languages (mother tongue and second language). 93.3% respondents acquired the languages
at an early stage and 6.7% acquired the languages at the mid stage.Furthermore, the table also
reveals the percentage of how the languages are acquired (sequentially or simultaneously).
36.7% respondents acquired the language sequentially while 63.3% acquired the languages
simultaneously. This implies that most of the students in OAU acquire their languages at an

9
early stage simultaneously. Therefore, instructing students strictly in English language
without an occasional introduction of the mother tongue may deter the smooth learning
process.

Also, the table further reveals where the respondents acquired the mother tongue and second
language. 3.3% and 76.7% respondents acquired the mother tongue and second language
respectively in the school environment, 86.7% and 20.0% respondents acquire the mother
tongue and second language respectively at home, and 10.0% and 3.3% respondents acquired
the mother tongue and second language respectively through peer group.

This implies that most of OAU students acquired their mother tongue at home and
second language in the school environment. This can be represented in relation to the type of
bilingualism according to learning situation (formal and informal settings). Therefore it can
be deduced that they acquired their mother tongue in an informal setting and the second
language in a formal setting. This underscores the reason why students interact and are
instructed with the mother tongue in an informal setting and the English language in a formal
setting, such as a tertiary institution.

OBJECTIVE 2

This table shows the Percentage Distribution of how the languages are used in different
domains.

Always in Always in In English In English In

English Indigenous and more often indigenous
language Indigenous than language
language indigenous more often
equally language than
English
Immediate family 2(6.7%) 8(26.7%) 7(23.3%) 1(3.3%) 12(40.0%)
Friends in the classroom 8(26.7%) 1(3.3%) 10(33.3%) 8(26.7%) 3(10.0%)
Roommates 5(16.7%) 1(3.3%) 13(43.3%) 6(20.0%) 5(16.7%)
Lecturers 16(53.3% - 4(13.3%) 10(33.3%) -
)
Friends outside the school 7(23.3%) 6(20.0%) 9(30.0%) 2(6.7%) 6(20.0 %)
premises
Peers 9(30.0%) 1(3.3%) 14(46.7%) 1(3.3%) 3(10.0%)

10
The table above reveals the extent to which OAU students are bi/multilingual through the use
of their language different domains. When with immediate family 6.7% respondents always
speak English, 26.7% respondents always speak indigenous language, 23.3% respondents
speak in English and indigenous language equally, 3.3% respondents speak in English more
often than indigenous language and 40.0% respondents speak indigenous language than
English language.

The table reveals further the domain of roommates. 16.7% respondents always speak English,
3.3% respondents always speak indigenous language, 43.3% respondents speak in English
and indigenous language equally, 20.0% respondents speak in English more often than
indigenous language and 16.7% respondents speak indigenous language than English
language.

Furthermore, the use of language with the lecturers can be represented thus; 53.3%
respondents always speak English, 13.3% respondents speak in English and indigenous
language equally and 33.3% respondents speak in English more often than indigenous
language.

Also, the use of language with peers is represented thus; 30.0% respondents always speak
English, 3.3% respondents always speak indigenous language, 46.7% respondents speak in
English and indigenous language equally, 3.3% respondents speak in English more often than
indigenous language and 10.0% respondents speak indigenous language than English
language.

Furthermore, the use of language with friends in the classroom can be represented thus;
26.7% respondents always speak English, 3.3% respondents always speak indigenous
language, 33.3% respondents speak in English and indigenous language equally, 26.7%
respondents speak in English more often than indigenous language and 10.0% respondents
speak indigenous language than English language.

Finally at the domain outside the school premises is represented thus; 23.3% respondents
always speak English, 20.0% respondents always speak indigenous language, 30.0%
respondents speak in English and indigenous language equally, 6.7% respondents speak in
English more often than indigenous language and 20.0% respondents speak indigenous
language than English language.

11
The table reflects that the students can use the language in different domain can use their
acquired languages. They can alternate their acquired languages for semantic realities.

OBJECTIVE 3

The tables below represent the percentage distribution of the linguistic proficiency of the
respondents through the measurement of their language abilities.

How fluent are you in the following languages

FLUENT VERY NOT CONSIDERABLY

FLUENT FLUENT FLUENT
ENGLISH 20(66.7%) 6(20.0%) 1(3.3%) 13(10.0%)
YORUBA 9(30.0%) 15(50.0%) 3(10.0%) 2(6.7%)
HAUSA 1(3.3%) 1(3.3%) 10(33.3%) 12(40.0%)
IGBO 3(10.0%) 8(26.7%) 1(3.3%) 12(40.0%)

The table above represents the percentage distribution of how fluent the respondents are in
the languages they speak in order to measure their speaking skills. In the use of English
language, 66.7% 0f the respondents are fluent, 20.0% are very fluent, 3.3% are not fluent and
10.0% are considerably fluent. Also in the use of Yoruba, 30.0% 0f the respondents are
fluent, 50.0% are very fluent, 10.0% are not fluent and 6.7% are considerably fluent.
Furthermore, in the use of Hausa, 3.3% 0f the respondents are fluent, 3.3% are very fluent,
and 33.3% are not fluent. Finally, in the use of Igbo language, 10.0% 0f the respondents are
fluent, 26.7% are not fluent and 3.3% are considerably fluent.50% of the population of
students are very fluent in Yoruba language. The environment (being majorly dominated by
the Yorubas) can be said to be a determining factor here. Also, since as earlier stated, most
students acquired the L1 first, the Yoruba language becomes stronger in their repertoire.

To what extent can you write in these languages?

FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT

ENGLISH - 2(6.7%) 14(46.7%) 14(46.7%)

YORUBA 3(10.0%) 6(20.0%) 14(46.7%) 5(16.7%)

HAUSA 5(16.7%) - 1(3.3%) -

IGBO 6(20.0%) - - -

12
The table above represents the percentage distribution of the writing skill of the respondents
in the languages they speak in order to measure their writing skills. In the use of English
language, 6.7% 0f the respondents can write averagely, 46.7% of the respondents are good
and 46.7% of the respondents can write excellently. Also in the use of Yoruba, 10.0% of the
respondents can write fairly, 20.0% 0f the respondents can write averagely, 46.7% of the
respondents are good and 16.7% of the respondents can write excellently. Furthermore in the
use of Hausa, 16.7% of the respondents can write fairly and 3.3.7% of the respondents is
good. Finally in the use of Igbo language 20.0% of the respondents can write fairly in
language.

While 46.7% of the population can write excellently in English, only 16.7% can do
exactly the same in Yoruba, none can do that in Igbo and Hausa. The implication of this is
that the mother tongue is not given adequate developmental considerations in the educational
system of Nigeria.

To what extent do you understand these languages?

Fairly Averagely Comprehendible Perfectly

comprehendible comprehendible comprehendible

ENGLISH 1(3.3%) 3(10.0%) 14(46.7%) 12(40.0%)

YORUBA 2(6.7%) 2(6.7%) 10(33.3%) 15(50.0%)

HAUSA 7(23.3%) - - 1(3.3%)

IGBO 4(13.3%) 2(6.7%) 1(3.3%) 7(23.3%)

The table above represents the percentage distribution of the listening skill of the respondents
in the languages they speak in order to measure their listening skills. In the use of English
language, 3.3% 0f the respondents fairly comprehend, 10.0% of the respondents averagely
comprehend and 46.7% of the respondents comprehend and 40.0% of the respondents
perfectly comprehend. In the use of Yoruba, 6.7% 0f the respondents fairly comprehend,
6.7% of the respondents averagely comprehend and 33.3% of the respondents comprehend
and 50.0% of the respondents perfectly comprehend. Furthermore, in the use of Hausa, 23.3%
0f the respondents fairly comprehend and 3.3% of the respondents perfectly comprehend.
Finally, in the use of Igbo language, 13.3% 0f the respondents fairly comprehend, 6.7% of the
respondents averagely comprehend and 3.3% of the respondents comprehend. 50% and 40%

13
0f the population perfectly understand Yoruba and English language respectively. The
pedagogic implication of this is that a larger population of the OAU students in a class is well
suited for effective learning in lessons communicated purely in English.

To what extent can you read writings in these languages?

FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT

ENGLISH 1(3.3%) 1(3.3%) 10(33.3%) 18(60.0%)

YORUBA 3(10.0%) 5(16.7%) 10(33.3%) 9(30.0%)

HAUSA 5(16.7%) - 1(3.3%) -

IGBO 4(13.3%) - - -

The table above represents the percentage distribution of the reading skill of the respondents
in the languages they speak in order to measure their reading skills. In the use of English
language, 3.3% 0f the respondents can read fairly, 3.3% of the respondents can read
averagely, 33.3% of the respondents are good and 60.0% of the respondents can read
excellently. Also in the use of Yoruba, 10.0% of the respondents can read fairly, 16.7% 0f the
respondents can write averagely, 33.3% of the respondents are good and 30.0% of the
respondents can read excellently. Furthermore in the use of Hausa, 16.7% of the respondents
can read fairly and 3.3% of the respondents are good. Finally in the use of Igbo language
13.3% of the respondents can read fairly in language. It can be deduced from this table that
60% of the respondents can write fluently in English language. This proves that the
educational environment has influenced the writing skill which relates to their listening skill
(Whatever is heard should be graphically represented).

In conclusion, the above findings reveal that most of OAU students can be said to be
‘compound bilingual’ as they are able to use the codes available to them for the same
semantic reality. They acquired the languages simultaneously and under similar situations;
mother tongue at home and second language in school. Also, they fulfilled the criteria of the
language ability in their language which states that a multilingual person must be able to
communicate in more than one language, be it active (through speaking and writing) or
passive (through reading and listening).

14
 REFERENCES

Baker, C (2001). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon,

Multilingual Matter Ltd.

Clyne, M. (2003). Multilingualism. In Coulmas, F (ed.). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics.

United Kingdom, Blackwell Publishing.

15
Durk G.F.et.al. (2005). Benefits of linguistic diversity and multilingualism. Position Paper of
Research Task1.2. Cultural diversity as an asset for human welfare and
development. http://www.susdiv.org/uploadfiles/RT1.2_PP_Durk.

Femi, A. and Adegbite, W. (2005). The Sociology and Politics of English in Nigeria.
Ile-Ife, Obafemi Awolowo University Press.

Fishman, J. A. (1965). Who speaks what language to whom and when? La Linguistique.
2:67-8

Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behaviour.

Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hockett, C. F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York, Macmillan.

Pienemann, M. and Kebler, J. (n.d.). Measuring Bilingualism. https://books-google.com.ng.

Accessed August, 2015.

Robins, R. H. (1972). A Short History of Linguistics. London, Longman Publishers.

Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. The Hague, Mouton.

APPENDIX

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY

QUESTIONNAIRE

16
QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE MEASUREMENT OF BI/MULITILINGUALISM IN
OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, ILE-IFE, NIGERIA

Dear Student,

The questionnaire is designed to measure bi/multilingualism in Obafemi Awolowo

University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Kindly read the statements/questions below carefully and indicate
your answers to each question as it applies to you. All information given shall be treated
confidentially.

INSTRUCTION:

Please tick ( ) where applicable and fill in the required information where necessary.

STUDENT’S PERSONAL DATA.

Department: ………………………………………………………………………………

Level: …………………………………………………………………………………

Sex: Male ( ) Female ( )

Age Range: 15-20 ( ) 21-30 ( ) 31-40 ( ) 41-50 ( )

Educational status: Under-graduate ( ) Masters Student ( ) Doctorate student ( )

SECTION A

1) Which tribe do you belong to? a) Yoruba b) Igbo c) Hausa d) Others (Please
indicate). ………………………………………………………….

2) How many languages do you speak? (a)2 ( )(b) 3 ( ) (c) 4 and above ( )

3) Please underline which of the following languages you speak? (a) English (b)
French (c) Mandarin (Chinese language) (d) German (e) Yoruba/Hausa/Igbo
(f) Others (Please indicate.) …………………………….

4) Which of these languages was first acquired? Please indicate. …………………

5) When did you acquire these languages? (a) early stage( ) b) mid stage ( ) (c)
late stage ( )

6) How did you acquire the languages you speak? (a) Sequentially (one before
other) ( ) (b) simultaneously (side by side) ( )

7) Where did you acquire your mother tongue? (a) in school environment (b) at
home (c) in a peer group (d) on a visit somewhere

8) Where did you acquire your second language? (a) in school environment (b) at
home (c) in a peer group (d) on a visit somewhere

17
SECTION B

Here are some questions about the language in which you talk to different people, and the
language in which certain people speak to you. Please answer as honestly as possible. There
are no right or wrong answers. Leave an empty space if a question does not fit your position.

1) In which of the languages do you find more expressions for your thought?
(a) English ( ) (b) French ( ) (c) Mandarin (d) Hausa/Yoruba/Igbo ( ) (e) Others
(Please indicate) …………………………………………………

2) Which of the languages are you most comfortable with?

(a) English ( ) (b) French ( ) (c) Mandarin (d) Hausa/Yoruba/Igbo ( ) (e) Others
(Please indicate) …………………………………………………

3) With what language(s) are you instructed in your department? a) English ( )

(b) Others (Please indicate) ……………..………….., ………………………,
…………………………………..

Which language do you use in each of these domains? Choose one of these answers, please.

Always Always in In English In English In

in Indigenous and more often indigenous
English language Indigenou than language
s language indigenou more often
equally s language than
English

Immediate family

Other relative

Neighborhood

Friends in the
classroom

Roommates

Lecturers

Writing

Aged

Market place

Friends outside the

school premises

Disco/Party

18
 Peers

Travel

Correspondence

SECTION C

How fluent are you in the following languages

FLUENT VERY NOT CONSIDERABLY

FLUENT FLUENT FLUENT

ENGLISH

YORUBA

HAUSA

IGBO

GERMAN

CHINESE

OTHERS(INDICATE
)

To what extent can write in these languages?

FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT

ENGLISH
YORUBA
HAUSA
IGBO
GERMAN
CHINESE
OTHERS(INDICATE
)

To what extent do you understand these languages?

Fairly Averagely Comprehendi Perfectly

comprehendi comprehendi ble comprehendi
ble ble ble
ENGLISH

19
 YORUBA
HAUSA
IGBO
GERMAN
CHINESE
OTHERS(INDICA
TE)

To what extent can you read writings in these languages?

FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT

ENGLISH
YORUBA
HAUSA
IGBO
GERMAN
CHINESE
OTHERS(INDICATE
)

20