BILINGUALISM AND PERSONALITY TRAITS OF AB ENGLISH LANGUAGE

STUDIES LEARNERS: A CORRELATION

A Thesis Presented to the

Faculty of the Department of English Language Studies
College of Arts and Social Sciences
Tarlac State University

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Course Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Arts in English Language Studies

By:
KARL WENCY T. DELA PENA
BERYL KAY R. VALERIO
JOAN B. LAYUG

2022
ABSTRACT
Title: BILINGUALISM AND PERSONALITY TRAITS OF AB ENGLISH
LANGUAGE STUDIES LEARNERS: A CORRELATION
Researchers: Karl Wency T. Dela Pena
Beryl Kay R. Valerio
Joan B. Layug
Institution: English Language Studies Department
College of Arts and Social Sciences
Tarlac State University
Degree: Bachelor of Arts in English Language Studies

This study aimed to determine the relationship between bilingualism and personality

traits of the third and fourth year English Language Studies students at the College of

Arts and Social Sciences (CASS), Tarlac State University. The study addressed a

problem that has received insufficient attention in the field of personality traits research:

bilingualism as a predictor of bilingual personality in Filipino-English college student

bilinguals. The correlational research design was employed to determine the relationship

between the two variables. The researchers used a self-devised questionnaire, which was

validated by experts, to identify the levels of bilingualism among the respondents. To

determine the respondents’ personality traits, the researchers used the Big Five Inventory

self-report test administered to the target respondents. The researchers administered these

research instruments through online platforms to gather data from the respondents and

draw the implications of the results. These instruments were sent through Messenger and

MS Teams to the 62 respondents. The findings show that the more Agreeableness among

the Big Five personalities, the more bilingual language is used at Individual, Societal, and

School levels. Among the Big Five Personalities, the higher the Conscientiousness, the
more bilingual language is used at the Societal level. Furthermore, the results show that

the higher the Openness to experience, the more bilingual language is employed at the

Individual level.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The researchers would like to express their deep and sincere gratitude to those
who extended their invaluable guidance, efforts, time, and support to complete this
research paper. They are gratefully acknowledged and appreciated for making this study
a success.
To Dr. Brendalyn A. Manzano, dean of the College of Arts and Social Sciences,
for showing her support and guidance and by allowing us to conduct the research study to
accomplish this academic undertaking.
To Prof. Franchete Caingat, the Chairperson of the English Language Studies
Department under the College of Arts and Social Sciences, for teaching the researchers to
work hard and grasp to for aim a better outcome and great production. Her unending
support has always been their guide to overcoming the challenges they feel throughout
their study.
To Mr. David Lip, the researchers’ adviser, for imparting his assistance,
knowledge, time, effort, guidance, encouragement, and deep concern. The researchers are
very grateful and are very thankful for having him as their thesis adviser.
To Prof. JiYoung Lee, this study’s statistician, for bestowing the researchers
with her excellent statistical knowledge. Her effort to discuss the details of the research
helped them a lot, and her willingness and support to provide good results in this study
met the study’s completion.
To Ms. Lordelyn Pulmano, the researchers’ grammarian for sharing her
knowledge, assistance, and valuable time for patiently reviewing and evaluating their
manuscript, as well as assisting the researchers by making corrections, suggestions, and
comments on how to improve our research paper.
To Prof. Myrel Santiago Ph.D. (English Department professor at Tarlac State
University), Mr. Neptune C. Manalese Ph.D. (Principal at Burot Integrated School),
Mr. Howard Ronquillo (English Department lecturer at Tarlac State University), Prof.
JiYoung Lee (Department of English foreign language professor at Tarlac State
University), and Mr. Justine Red M. Versola (English Department lecturer at Tarlac
State University), the validators of the survey questionnaire used in this study, the
researchers are grateful for bestowing their time, effort, and their knowledge on
validating and improving the questionnaires.
This study would not have been possible for the AB English Language Studies
Students without their willingness and effort to answer the questionnaires. They served
as the soul of this study.
This thesis would have remained a dream to family and friends if it did not
motivate the researchers to finish this study. Their unconditional love and support served
as the light for the researchers in all desperate times. The researchers are grateful for
them.
Moreover, last but no means of being the least, to the Almighty God, the source
of life, strengths, wisdom, and knowledge, for giving the researchers an endless birth of
power while doing this study and, for His eternal and countless blessings, and the only
one who made all things possible.

DEDICATION

This humble work is dedicated to the Almighty God who

bestowed knowledge and strength to the researchers to accomplish this study.

To their parents and friends for giving unending support and motivation and for
believing them throughout working on it.

To all the people who will be greatly benefited from this study. Moreover, to ourselves,
for the hard work and the courage we have shown to accomplish this study.

Sincerely,
Karl Wency, Beryl and Joan
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

TITLE PAGE i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
DEDICATION v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
CHAPTER

1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND 1

Introduction 1
Statement of the Objectives 4
Hypothesis 5
Significance of the Study 6
Scope and Delimitation 8
Definition of Terms 9

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES 11

Related Literature and Studies 11
Bilingualism 11
Levels of Bilingualism 13
Personality 14
Theory of Personality 18
Bilingualism in Speaker’s Personality 19
Conceptual Framework 23

3. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH PROCEDURE 26

Research Design 26
Research Locale 27
Research Participants 27
Sampling Techniques 28
Research Instruments 28
Levels of Bilingualism 28
Big Five Inventory Test 29
Validity and Reliability 29
Method of Gathering and Data Research Procedure 30
Ethical Consideration 31
Statistical Treatment 31
 4. PRESENTATIONS, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 33
Descriptive Statistics of Level of Bilingualism 34
Individual 35
Family 37
Societal 39
School 41
Descriptive Statistics of the Big Five Personality 44
Extroversion 44
Agreeableness 45
Conscientiousness 47
Neuroticism 48
Openness to Experience 49
Correlational Analysis 50
Implications 53

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings 55
Conclusions 59
Recommendations 60

REFERENCE 62
APPENDICES 67
A Letter of Request to the Dean 67
B Letter of Request for the List of Enrollees 69
C Letter to the Respondents 71
D Letter to the validators 72
E Validation Rubrics 73
F Survey Questionnaire on Levels of Bilingualism 78
G Survey Questionnaire on Five Personality 80
CURRICULUM VITAE 82
FIGURES
1 Research Paradigm 25

Tables
1 Respondents’ General Characteristics
2 Descriptive Statistics of Individual Level
3 Descriptive Statistics of Societal Level
4 Descriptive Statistics of Family Level
5 Descriptive Statistics of School Level
6 Descriptive Statistics of Extroversion
7 Descriptive Statistics of Agreeableness
8 Descriptive Statistics of Conscientiousness
9 Descriptive Statistics of Neuroticism
10 Descriptive Statistics of Openness to Experience
11 Relationship between Bilingualism and Big Five Personality
 CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

People become bilingual if they grow up learning and using two languages

simultaneously. They are capable of switching between alternative interpretations

of events and feelings. Linguistic differences influence how speakers of the two

languages interpret events in their respective languages. Feelings likely shift

because of seeing how people respond in different languages. In addition to

mastering vocabulary and grammar rules, people who learn a second language can

tap into new aspects of their identity.

Language is more than just a means of communication; it influences how

people think, make decisions, interacts, and understand the world around them.

Many aspects of human life rely on language, including how thoughts, feelings,

and emotions are expressed and reflect distinct personality traits (Lucy, 2007).

Various languages may have different associations with personality, according to

Wilson (2008), signifying that other languages shape different personalities.

When switching languages, some people change their body language, facial

gestures, or tone. Individuals become more outspoken or involved in some

situations after switching languages, while others become quieter and remote.

Whatever path this transformation takes, there is little doubt that it will result in

an observable change in behavior.

Some bilinguals claim that speaking another language makes them "feel

like a different person," while others claim they use their varied personalities to

1
harness other languages (Pavlenko, 2006). This is related to the linguistic

relativity hypothesis proposed by linguists Edward Saphir and Benjamin Lee

Whorf, which proposes that the language one speaks influences the way the world

is perceived. This hypothesis relates language to thoughts and language patterns

in a cultural context. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, people who speak

different languages perceive the world differently.

Bilingual people are often bicultural (e.g., LaFromboise et al., 1993). A

cultural frameshift occurs when bilinguals go from one language to another,

which could explain the language-dependent changes in their personality.

Language has a more objective impact on bilinguals' personalities. According to

several studies, bilinguals have different personalities when speaking multiple

languages (Ramirez-Esparza et al., 2006).

Speaking two languages can result to having different personalities. Many

speakers have different personalities for each language they speak. Bilinguals

may regard themselves as other people when speaking a foreign language. This

paper will try to answer the question and put some light on the situation. This

research will go deeper into bilingualism and the speaker's personality. A

bilingual person can fluently speak one language but cannot fluently speak

another or utilizes one language at home and all other languages at work and

school. The questions "Who is bilingualism?" and "What is bilingualism?" are

difficult to answer. It is therefore vital to distinguish between bilingualism as a

person belonging to a person and bilingualism as a positive social group attribute

to recognize it appropriately.

2
 One way to determine the proper aspect of bilingualism is to look at it to

various degrees. It is because it occurs in a range of circumstances. The extent to

which a person's bilingualism would determine by their own bilingual and

bicultural growth and the scope of linguistic minority society and government

policy. Foreign schools provide bilingual education. It encompasses human rights,

the right to choose one's academic language, and one's own cultural identity

(McCarty, 2010).

Mackey (1962) indicated that bilingual nations have fewer bilingual

individuals than "unilingual" nations because the essential worries of bi-or

multilingual states are frequently the conservation and utilization of at least two

dialects inside a similar country rather than the advancement of bilingualism

among their residents.

The bilingual nations should distinguish between bilingualism as a social

or cultural peculiarity and bilingualism as a singular peculiarity. Bilingualism

creates because of broad language contact (contact between individuals who

convey in various dialects). There are multiple purposes behind sound

frameworks in different dialects to speak with each other. Some do it of their own

will, while others are constrained by the situation (Le Wei, 2006).

The researchers chose this study to see the relationship of bilingualism on

bilingual speakers, particularly AB ELS students' personalities when speaking in

different languages, regardless of whether the transition is from second to the first

language or first to the second language. Some bilinguals can learn a language's

3
 cultural behavior, such as when communicating in British English, anyone can

probably understand the pronunciation, tone, or slang of a word or speech.

Personality traits reflect people’s characteristic patterns of thoughts,

feelings, and behaviors. Personality traits imply consistency and stability—

someone who scores high on a specific trait like Extraversion is expected to be

sociable in different situations and over time. Thus, trait psychology rests on the

idea that people differ from one another in terms of where they stand on a set of

basic trait dimensions that persist over time and across situations (Diener and

Lucas, 2022). Being bilingual is a significant advantage for people because it

allows them to communicate in two languages, which will aid them in finding

global opportunities in the future. Some previous researchers concentrated on

describing the various personalities of bilinguals when switching between two

languages.

In line with this, the researchers conducted a study that goes deeper into

the bilingualism and personality traits of the speakers, as opposed to previous

researchers' studies. Learning to recognize the personalities of bilingual speakers

provided some insights into the development of bilingual speakers. This study

focused not only on describing the personality of bilinguals but also on

determining the relationship between bilingualism and the personality traits of AB

English students.

Statement of Objectives

4
 This research aimed to figure out the relationship between the

respondents’ levels of bilingualism and their personalities. Specifically, the study

achieved the following objectives:

1. Identify the respondents’ bilingualism levels in terms of:

1.1 Individual

1.2 Family

1.3 Societal and,

1.4 School

2. Describe the respondents’ personality traits in terms of:

1.1 Extraversion;

1.2 Agreeableness;

1.3 Conscientiousness;

1.4 Neuroticism; and,

1.5 Openness.

3. Determine the relationship between the respondents’ bilingualism and their personality

traits.

4. Provide implications to the AB English Language Studies Department.

Hypotheses

5
1. There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ bilingualism at the

individual level and their personality traits.

2. There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ bilingualism at the

societal level and their personality traits.

3. There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ bilingualism at the

family level and their personality traits.

4. There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ bilingualism and

personality traits at the school level.

6
Significance of the Study

This study is based on the hypothesis that the bilingualism development of

speakers affects the personalities of bilinguals (English-Filipino). Bilingual

speakers, students, the English department, instructors, parents, and future

researchers will benefit from this study.

To the Bilingual Speakers. Through this study, they will be aware of

their personalities when speaking in English-Filipino, regardless of whether the

transition is from a second to a first language or from first to a second. It may also

supply awareness among the community members about the diverse ways

bilingual speakers express their emotions, and it includes the cultural norms when

speaking the Second language.

To the English Department. The findings of this study will assist the

department in helping ELS students identify their levels of bilingualism and

personalities as bilinguals. These personality features prompt the department to

consider how students influence their personalities when speaking, discussing

(reporting), or even reciting in a second language in the classroom.

To the Students. The students would be able to comprehend their distinct

personalities when they use both languages, English and Filipino, with the help of

this study. Also, they would understand how they converse in a second language

without being concerned about their grammar or sentence structure.

To the Second Language Instructors. This research will help the

instructors in teaching a second language. Because this study also focused on the

7
effect of personalities on bilinguals, the instructors might encourage their students

to regulate their emotions (neuroticism) when speaking the second language

(English), as some students are apprehensive when speaking a second language.

To the Parents. This study will help parents determine the bilingualism

development of their children at different levels and their personalities as

bilinguals. These personality features prompt the parents to consider how their

children influence their personalities at home.

To the Future Researchers. They can use this study as a starting point

for more research and study in English development and Bilingualism and as a

guide to understanding bilinguals' personalities.

8
Scope and Delimitation

This study focused on figuring out the relationship between levels of

bilingualism and the personality of 3 rd year (3A) and 4th year AB ELS students

who are Filipino-English Bilingual speakers. The researchers identified the levels

of bilingualism of the students in terms of individual level, family level, societal

level, and school level. Furthermore, researchers investigated the personality of

bilingual students in terms of extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,

neuroticism, and openness to experience to find out the relationship between

bilingualism on the personality of bilingual students.

The researchers purposively selected participants with L1 as Filipino and

L2 as English. The respondents of this study are 3A 3 rd- third-year students and all

fourth-year students divided into two sections the A and B. They were taking up

AB English Language course from Tarlac State University's English Department

in the College of Arts and Social Sciences (CASS) located in San Vicente, Tarlac

City, Tarlac, Philippines.

The respondents answered the set of questionnaires through an online

survey using Google Forms. By using this strategy, the researchers found the

influence of bilingualism on the personality of 4th year English Language Studies

students. This study did not cover other problems that do not include bilingualism

and personality. Furthermore, other AB ELS students, including 1st year, 2 nd year,

and 3B from 3rd year, and students that are not Filipino-English bilinguals are not

within the scope of this research.

9
10
Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined conceptually and operationally to help a

better understanding of the study:

Bilingual. It refers to an individual who communicates in two languages.

Bilinguals are the participants in the study, specifically the 4 th year AB ELS

Students who consider themselves speakers and can use the English-Filipino as

first (Filipino) and second (English) language.

Bilingualism. It refers to the ability of an individual to communicate in

two languages. It can range from a primary degree of ability in two languages to

an advanced level of fluency that allows speakers to function and appear as native

speakers of both languages (Franson, 2009). Operationally, this is defined as 4th

year AB ELS students' ability to use two languages (English-Filipino).

Individual Level. It refers to one’s own bilingual and bicultural

development (McCarty, 2014) and is one of the elements of levels of bilingualism

to determine the levels of bilingualism of the participants.

Family Level. It refers to a bilingual child-raising (McCarty, 2014) and is

one of the elements of levels of bilingualism to determine the levels of

bilingualism of the participants.

Societal Level. It refers to the bilingual's cultural issues or government

policies towards minorities (McCarty, 2014). It is one of the elements of levels of

bilingualism to determine the levels of bilingualism of the participants.

11
 School Level. It refers to bilingual education (McCarty, 2014) and is one

of the elements of levels of bilingualism to determine the levels of bilingualism of

the participants.

Personality Traits. It refers to the aspects of the personality of an

individual that are relatively stable over time, differ across individuals, and are

relatively consistent over situations (Anusic and Schimmack, 2016).

Extroversion (E). It is the personality trait of bilinguals seeking

fulfillment from sources outside the self or community. It is one of the elements

of the Big Five and five-factor personality models will be used in the study.

Agreeableness (A). It refers to the personality of a bilingual that reflects

much to adjust their behavior to suit others. It is a dimension in the Big Five

personality model used in the study.

Conscientiousness (C). It refers to the personality trait characterized by

organization, purposeful action, and self-discipline—one of the elements in the

Big Five personality model used in the study.

Neuroticism (N). It refers to the personality trait of a bilingual being

emotional. It is operationally defined by items referring to self-consciousness

(Costa & McCrae, 1992). It is a dimension in the Big Five personality model used

in the study.

Openness to Experience (O). It refers to the personality trait of bilinguals

in seeking new experiences and intellectual pursuits (McCrae 1993; McCrae and

Costa 1997). It is a dimension in the Big Five personality model used in the study.

12
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents a comprehensive review of related literature and

studies that served as a reference frame for this study.

Bilinguals and multilinguals have access to linguistic resources in two or

more languages frequently. Emotions influence language usage, and the link

between language use and feelings can only describe as complex (Grosjean,

1982). This definition of Grosjean, 1982 helped understand bilingualism and its

relation to emotions that the researchers discussed in the present study.

Only limited research has investigated the impact of bilingualism-

multilingualism on personality. Ramirez-Esparza, Gosling, Benet-Martinez,

Potter, and Pennebaker's study used personality assessments to analyze changes in

participants between languages (2006). Spanish–English bilinguals in the United

States and Mexico were more extroverted, agreeable, and conscientious in English

than in Spanish, according to a study (2006) by Ramirez-Esparza, Gosling, Benet-

Martinez, Potter, and Pennebaker. The study employed personality tests to assess

changes in subjects across languages.

Bilingualism

Bilingualism can be defined as the skill and understanding of two

languages, with such people referred to as "balanced bilinguals" in particular

(Butler and Hakuta, 2006; Chin and Wigglesworth, 2007; Baker, 2011; Pavlenko

2012). Butler and Hakuta, Chin and Wigglesworth, Baker, and Pavlenko's

13
definition of bilingualism will gain knowledge in the present study because they

simply state that being a bilingual person must have skills and understanding of

the first and Second languages. Speaking two languages has a vital role in our

society.

Mackey (1962) described bilingualism as the use of two languages of a

person which assumes the existence of two different language communities and

not because of the presence of a bilingual community in which learning two

languages is not based on a bilingual community but based on two other

communities who speak two different languages.

The description of Mackey regarding Bilingualism is related to the study

because the author explains clearly that the two languages of a bilingual person

are learned and acquired through different communities. The respondents of the

present study may relate to this description. On the other hand, Titone (1972)

defines Bilingualism as an individual's ability to speak and learn a second

language by considering the structure and form of that language rather than

paraphrasing the first language that an individual has spoken and known since

early childhood.

Moreover, Hamers (1981) enumerated the two concepts of bilingualism;

the first is societal bilingualism which refers to the state of a linguistic community

in which two languages are in contact. The second is individual bilingualism, in

which a person has access to more than one linguistic code as a means of social

communication. The work of Hamers regarding two concepts of bilingualism

14
 were discussed in the present study in which the bilingual participant may be part

of these two concepts.

However, describing bilingualism is difficult because people of various

backgrounds, including the age of language acquisition, language skill, and

language use, can all be classified as bilingual (Franson, 2009). The majority of

individuals who speak another language are apparent, and as a result, there are

numerous types and levels of bilingual speakers. As a result, bilingualism or being

bilingual can no longer classify into a single category. Bilinguals' personality

development and self-perception could be influenced by diverse perceptions of

bilingualism (Braine, 1999). As a result, studies of bilingualism and bilingual

personality are essential components of this study.

McCarty (2014) defined bilingualism into four levels. First, the Individual

level states that the first language of a bilingual person acquired starting at birth is

also known as simultaneous bilingualism. In contrast, the second language starts

to learn after establishing the native language mindset, also known as sequential

bilingualism. Second, the family level is concerned with being bilingual when a

child acquired the first language and learned the second language of their parents

while raising their child. Third, the societal level means that a person becomes

bilingual due to the influences of one culture on another who speaks different

languages and dialects supported by government policies and laws. Lastly, at the

school level and academic level that Bilingual person learns both languages in the

school environment by teaching the languages of the teacher.

Levels of Bilingualism

15
 Both the levels and taxonomy of bilingualism have been utilized and improved

over the last 20 years, starting with a survey of language teachers to determine the scope

of bilingualism in Japan (McCarty, 1995). The taxonomy of bilingualism is a series by

Steve McCarty (2014). This series was written for the Child Research Net. This fourth

series presents a taxonomy of the various phenomena of bilingualism, with a view to how

it fills out the context of language teaching. A taxonomy is a classification like an

anatomy, except more summarized than detailed, and here the phenomena are sorted

according to levels of bilingualism.

The taxonomy begins by dividing bilingual phenomena into five levels,

the first four of which can be found in everyday life. These are the individual,

family, society, and school levels. This series of Steve McCarty's Taxonomy of

Bilingualism is relevant to the current study because, rather than just giving an

abstract idea of the concepts, it explains the concept of bilingualism and its levels,

which may aid readers in fully comprehending bilingual phenomena in their fuller

dimensionality.

Personality

What exactly is personality? According to Allport (1961, 1966), it is "the

set of emotional qualities, ways of thinking and acting, that distinguishes a person

from other individuals" (p.28). Even though most speakers have agreed that we

are all unique in our perspective’s way, how to evaluate the individual difference

between scientific methods is far more complex than we have imagined. An

individual's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are intertwined and form a single

personality; however, specific common patterns of things, feelings, and actions

16
can be seen between people, suggesting that our personalities have some

similarities with other individuals. The specific definition of Allport regarding

personality will help to have a piece of deep knowledge in the present study of the

researchers.

According to Ortega (2009, p.193), personality may be described as a

consistent set of attributes or qualities in a person, and moods are tied to cognitive

processing of emotion and predispositions learned via social experience.

Personality attributes models have been favored in SLA (second language

acquisition). Three models used in SLA can also be used in the personality of

bilinguals. The first is Eysenck's personality model, the most traditional model. It

focuses on disposition and comprises three traits: Extraversion, Neuroticism, and

Psychoticism.

The three characteristics are biologically based. Extraversion is linked to

cortical arousal, which can be evaluated through sweating or brain waves.

Psychoticism is associated with aggressivity and is indicated in testosterone

levels. Neuroticism is associated with a reaction to danger or reflected in

activation thresholds in certain brain sections, and it is assessed by heart rate,

blood pressure, cold hands or cold hands, and muscle tension. The model and its

instrument (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1964) have been practically and theoretically

verified. This model can be used to discover personality distinctions made in three

traits when it comes to bilingual people.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is the second model (Myers and

McCaulley, 1985). This paradigm focuses on the cognitive style of information

17
processing. Feeling/thinking, extraversion/introversion, perceiving/judging, and

intuiting/sensing are the four qualities with two opposing poles in this model. The

MBTI divides people into 16 personality types by integrating the four positive and

four negative poles of preferred responses to the world. The last model is the

Five-factor model of personality (FFM, also known as 'The Big Five'). Because it

successfully merged all earlier ones, this model has become the dominant current

model of personality. The NEO Five-Factor Inventory is often used to assess the

Big Five personality model (NEOFFI) (Costa and McCrae, 1992).

Although it was based on SLA, Ortega's (2009) article is relevant to the

study. Ortega's (2009, p 193-196) listed about three-model. These three models

can be used to define the personality differences of bilingual speakers; each model

has personality traits. However, the Big Five Model was used in this study since it

is a complete and comprehensive model of qualities that examined the personality

of bilinguals.

Everyone has a different personality which makes us unique as human

beings. Mayer (2007) proposed the central definition of personality as a system of

parts including motives, emotions, and the self in which organized development

occurs and is expressed through a person's actions. Mayer’s focus on the central

definition of personality is relevant to the study because participants' personalities

may relate to this definition. “On the other hand, according to Larsen and Buss

(2018), "personality is a stable, organized collection of psychological traits and

mechanisms of an individual that affect the interactions and adjustment to a

person's psychological, social, and environmental influences." Larsen and Buss’s

18
definitions are related to the study because the authors discussed how personality

works on a person.

Furthermore, personality is defined by Holzman (2020) as the way a

person acts, thinks, feels, and behaves, which embodies thoughts and feelings, and

expresses interactions with other people. Personal traits are both inherent

and acquired, which distinguish one person from another, as seen in people's

relationships with the environment and social group. Holzman said that

personality is connected to the present study because the author gave information

about a person's personality traits.

By examining the self-reports of multilingual or bilingual individuals,

Pavlenko (2006) linked the concepts of language and personality to emotions.

Dewaele and Pavlenko (2001–2003) drew on an extensive database collected by a

prior online poll/survey. This researcher gathered responses to the open-ended

question, "Do you sometimes feel like a different person when you use your other

languages?". They analyzed the responses of 1039 people worldwide and

discovered that 65 percent of them reacted affirmatively to the question. Pavlenko

then performed content analysis and categorized the self-reported causes of the

occurrence into four primary categories. Participants associated their feelings of

being a different person with each language's vocabulary features and cultural

distinctions, various acquisition contexts, emotionality associated with each

language, and language competency.

Dewaele and Pavlenko are related to the present study because the

researchers tackled the relation of language in the personality of bilingual

19
 speakers, particularly the emotions when using other languages. One way

to understand how a speaker's personality changes when speaking in a different

language is by applying the concept of Cultural frameshifting (CFS), as defined

by Hong, Morris, Chiu, and Benet-Martinez (2000). CFS explains why a

bilingual person would score completely differently on personality tests or feel

like a different person when switching languages, based on diverse cultural

norms, leading to changes in personality, behavior, or consciousness.

This impact was demonstrated in Hong's (2000) research, later replicated

by Benet-Matinez, Leu, Lee, and Morris (2002). Hong, Morris, Chiu, and Benet-

Martinez’s claim is vital to the present study because it talks about the personality

changes of a person when switching different languages based on Cultural Frame

Switching that will discuss in the present study.

Otherwise, Chen and Bond (2010) used descriptive studies and self-reports

on the Big Five Inventory (BFI) to track personality in the five dimensions:

extraversion, openness, tolerance, conscientiousness, and neuroticism to

investigate the effect of CFS on the personality of bilingual Hong Kong Chinese.

The perceived cultural norms of the individual most related to the language used

had a significant impact on various personality traits, Chen and Bond (2010)

found. Participants perceived themselves to be more open-minded, open, and

confident when talking in English. The use of self-reports on the Big Five

Inventory of Chen and Bond will adapt the Researchers in the present study to

identify the personality traits of Filipino-English Bilingual students.

Personality Type Theory

20
 The idea that personality is genetic, an innate quality of human beings, was a

popular early approach to personality. In particular, Sigmund Freud's psychodynamic

theory of personality implies that intrinsic instincts and parental influences are linked.

During the first five years of life, according to Freud's theory, personality development is

determined by the interaction of instinct and environment (Mccrae, R. R., Costa, P. T.,

Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebcková, M., Avia, M. D., Smith, P. B., 2000).

Researchers have confirmed that people are born with particular predispositions that

cause them to act in various ways. Furthermore, study investigations show that individual

behaviors, personality types, and personality traits can cluster, resulting in a unique

personality type for each person (Nias, D., 2001; Brand, C., 1984).

It was also worth noting that early theorists toyed with the idea of classifying

learners into different personality types based on their distinct personality qualities. As a

result, while some people are predisposed to certain dominant characteristics like

honesty, compassion, and aggression, others are more likely to display personality traits

like ambition, power-seeking, competitiveness, modesty, attentiveness, and sensitivity as

more important and influential in their lives (Allport, 1963; Shrout, P. E., & Fiske, D. W.,

1981; Matthews, G., n.d.).

The Big Five is a set of five systems that characterize a person's personality. The

Big Five personality qualities are openness to experience, conscientiousness,

extroversion/introversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism/or emotionality, according to

the Big Five theory (Briley & Tucker D., 2014; De Feyter, T., Caers, R., Vigna, C., &

Berings, D.,2012; Carlson, N., 2010).

Bilingualism in speakers' personalities

21
 There are limited studies about the effect of speaking two different

languages on an individual's personality. In the supplied various research below,

bilingualism merely tackles the relation and different personalities of bilinguals in

foreign areas; in the present study, bilingualism focuses on the personality change

of bilinguals local.

In the study of Chen and Bond (2010), the controversial issue is whether

bilingual who speaks two languages also have two personalities. Researchers

investigated the effect of language use on personality to understand oneself and

others better. Researchers found out when the use of a second language allows a

person to access the group of cultural standards associated with that language and

activate behavioral emotions of personality that are appropriate in the same

linguistic-social context. Chen & Bond’s study is related to the present study in

which the researchers investigated if the bilingual students have two personalities

when speaking two languages.

22
 Ramirez-Esparza, Gosling, Martínez, Potter, & Pennebaker (2004)

investigated the particular case of cultural frame switching between Spanish-

English bilinguals to find out if there are two personalities when using two

languages and to know whether these two personalities have a cross-cultural

difference in the personality of bilinguals. In study 1, researchers documented the

differences in personality of US (United States) and Mexican monolinguals. In

contrast, in studies 2-4, researchers tested CFS based on three samples of Spanish-

English Bilinguals created in the US and Mexico.

This study shows that bilinguals were more extroverted, agreeable, and

conscientious in English than in Spanish. There was a slight distinction for

neuroticism and not consistent with the differences in openness. Researchers

tested CFS based on three samples of Spanish-English Bilinguals created in the

US and Mexico. Ramirez-Esparza, Gosling, Martínez, Potter, & Pennebaker in

study 1 is relevant to the present study because the researchers will also use the

Big Five Inventory to find out if there are two personalities in Bilingual Students

when speaking two languages.

On the other hand, Rezapour and Zanjirani (2020) studied that bilingual

expressed different personality traits when shifting two Languages. The

researchers used a descriptive internet survey to determine whether 60 Persian-

English bilinguals have different personalities when switching

languages. Bilinguals had higher Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Openness in

English than in Persian. Their scores for Neuroticism were also lower in English,

while their scores for Conscientiousness were higher in English. Rezapour &

23
Zanjirani’s study has something to do with the present study because the

researchers describe Bilingual students that expressed different personality traits

when shifting two Languages.

Wedérus (2017) proved that the self-perceived personality of a person

influences by speaking two languages in which the researcher applied

the qualitative design and semi-structured interviews to investigate the

experiences and perspectives of 12 Swedish-English bilinguals, resulting in self-

perceived changes in personality and extraversion, while feelings are much easier

to express in English than in Swedish. This study made by Wedérus is related to

the present study because the self-perceived personality may affect the bilingual

students who influence when speaking two languages.

Beatrice (2020) examined the feelings of speakers and what they

experience when using any language other than L1. 19 Russian Australians

belonging to the 1.5 population took part in the research through semi-structured

interviews. The researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with the

participants, allowing for additional questions and clarifications as an individual

interview. Fourteen participants said they felt different when using Russian and

English. The work of Beatrice is related to the study because the researchers will

also examine the feelings of bilingual students when using first and Second

languages.

Gonzales, Velez-Uribe, and Roselli (2015) were given a question to the

Spanish – English Bilinguals born in South Florida, but who speak Spanish and

English Language. Researchers asked the bilingual participants if speaking

24
Spanish or English felt like a different person. This study showed that 42.5% of

the Spanish-English Bilinguals participants answered yes to the given question.

Gonzales, Velez-Uribe, and Roselli’s work results have strongly connected to the

study because this proved that the personality of Bilinguals speakers has changed

when speaking different languages in existence to the previous study.

Furthermore (Roselli, Vélez-Uribe, and Ardila, 2017, p. 259) studied the

young Spanish-English Bilinguals living in South Florida in terms of Personality

dimension by examining the connection between bilingualism and personality

characteristics in a sample of Spanish-English Bilinguals' young active and

proficient. The participants of this study are college students who speak Spanish

and English and community members. Researchers used BFI for the evaluation of

Personality dimensions.

The study has shown that when it comes to English questions, the students

got a higher score in extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and

openness. In contrast, in Spanish questions, the students got a higher score on

levels of neuroticism which is a similar result to the study of Ramirez-Esparza et

al. (2006). However, this study also showed that bilingual participants have more

extraversion, agreeableness, and consciousness than Spanish in English, while

Spanish have higher levels of neuroticism than English. Roselli, Vélez-Uribe, and

Ardila’s study has strengthened the present study because they used college

students as participants and BFI similar to the present study to find out the

changes of personality as bilingual students who may have an effect when using

English questions.

25
 Locally, Quinto and Velasco (2020) examined the emotional-related

language choice of college students who speak Filipino as their first language and

English as a second language. Researchers used a questionnaire by giving a

question on the language choices of the bilingual learners in emotion-related

situations. This study has shown that first language and second language do not

dominate the language in emotion-related language choice. However, bilingual

respondents slightly prefer English as a language choice rather than Filipino.

However, they prefer Filipino as a language choice when they speak Filipino in

their home. The study of Quinto and Velasco is strongly connected to the present

study because the researchers will also tackle the emotions in which personality

traits of Filipino-English bilingual speakers relate to their two languages.

Sicam and Lucas (2016) pointed out that Bilinguals have different

attitudes, and there is a relationship between their language attitudes in gender,

age, and socioeconomic status. Researchers investigated the high school students

who used Filipino as their first language and used English as a second language.

Researchers used questionnaires and surveys, including Language Background

Questionnaire, Language Orientation Survey, and General Language Attitudes

Survey.

After the bilingual respondents answered the three-part questionnaire, they

found out that bilingual students have high positive attitudes toward English and

Filipino. Furthermore, females who speak English as a second language have

higher positive attitudes than males, and the language attitudes of the participants

confirmedly change among different gender, age, and socioeconomic status.

26
 The work of Sicam and Lucas is related to the present study in which the

researchers discussed the personality such as different attitudes of bilingual

speakers who are Filipino-English Bilinguals when using different languages.

Conceptual Framework

This study determined the levels of bilingualism and personality of bilinguals and

their relationship, particularly AB English Language Studies students. The study focused

on bilinguals from the English Language Studies Department under the College of Arts

and Social Sciences, specifically the 3rd year (3a) and 4th year students who considered

Filipino as their first language and English as a second language and could communicate

in both English and Filipino.

Researchers adopted and used the Big Five Inventory model by Goldberg to

assess the personalities of speakers because it was the most comprehensive model of

personality traits (such as openness, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and

neuroticism) that had been used to examine the different personalities of speakers used

different languages. Researchers also used self-devised levels of bilingualism

questionnaire validated by the experts and validators in the field.

27
 AB ELS Students’ AB ELS Students’
Bilingualism Personality Traits
(Filipino and English)

 Openness
 Individual Level
 Conscientiousnes
 Family Level s

 Societal Level  Extraversion

 School Level  Agreeableness

 Neuroticism

Implications to the ELS

Department

Figure 1. Research Paradigm

Figure 1 shows the conceptual paradigm of this study. The primary goal was to

determine the bilingualism level of the respondents at individual, family, societal, and

school levels through a researcher-developed bilingualism questionnaire. The

respondents’ personality traits were also identified through the Big Five Personality Test.

Afterward, the obtained results from the level of bilingualism questionnaire and the BFI

test were correlated using statistical treatments, providing significant implications for the

English Language Studies Department.

28
 CHAPTER 3

METHODS OF THE STUDY AND SOURCES OF DATA

This chapter presents the methods used by the researchers in conducting

the study, including the research design, research locale, the research participants,

sampling techniques, research instruments, validity and reliability of the

instruments, research procedure, and statistical treatment.

Research Design

The design employed in this research was a descriptive-correlational

research design. A descriptive-correlational research design investigates

relationships between variables without the researcher controlling or manipulating

any of them (Bhandari, 2021). According to Creswell (2012), a descriptive

correlational study was one in which the researcher was primarily interested in

describing relationships between variables rather than attempting to establish a

causal relationship. The researcher used this design to describe the variables and

the relationships that occur naturally between and among them.

The respondents’ bilingualism levels and personality traits were

described through the use of quantitative research instruments such as a

questionnaire and test, which was conducted online. The obtained data were then

correlated through statistical treatments

29
Research Locale

The study was conducted in the English Department of the College of Arts

and Social Sciences at Tarlac State University (main campus), a tertiary

institution located at Romulo boulevard San Vicente, Tarlac City, Philippines. As

stated in the university’s mission and vision, the university envisions to be a

premier university in Asia Pacific that commits to promoting and sustaining the

offering of programs quality in a higher and advanced education that ensures

acquirable access to education for people empowerment, professional

development, and global competitiveness. Since TSU commits to promote quality

education, the learning of foreign languages was incorporated so that its graduates

will be more globally competitive.

Research Respondents

This study was composed of one section in the 3rd year and 2 sections in

the 4th year of a Bachelor of Arts in the English language studied (AB ELS)

students at Tarlac State University in the A.Y. 2021-2022. The course AB

English Language Studies focuses on the theoretical aspects and practical

application of the English language. It prepares students for effective

communication in English.

The researchers made a criterion for selection that disregarded the student

participants who did not consider Filipino as their first language and English as their

second language. These criteria were included in the Google Form surveyed

questionnaire during the data gathering.

30
 The English Language Studies Department for A.Y. 2021-2022 had only

one section in the 3rd year (3a), which was composed of thirty-six (36) students,

and the students from the 4th year were divided into two sections: 4a and 4b.

Thirty-eight (38) students were from section and forty-six (46) students from

section b. Overall, the total population was one-hundred twenty students from

CASS, ELS Department.

Sampling Techniques

In this study, since the studied population included only one section in the

3rd year (3a) and two sections in the 4th year of AB English Language Studies

students, the researchers utilized random sampling to choose the needed

respondents for the study. The researchers used the Raosoft calculator to obtain

the sample size for the population. The respondents completed the BFI's (big five

inventory by Goldberg, 1993) 50-item questionnaire and 40-item leveled of

bilingualism questionnaire (self–devised).

Research Instrument
The study was carried out using a quantitative method. The instrument used

for this type of study were survey questionnaires. Since the study was based on

the levels of bilingualism and its relationship to speakers’ personalities, the first

research instrument that the researchers used was self-devised based on the

variables from the study of McCarty (2014), the series of the taxonomy of

bilingualism, and the BFI (big five inventory by Goldberg, 1993) test.

 Questionnaire on the Level of Bilingualism of Students (Self-devised)

31
 The first instrument that the researchers used was the level of bilingualism

questionnaire. This questionnaire contains 40-item statements that students answered in a

scaled form from 1–to 5 that indicates "strongly agreed" to "strongly disagreed". The

level of bilingualism questionnaire was a self-devised questionnaire created based on the

taxonomy of bilingualism by Steve McCarty (2014) that determines and understands

whether the students became bilingual in terms of individual, societal, school, and family

levels

 Survey Questionnaire for Big Five Personalities (BFI – Big Five Inventory)

(Goldberg, 1993)

The second instrument was the big five inventory (Goldberg, 1993).

Researchers directly adopted the English version of the big five inventory to

measure personality because of its effectiveness and appropriate psychometric

qualities (john, 1990; John & Srivastava, 1999). The big five inventory was a

self-report questionnaire or inventory that assesses an individual's usage of the big

five personality traits (Goldberg, 1993)

The researchers created an online questionnaire as a survey on Google

Forms that respondents answered to measure their personality as bilinguals. The

questionnaire contains a 50-item statement with a 5-point Likert scale ranging

from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Furthermore, these 50 short phrases

assessed five personality dimensions: extraversion, openness, agreeableness,

neuroticism, and conscientiousness (BFI (big five inventory); John, 1990; John &

Srivastava, 1999). According to researchers Costa & Piedmont (2003), and

32
 Priven (1989), the five-factor model was perhaps even more useful in research

and learning than it currently was for psychological procedures.

Validity and Reliability

The researchers made a criterion for selection in selecting validators and sought

help from five (5) experts and validators from the faculty of the Department of English

Language Studies at TSU and other validators outside the university to check and

validate the questionnaire.

The self-devised level of bilingualism questionnaire was validated by

experts and underwent pilot testing to ensure its validity and reliability. The

(BFI) big five inventory test was directly adopted from the main source retrieved

from openpsychometrics. org. This is a globally recognized scale with proven

reliability and validity that had been evaluated in several countries (al-Ansari

2016; Fossati et al. 2011).

Research Procedure

The researchers asked permission from the researched professor to

conduct the study. As soon as the researchers were permitted, they asked

permission from the dean to conduct the survey. It was to formally seek the

authority of the researchers to collect necessary data, such as files and documents

that held the information about the students. The researchers administered an

initial survey to determine the population and sample studied. The researchers

utilized a random sampling technique.

33
 The researchers directly adopted and made no modifications to the

personality test and devised a questionnaire that underwent pilot testing to collect

the information required for the study. Experts and validators assessed the

questionnaires to ensure their validity and reliability. The dataset on personality

was collected and retrieved from openpsychometrics.org. The data for levels of

bilingualism was also administered and collected. Afterward, statistical tools

were employed to determine the relationship between the two variables.

Implications, conclusions, and recommendations were then made based on the

obtained results.

Ethical Consideration

The research respondents were those who were approved of this study.

Concerning the privacy of the respondents, the researchers did not reveal their names in

the study. The researchers asked permission from the participants to put their personal

background information by using the online fill-out form before answering the survey

questionnaire. However, without participants' approval, all personal background

information and data would remain private, confidential, and subject to the data privacy

act 2012.

Statistical Treatment

In this study, the researchers employed the mean and correlation

coefficient. Correlation analysis and descriptive statistics were used in this study,

which assesses the strength of a linear relationship between two variables using a

sample mean or average. Two variables were measured in this treatment to find

34
 the relationship of Filipino-English speakers to their personality traits (openness,

conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism).

Mean. To examine the information collected from the survey

questionnaire. The sum of all the scores is divided by the number of samples or

∑ xi
surveys. The formula for getting the mean is illustrated below: x=
N

Where:

x=Sample mean
X i= Summation of scores
N the = Sample size

Correlation coefficients were calculated by dividing the covariance by the root of the

two variables' standard deviations or the man of the two variables. When the correlation

coefficients exceed, it indicates that two variables were associated.

∑ ( yi − y )
r=
√∑

Where:
R = Correlation coefficient
xi = Values of the x-variable in a sample
x = Mean of the values of the x-variable
yi = values of the y-variable in a sample
y = Mean of the values of the y-variable

35
 Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter deals with the description and analysis of data. The

researchers present, interpret and analyze the data gathered from the survey

questionnaires used in this study. Specifically, it presents the organization of

tables based on the problems posed at the beginning of this study.

1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents

The results for the demographic characteristics of respondents are seen in Table 1.
Table 1
Respondents’ general characteristics of this study
Variables Category Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Male 15 24.2
Sex
Female 47 75.8
20-21 21 33.9
22-23 36 58.1
Age
24-25 3 4.8
Over 26 2 3.2
3A 9 14.5
School Year 4A 24 38.7
4B 29 46.8
Yes 62 100
My first language is Filipino
No 0 0
My second language is Yes 62 100
English No 0 0
Total 62 100

Table 1 shows that in terms of sex, 75. 8% were females, and 24. 2% were

males. As for age, 22-23 years old was 58. 1%, 20-21 years old 33. 9%, 24-25

years old 4. 8%, and over 26 years old was 3. 2%. At the school year level, 14.

5% of the respondent in 3a, 38. 7% were 4a, and 46. 8% were 46. 8% to the

surveyed questionnaire. A hundred percent of them considered that their first

36
 language was Filipino and their second was English. There was a total of 62

respondents.

2. Descriptive statistics

The results of the prominent five personalities and levels of bilingualism are presented
below.

2.1. Descriptive statistics of the Level of Bilingualism

Table 2

To determine a student's bilingualism level, they were asked to answer a

scaled survey from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Through this, the

researchers were able to identify the level of bilingualism of a student in terms of

their individual, societal, family, and school level.

37
 Table 3

Descriptive statistics for individual level

Indicators Mean Descriptive

1. I have to use both English and Filipino because I have to 4.23 Strongly agree
express something that has no direct translation in my first
language (Filipino).
2. I find it easier to communicate when I use both English and 4.21 Strongly agree
Filipino.
3. I can express my thoughts and ideas more using English and 4.08 Agree
Filipino.
4. I am more confident when using both English and the 4.00 Agree
Filipino language.
5. I feel more reserved when speaking English and Filipino. 3.68 Agree
6. I have been bilingual since I was a child. 3.61 Agree
7. I am talkative when using both English and Filipino. 3.61 Agree
8. I started using both English and Filipino after puberty. 3.34 Unsure
9. I have actively used both English and Filipino languages 3.13 Unsure
since childhood.
10. I mix both English and Filipino languages strategically and 3.03 Unsure
creatively to the linguistic repertoire of listeners.
Total 3.79 Agree

Table 3 shows that the students agreed at an individual level with a 3.79

total means. They became bilingual in both their own and bicultural

development. The first rank, with a mean of 4.23 and described as "strongly

agreed," was the statement that they must use both English and Filipino because

they must express something that had no direct translation in their first language

(Filipino). Ranked second was that they found it easier to communicate when

they used both English and Filipino. It got a mean of 4.21 and was described as

"strongly agreed. " Third-ranked was the statement that they could express their

thoughts and ideas more used both English and Filipino with a mean of 4.08 and

described as an “agree.” they were more confident when using both English and

the Filipino language, which brought it to the fourth rank with a mean of 4. 0 and

was described as "agree. "

38
 Also, with a mean of 3.68 and describing it as "agree," they felt more

reserved when speaking English and Filipino. In the statement that they had been

bilingual since they were a child and talkative when using both English and

Filipino, they had a mean of 3.61 and was described as an “agree.”

In the result of the following, three problems were indicated as unsure. A

mean of 3.34 was the eighth-ranked statement that started using both English and

Filipino after puberty. The ninth-ranked with a mean of 3.13 was that they had

actively used both English and Filipino language since childhood. Moreover, the

final rank that had a mean of 3.03 was that they mixed both English and Filipino

languages strategically and creatively with a view to the linguistic repertoire of

listeners. With a total mean score of 3. 79, the students agreed that they had

become bilingual in their development and sometimes mixed their languages

when communicating. Starting at birth or infancy was called simultaneous

bilingualism. They acquired two languages, Filipino and English, together with

birth but before three years. Language acquisition was another dimension of an

individual's level (McCarty, 2013).

39
 Table 4
Descriptive statistics for family level

Indicators Mean Descriptive

1. I speak English and Filipino at home. 3.45 Agree
2. In the family, I frequently speak English and Filipino. 3.42 Agree
3. I feel more confident talking in English and Filipino to my family 3.06 Unsure
members.
4. I use mostly English and Filipino with my family. 2.98 Unsure
5. I speak both English and Filipino because of the language shift in the 2.90 Unsure
family.
6. I find it easier to discuss emotions with my family using English and 2.79 Unsure
Filipino.
7. I speak both English and Filipino because my parents speak both 2.76 Unsure
languages.
8. I speak both English and Filipino because this is what my parents 2.63 Unsure
have taught me to do.
9. I mix both English and Filipino because this is how my parents 2.56 Unsure
raised me.
10. I speak both English and Filipino because my father speaks English 2.35 Unsure
while my mother speaks Filipino or vice versa.
Total 2.89 Unsure

Table 4 shows the level of bilingualism of the students in terms of family

level. Generally, the students spoke English and Filipino at home, wherein a first

ranked had a mean of 3.45 and was described as agreeing. It was followed by a

second-ranked in which the students frequently spoke English and Filipino in the

family with a mean of 3.42 and described as agreeing. The third-ranked students

felt more confident talking in English and Filipino to my family members. This

got a mean of 3.06 and was described as unsure. The fourth-ranked was the

students who mainly used English and Filipino with their families with a mean of

2.98 and described as “unsure.”

The fifth-ranked got a mean of 2.90, in which the students spoke both

English and Filipino because the language shifted in the family. It was described

as unsure. Finding it easier for the students to discuss emotions with their families

40
using both English and Filipino was sixth-ranked, with a mean of 2.79, and

described as unsure. The ranked seventh was the students who spoke both English

and Filipino because their parents spoke both languages. This got a mean of 2.76

and was described as unsure.

Moreover, the rank of eight got a mean of 2. 63, and that was because the

students spoke both English and Filipino because this was what their parents had

taught them to do. It was described as unsure. In addition, the ninth-ranked was

students who mixed both English and Filipino because this was how their parents

raised them. It was described as unsure with a mean of 2. 56. Last on the ranked,

having a mean of 2. 35 was that students spoke both English and Filipino because

their father spoke English while their mother spoke Filipino or vice versa. Based

on the result, with a mean of 2. 89, the students were unsure if they were raised

and became bilingual because of their parents. This result was interpreted as

moderate.

41
 Table 5
Descriptive statistics for the societal level
Indicators Mean Descriptive
1. For life opportunities, I speak both English and Filipino. 4.24 Strongly
Agree
2. I speak both English and Filipino to socialize with others. 4.15 Agree
3. I grew up in a bilingual community. 4.08 Agree
4. I mostly use English and Filipino when I am with people. 4.02 Agree
5. I speak both English and Filipino because of the influence of the 4.00 Agree
people in my society.
6. I express myself using both English and Filipino because this is the 3.92 Agree
way I see my friends at my age when they are speaking with me.
7. I mix both English and Filipino languages not for lack of 3.92 Agree
vocabulary but because of cultural nuances that better suit what I aim
to express.
8. I speak both English and Filipino because the people around me do 3.89 Agree
the same.
9. I am more outgoing and sociable when switching from English to 3.77 Agree
Filipino.
10. I speak both English and Filipino because one of these languages 3.71 Agree
alone is insufficient to fulfill the information I need in society.
Total 3.97 Agree

Table 5 illustrates the level of bilingualism of the students in terms of

societal level. The table reveals that the students acquired English as a second

language in government policies. It showed the first rank from the statement that

they spoke both English and Filipino for life opportunities, having a mean of 4. 24

and described as strongly agreed. The second-ranked was the students who spoke

both English and Filipino to socialize with others. It got a mean of 4.15 and was

described as strongly agreed. The third-ranked got a mean of 4.08 and was

described as strongly agreeing. This showed that the students grew up in a

bilingual community. The fourth-ranked was that the students mostly used both

English and Filipino when around people. This got a mean of 4.02 and was

described as agreeing.

42
 The students spoke both English and Filipino because of the influence of

the people in the society they belong to was fifth-ranked with a mean of 4.00 and

the students spoke both English and Filipino because this was the way they saw

their friends at their age when they were speaking to them was in sixth-ranked

having a mean of 3.92 and described as agreeing.

The seventh-ranked was students who mixed both English and Filipino not

for lack of vocabulary but because of cultural nuances that better suited what they

aimed to express. This got a mean of 3.92 and was described as agreeing. The

eighth-ranked was the students who spoke both English and Filipino because

around them did the same. This got a mean of 3.89 and was described as agreeing.

The ninth-ranked students were more outgoing and sociable when switching from

English and Filipino. This got a mean of 3.77 and was described as agreeing. The

last ranked was the students who spoke both English and Filipino because one of

these languages alone was not sufficient to fulfill the information they needed in

society. This got a mean of 3.71 and was described as agreeing

From the computed mean of 3. 97, the students agreed that they learned to

use both the Filipino and English languages at a societal level, which was

positive. This agreed with McCarty (2014), as he stated in his taxonomy series

that bilingual people learned both languages because of the variables needing

specific bilingual skills in an occupation. It gave a profile to the native language

groups in a society and government policies.

43
 Table 6

Descriptive statistics for school level

Indicators Mean Descriptive
1. I acquired English as a second language academically. 4.27 Strongly Agree
2. I use mostly English and Filipino in school. 4.26 Strongly Agree
3. Because my teacher used this as the medium of instruction, I 4.21 Strongly Agree
speak both English and Filipino.
4. I mix both English and Filipino languages for academic purposes. 4.11 Agree
5. I speak English and Filipino because that is how I can express 4.08 Agree
myself easily.
6. I mix English and Filipino to balance input and interaction in two 4.08 Agree
languages.
7. I speak English and Filipino because one of these languages 3.97 Agree
alone is insufficient to fulfill the information I need to learn in
school.
8. I feel more confident when using English and Filipino inside the 3.89 Agree
classroom.
9. I learned and studied in an ESL (English as a Second Language) 3.79 Agree
program.
10. Because my classmates do the same, I speak both English and 3.76 Agree
Filipino.
Total 4.04 Agree

Table 6 illustrates the level of bilingualism of the students in terms of

school level. The table reveals that the students acquired English as a second

language academically. This showed a first ranked having a mean of 4.27 and

described as strongly agreed. The second-ranked was the students who used

mostly English and Filipino in school. This got a mean of 4.26 and was described

as strongly agreed. The third-ranked got a mean of 4.21 and was described as

44
 strongly agreeing. This showed that the students used both English and Filipino

because their teacher used this as a medium of instruction

The fourth-ranked was the students who mixed both English and Filipino

languages for academic purposes. This got a mean of 4.11 and was described as

“agree”. The students spoke English and Filipino because that was how they

could express themselves quickly was fifth-ranked. The students mixed both

English and Filipino to balanced input and interaction in the two languages was

sixth-ranked. These both had a mean of 4. 08 and were described as “agree”.

The seventh-ranked were the students who spoke English and Filipino

because one of these languages alone was not sufficient to fulfill the information

they needed to learn in school. This got a mean of 3.97 and was described as

“agree”. The eighth-ranked was the students felt more confident when using

English and Filipino inside the classroom. This got a mean of 3.89 and was

described as “agree”. The ninth-ranked was the students who learned and studied

in an ESL (English as a second language) program. This got a mean of 3.79 and

was described as “agree”. The last ranked was the students who spoke both

English and Filipino because their classmates did the same. This got a mean of

3.76 and describe as “agree”.

From the computed total mean of 4.04, the students agreed that they learned to

use both Filipino and English language at school taught by their teacher and used as their

medium of instruction which was interpreted as positive. It agreed with McCarty (2014),

as he stated that bilingual people learned both languages based on the school environment

in which the teacher taught languages to their students.

45
46
2.2. Descriptive statistics for the Big Five Personality Test
To assess the students' personalities, they were asked to respond to the big five

personalities on a Likert scale ranging from strongly agreed to strongly disagreed.

Table 7

Score range Mean rating Interpretation

4.21 - 5.05 Strongly agree Very high
3.41 - 4.20 Agree High (Positive)
2.61 - 3.40 Unsure (neutral) Moderate
1.81 - 2.60 Disagree Low (Negative)
1.00 – 1.80 Strongly disagree Very low

Table 8
Descriptive statistics for extroversion
Indicators Mean Descriptive
1. Start conversations. 3.23 Unsure
2. Talk to a lot of different people at parties. 3.02 Unsure
3. Feel comfortable around people. 2.95 Unsure
4. Do not talk a lot. * 2.82 Unsure
5. Have little to say. * 2.77 Unsure
6. Do not mind being the center of attention. 2.77 Unsure
7. Am the life of the party. 2.61 Unsure
8. Keep in the background. * 2.58 Disagree
9. Do not like to draw attention to myself. * 2.58 Disagree
10. Am quiet around strangers. * 1.94 Disagree
Total 2.73 Unsure
Note. * Means reverse scoring

Table 8 shows that, in general, the extroversion of a student was unsure

with a 2.73 total mean. With the first rank, students started conversations by being

unsure with a mean of 3.23. The second-ranked was the students talking to many

different people at parties. This got a mean of 3.02 and describe as unsure. Third-

ranked was the feeling comfortable around people. That got a mean of 2.95

In addition, the students who did not talk a lot in the fourth-ranked had a

mean of 2.82 and describe as unsure. The fifth-ranked was a student who had little

47
to say and the sixth-ranked was the did not mind being the center of attention they

both had a mean of 2.77 and were described as unsure. With a mean of 2.61, the

seventh-ranked was the statement that they were the party's life and described as

unsure.

On the eighth and ninth-ranked with a low score of 2. 58, was the

statement that bilinguals keep in the background and did not like to draw attention

to themselves. They were both described as a “disagree”. From the last ranked

with a mean of 1. 94 and described as disagreed, the was quiet around strangers.

Table 8 shows that the extraversion of a student was unsure. That means

the result of this trait to students was interpreted as moderate. when they spoke

both Filipino and English. Some students were talkative when communicating

with strangers, and some felt comfortable around people.

It means that student sociability was dependent on what language was

used. They are extroverts at times and introverts at others. Unlike Rezafour and

Zanjinari's (2020) study, the Persian-English had a higher extroversion score

because they were more talkative and outgoing when communicating with others

in both languages. A high score on extroversion tends to be very social while low

scorers prefer to work on their projects alone (John & Srivastava, 1999).

48
 Table 9
Descriptive statistics for agreeableness

Indicators Mean Descriptive

1. Insult people. * 4.35 Strongly agree
2. Have a soft heart. 4.15 Agree
3. Sympathize with others' feelings. 4.10 Agree
4. Feel others' emotions. 4.05 Agree
5. Make people feel at ease. 3.55 Agree
6. Feel little concern for others. 3.47 Agree
7. Take time out for others. 3.45 Agree
8. Am interested in people. 3.40 Unsure
9. Am not interested in others. * 3.23 Unsure
10. Am not interested in other people's problems. * 3.16 Unsure
Total 3.69 Agree
Note. * Means reverse scoring

Table 9 was assessing the agreeableness of a student when speaking in

both Filipino and English language. On the first rank was the insult people, with

a mean of 4.35 and described as a strongly agreed. The second rank was the had a

soft heart, which had a mean of 4.15. the third-ranked was the sympathy for

others' feelings with a mean of 4.10 and described as an “agree”. The mean of

4.05 was the felt others' emotions in rank four. In addition, the fifth-ranked was

made people felt at ease, with a mean of 3.55 and described as an “agree”.

On the sixth rank was the felt little concern for others, with a mean of

3.47 and described as an “agree”. On the seventh rank was the took time out for

others, with a mean of 3.45 and described as an “agree”. Eight ranked would be

interested in people, with a mean of 3.40 and described as unsure. The ninth-

ranked was the was not interested in others, with a mean of 3.23 described as an

unsure. Furthermore, the last ranked would be not interested in other people's

problems, which was 3.16.

49
 Table 9 shows assessing the agreeableness of a student with a total mean

of 3. 69 and described as "agree," which means it had been interpreted as a high-

scoring personality. A high score in these personality traits tends has been polite,

cooperative, and helpful. Although the first rank was a higher score, it was a

reverse score.

When comparing the result to previous studies, according to Rezafour and

Zanjinari (2020), the findings indicating bilinguals score lowered in agreeableness than

English appeared to have been at odds with collectivist cultural conceptions, as this

attribute was more relevant to collectivist cultures. People from collectivist societies

were more likely to have been group-oriented, prioritizing interpersonal interactions and

in-group aims over individual ones (mills & Clark 1982), contributing to greater levels of

agreeableness. As a result, students with an ability to communicate in Filipino and

English and a high score in agreeableness were more cooperative with other people and

had a collectivist culture.

50
 Table 10

Descriptive statistics for conscientiousness

Indicators Mean Descriptive

1. Pay attention to details. 4.15 Agree
2. Follow a schedule. 3.90 Agree
3. Like order. 3.68 Agree
4. Leave my belongings around. * 3.52 Agree
5. Get chores done right away. 3.47 Agree
6. Make a mess of things. * 3.42 Agree
7. Am always prepared. 3.37 Unsure
8. Shirk my duties. * 3.27 Unsure
9. Am exacting in my work. 3.26 Unsure
10. Often forget to put things back in their proper place. * 2.82 Unsure
Total 3.49 Agree
Note. * Means reverse scoring

Table 10 shows the result of the conscientiousness of the students. This

personality trait includes high levels of thoughtfulness and goal-directed behaviors. The

first ranked was the pay attention to details, with a mean of 4.15. The second-ranked was

the followed schedule, with a mean of 3.90. the third-ranked was the liked ordered, with

a mean of 3.68. On the fourth-ranked was the left my belongings around, which had a

mean of 3.52. Fifth-ranked was the got chores done right away, with a mean of 3.47. In

addition, the sixth-ranked that described as an agreed was the made a mess of things, with

a mean of 3.4

Table 10 also shows the four described as unsure. The seventh-ranked

with a mean of 3.37 was the was always prepared. Eighth-ranked would be the

shirk of my duties, which had a mean of 3.27. The ninth-ranked was exacting in

my work, with a mean of 3.26. Furthermore, the last ranked was the often forget

to put things back in their proper place, which had a mean of 2.82. Moreover, a

total of 3.49 mean score and described as an agreed. The interpretation of

51
 conscientiousness of a student is a high score. That will lead to tendencies to

follow rules and challenging work. Students who score well in this category are

well-organized and self-disciplined. Bilinguals English-Spanish had higher

conscientiousness, according to Esparza et al. (2006).

As a result, the English-Spanish was more focused on hard work and

organization when using both languages. In this study, Filipino-English students

of the ELS showed that they were organized and hard-working when using both

languages in writing and speaking. They followed orders and schedules and pay

attention to the details.

Table 11

Descriptive statistics for neuroticism

Indicators Mean Descriptive

Seldom feel blue. 3.10 Unsure
I Am relaxed most of the time. 2.90 Unsure
Often feel blue. * 2.85 Unsure
Change my mood a lot. * 2.48 Disagree
Have frequent mood swings. * 2.48 Disagree
Get irritated easily. * 2.40 Disagree
Get stressed out quickly. 2.37 Disagree
Get upset easily. * 2.37 Disagree
Am easily disturbed. * 2.27 Disagree
Worry about things. * 2.03 Disagree
Total 2.53 Disagree
Note. * Means reverse scoring

Table 11 shows that the total mean neuroticism score was 2. 53, classified

as a disagreed and interpreted as a low score. Emotional instability, moodiness,

and sadness were all characteristics of neuroticism (John & Srivastava, 1999).

52
 High scores on these traits experience a lot of stress, worry, and anxiety when

communicating with others when using Filipino-English.

Nevertheless, the result of this study was a low score. People who had a

low score in neuroticism were relaxed, emotionally stable, and did not worry

much. That means English Language Studies students were emotionally stable

and calm when speaking English or Filipino. On the other handed, students with a

great score on neuroticism had emotional instability, which means they were

scared when communicating in different languages, especially English.

When comparing the findings to those of previous research. According to

Rezafour and Zanjinari (2020), Persian-English bilinguals scored low on

neuroticism. In addition, Ramirez-Ezparsa et al. (2006) found that Spanish-

English bilinguals had low neuroticism scores. When they used both languages,

whether English or Spanish, the Spanish-English were emotionally stable

Table 12

Descriptive statistics for openness to experience

Indicators Mean Descriptive

Spend time reflecting on things. 4.05 Agree
Have a vivid imagination. 3.81 Agree
Do not have a good imagination. * 3.50 Agree
Am not interested in abstract ideas. * 3.48 Agree
Am quick to understand things. * 3.47 Agree
Am full of ideas. 3.32 Unsure
Have excellent ideas. 3.24 Unsure
Have a rich vocabulary. 3.00 Unsure
Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. * 2.98 Unsure
Use difficult words. 2.37 Disagree
Total 3.32 Unsure
Note. * Means reverse scoring

53
 Table 12 assessed the openness of the students. On the first ranked was the spend

time reflecting on things with a mean of 4.05 described as an “agree”. The second rank

was that they had a vivid imagination, with a mean of 3.81 and described as an “agree”.

In addition, with a mean of 3.50 and described as an “agree”, the third-ranked was that

did not have a good imagination. On the fourth-ranked was the was not interested in

abstract ideas, with a mean of 3.48 and described as an “agree”.

Fifth-ranked would be quick to understand things, with a mean of 3.47 and an

“agree”. Sixth-ranked was the was full of ideas, with a mean of 3.32 and described as

unsure. The seventh-ranked had excellent ideas. A mean of 3.24, describes an unsure.

Eight-ranked had a rich vocabulary, with a mean of 3.00, and was described as “unsure”.

The ninth-ranked had difficulty understanding abstract ideas, with a mean of 2.98. The

last ranked was the use of difficult words, with a mean of 2.37 and described as a

“disagree”. The result of openness to experience, which had a total mean of 3.32 and was

described as "unsure," is shown in Table 10.

The finding above had been interpreted as moderate not low or high.

Those who seek new experiences or are imaginative are open to new experiences

as a personality trait. A high score in this trait indicates that you are very creative,

open to new experiences, and curious. In contrast, a low score indicates that you

are very grounded, dislike change, and are not very imaginative.

3. Correlation Analysis

The results of analyzing the correlation between bilingualism and the big

five personalities were as follows. The individual level of bilingualism was found

54
to have a significant positive correlation with agreeableness (r+.267, p<.05) and

openness to experience (r=.341, p<.01) among the prominent five personalities.

On the other handed, there was no significant correlation between the individual

level and extroversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. The societal level of

bilingualism showed a significant correlation with agreeableness (r=.341, p<. 01)

and conscientiousness (r=.263, p<.05) among the prominent five personalities.

However, there was no significant correlation between societal level,

extroversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience. The family level of

bilingualism did not significantly correlate with extroversion, agreeableness

conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience, which were sub-

factors of the big five personalities. School-level bilingualism showed a

significant positive correlation with agreeableness (r=.383, p<.01) among the big

five personalities, but no significant correlation with other variables. That was, the

more agreeableness among the big five personalities, the more bilingual language

was used at the individual leveled, societal leveled, and school levels. Among the

big five personalities, the higher the conscientiousness, the more bilingual

language was used at the societal level. In addition, it could be seen that the

higher the openness to experience among the big five personalities, the more

bilingual language was used at the individual level.

55
 Table 13
Relationship between Bilingualism and Big Five Personality Traits
Bilingualism Individual Level Societal Level Family Level School Level

Big Five Personality

Extroversion .110 -.032 .101 .095
(p=.395) (p=.806) (p=.435) (p=.465)
Agreeableness .267* .312* .087 .383**
(p=.036) (p=.014) (p=.502) (p=.002)
Conscientiousness .214 .263* .046 .164
(p=.095) (p=.039) (p=.720) (p=.203)
Neuroticism -.104 -.168 -.092 -.035
(p=.422) (p=.191) (p=.475) (p=.785)
Openness to Experience .341** .229 .100 .241
(p=.007) (p=.073) (p=.439) (p=.059)
*p<.05, **p<.01

Table 13 shows that the levels of bilingualism and personality traits ha a

significant positive correlation at the individual with agreeableness and openness

to experience, as well as at the societal level with agreeableness and

conscientiousness, and also the school level with agreeableness. Therefore, the

family level had no significant positive correlation with the five personality traits.

As a result, students who did not communicate in the second language or who

were not bilingual with their families or parents had a possibility that they will not

change their characteristics at home. In terms of agreeableness and societal level

with the highest significant correlation, students who were bilingual at school or

had learned a second language (English) at school were more likely to have been

polite, cooperative, and helpful to others.

In the previous study by Capellan (2017), he investigated the relationship between

personality traits and language learned among college students in a Spanish course. The

result of the study by Capellan (2007) showed that the mean observing and intuitive score

was greater than the test value, while the mean thinking and emotion score was lowered.

56
For the remaining personality categories, the researcher found no statistically significant

differences. The researcher used a multiple linear regression analysis to answer the

second studied question. The findings of the study revealed that personality traits had

little bearing on language learned. Previous studies had found a poor correlation between

personality traits and language learned due to the wide range of measures that could be

used to operationalize the dependent variable (i. e., a language learned) and the difficulty

in distinguishing the independent variable from confounding variables (e. g., instructional

and situational variables; Dewaele, 2012; Dewaele, & li Wei, 2011; Merriam & Bielema,

2014; Olson & land, 2007).

Implications to the AB English Language Studies Department

The findings revealed a relationship between bilingualism and the

personalities of AB English Language Studies students. Since then, there had

been a positive correlation between agreeableness and openness to experience on

an individual level, but no significant correlation between extroversion,

conscientiousness, or neuroticism.

The findings of this study serve as:

1. A foundation for the English language Studies Department to develop and implement

a new task that can express students' agreeableness and conscientiousness personality

traits, allowing students to learn while having fun.

57
2. When implementing various teaching methods, classroom techniques, and approaches,

second language instructors should consider their students' dominant personality traits as

well as their subjective disposition to learn and communicate in a foreign language.

3. Furthermore, this approach is useful for evaluating students' performance; thus,

language teachers should use strategies, techniques, and approaches to address students'

personalities in their teaching and learning activities.

4. Learners can gain a better understanding of the learning process and become more

conscious of their learning if they understand what type of learner they are. This enables

them to interact in a broader range of social groups as they gain confidence in themselves

and their interactions with others.

58
 Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter summarizes the findings derived from the gathered and obtained

data, the conclusion reached, and the recommendation that has been followed based on

improvements and betterment if any. Concerning the study’s subject matter.

Summary of Findings

Below are the findings are written in summary:

1. Level of Bilingualism of AB ELS Students

1.1 Individual Level

In terms of individual level, the Filipino-English bilingual students

received a total mean of 3.79. The mean was interpreted as a positive or high

score (agree). Overall, out of ten (10) indicators at the individual level, only two

(2) statements identified as “strongly agree”, five (5) identified as “agree” and

three (3) out of ten (10) identified as “unsure”. It means that students agreed that

they became bilingual on bi-cultural development.

The first rank got the mean of 4.23 (strongly agreed) which stated that

bilingual students must use both 1st language and 2nd language because they had

to express something that had no direct translation in their first language. While,

on the last ranking was the statement that they mixed both 1st and 2nd language

strategically and creatively with a view to the listener's linguistic repertoire, which

got the mean of 3.03 (unsure).

59
1.2 Societal Level

The computed total mean for the societal level got 3. 97 interpreted as a

positive or high score (agree). Overall, out of ten (10) indicators at the societal

level, only one (1) statement identified as “strongly agree” and nine (9) out of ten

(10) identified as “agree,” which means that bilinguals students agreed that they

became bilingual in such government policies and needing skills in the society.

The first ranked got the mean of 4. 24 (strongly agreed) which stated that

they spoke both 1st (Filipino) and 2nd (English) language for life opportunities.

While on the last ranking was the statement that they spoke both 1st (Filipino) and

2nd (English) language to sufficiently fulfill the information needed in the society

with a mean of 3.71 (agree)

1.3 Family Level

The family level got a total mean of 2.89, which was interpreted as unsure

(moderate). Overall, out of ten (10) indicators at the family level, only two (2)

statements were identified as “agree” and eight (8) out of ten (10) were identified

as “unsure”. Based on the results the students were unsure about becoming

bilingual at the family level. The first rank stated that bilingual students spoke

both English and Filipino at home with a mean of 3.45 (agree). While the last

rank got the mean of 2.89 (unsure) with a statement that they spoke Filipino and

English because one of their parents spoke one of these languages.

60
 1.4 School Level

In terms of school level, the Filipino-English bilingual students received a

total mean of 4.04. The mean was interpreted as a positive or high score (agree).

Overall, out of ten (10) indicators at the school level only three (3) statements

were identified as “strongly agree”, and seven (7) were identified as “agree”. It

means that students agreed that they became bilingual on school levels such as

bilingual education and school environment. The first rank got 4.27 (strongly

agreed), which stated that bilingual students academically acquired English as a

second language. While on the last ranking was the statement that they spoke

both 1st and 2nd language because of their classmates that did the same with a

mean of 3.76 (agree)

2. Bilingual Speaker’s Personality

2.1 Extroversion

In terms of extroversion, the students' personality traits averaged 2.73. The

outcome was interpreted as moderate. It means that the students were both

extroverts and introverts at times. The first rank of extroversion was starting

conversations with a mean of 3.23 and described as being unsure, while the last

rank was being quiet around strangers with a mean of 1.94 and described as

disagreeing.

2.2 Agreeableness

The students' personality traits in terms of agreeableness received a total

mean of 3. 96. The outcome was interpreted as a positive or high score. Overall,

one (1) item out of ten (10) in agreeableness was identified as a "strongly agreed,"

61
six (6) items were identified as "agree," and three (3) were described as "unsure. "

The stated where they insult people was the first rank of agreeableness, with a

mean of 4. 35 and described as "strongly agreed," but the scoring of the first rank

was reversed.

2.3 Conscientiousness

The students' personality traits in terms of agreeableness received a total

mean of 3. 96. The outcome was interpreted as a positive or high score. Overall,

one (1) item out of ten (10) in agreeableness was identified as a "strongly agreed,"

six (6) items were identified as "agree," and three (3) were described as "unsure."

The stated where they insult people was the first rank of agreeableness, with a

mean of 4. 35 and described as "strongly agreed," but the scoring of the first rank

was reversed.

2.4 Neuroticism

The student's personality in terms of neuroticism received a total mean of

2.53. the result was interpreted as a negative or low score. Generally, it was

found that three (3) out of ten (10) items on neuroticism were described as an

‘unsure.’ in comparison, seven (7) items identified as a ‘disagree.’ in neuroticism,

the first ranked was the statement that bilinguals’ students seldom felt blue with a

mean of 3. 10

2.5 Openness

The students' personalities in terms of openness received a total mean of 3.

32. the result was interpreted as moderate (unsure). Overall, it was found that

five (5) out of ten (10) items on openness were described as an ‘agree,’ while four

62
 (5) were identified as a disagreed, and one (1) was described as a disagreed. The

first ranked in openness was the statement that bilingual students spend time

reflecting on things with a mean of 4. 05

3. Bilingualism and its Relationship to the Respondents’ Personality

As a result of examining the relationship between bilingualism and the big

five personality traits, bilingualism at the individual level had a significant

positive correlation to agreeableness and openness personality traits. There was a

significant correlation between agreeableness and conscientiousness in the big

five personality traits and bilingualism at the societal level.

Additionally, it was found in this study that there was no significant

correlation between the five personality traits and bilingualism at the family level.

Furthermore, among the big five personality traits, bilingualism at the school level

had a significant correlation with agreeableness, but there was no significant

correlation with other personality variables.

Conclusions

From the findings, the researchers draw the following conclusions:

1. The result on the levels of bilingualism indicates that students met high level of

bilingualism from school, such as bilingual education, and acquired their second

language (English) academically. The results showed that the family got the

lowest mean out of four levels, which was unsure and interpreted as moderate.

The problem caused these in determining their charting languages used among

family members and bilingual child-raising approaches at home.

63
 2. The study reported the types of personalities the students employed have been at a

positive level on agreeableness and conscientiousness. The findings states that

Filipino-English bilingual students could operate self-disciplined and fell into the

category of being organized as their typed of personality. Mainly, as a result, the

Filipino-English bilingual students are more cooperative with other people and

had a collectivist culture.

3. This correlational analysis agrees with the findings on the bilingual students'

levels of bilingualism and types of personalities. The students show a significant

positive correlation with agreeableness and school level which both got the

highest mean among the four levels and five personalities.

4. The study determined the encountered problems, the levels of bilingualism, and

the types of personalities of the students as Filipino-English bilinguals. This

could be used for any future purposes it may serve. It could be at work and for

educational purposes.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are delivered based on the conclusions drawn in

this study:

1. The Bilingual Speakers may enhance their knowledge through exploring their

language background regarding how their First and Second Language is acquired,

which is more on the school level. It may help the bilingual speakers understand

their bilingualism level clearly and may share this knowledge with the other

bilingual speakers.

64
 2. The English department may engage the students to do a group task including

indoor practical tasks, outdoor group exercises, and presentations that could

express their Agreeableness and Conscientiousness personality traits while

communicating with their groupmates to help students learn while enjoying the

task comfortably.

3. The students are advised to use their agreeableness personality traits while

speaking both Filipino-English languages in social interaction with others to

express themselves while switching both languages.

4. The English department and second language instructors may guide and teach

their students to speak a second language fluently based on their personality

traits. It may help them to speak confidently and develop their speaking skills.

5. Future researchers may use this study as a related study to their research on

bilingualism and student personality traits. They can also use this as a guide to

continue doing research that has received insufficient attention in the field of

bilingualism such as the benefits of bilingualism in academe.

65
References

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Reinhart &

Winston.

Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21(1), 1.

Beatrice, V. (2020). ‘That part of me is in a different language’:1.5 generation migrants’

views on feelings of difference when switching language. Journal of Multilingual

and Multicultural Development.

Chen, S.X., & Bond, M.H. (2010). Two Languages, Two Personalities? Examining

Language Effects on the Expression of Personality in a Bilingual Context.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(11) 1514 –1528.

doi:10.1177/0146167210385360

Capellan, F. (2017). A Correlational Study: Personality Types and Foreign language

Acquisition in Undergraduate Students.

Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, Conducting and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson

Ching, L. Personality Change and Foreign Language What We Say and What We Are:

Personality Change and Foreign Language Use.

Costa, P. T., Jr, and McCrae, R. R. (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-

R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

66
Dewaele, J.-M., and A. Pavlenko. (2001–2003). Web Questionnaire Bilingualism and

Emotions. Unpublished manuscript, University of London.

Diener, E. & Lucas, R. E. (2022). Personality traits. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener

(Eds), Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers.

Retrieved from http://noba.to/96u8ecgw

Eysenck, H. J., and Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964) Manual of the Eysenck Personality

Inventory. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Franson, C. (2009) „Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition‟, in NALDIC.

[Online].

Availableat:http://www.naldic.org.uk/ITTSEAL2/teaching/bilingualism.cfm

(Accessed: 21 September 2012).

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith, New

York: Pantheon

Fossati, A., Borroni, S., Marchione, D., Maffei, C (2011). The Big Five Inventory (BFI):

Reliability and Validity of its Italian Translation in Three Independent Nonclinical

Samples, European Journal of Psychological Assessment 27(1):50-58.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American

Psychologist, 48(1), 26-34.

Gonzalez, K., Vélez-Uribe, L., & Rosselli, M. (2015). A cross-linguistic analysis of

language effects on personality measures in Spanish-English bilinguals. In the 27th

Annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Sciences (APS). New York.

67
Hamers, J. F. (1981) Psychological approaches to the development of bilingualism.In H.

BaetensBeardsmore (ed.) Elements of Bilingual Theory. The Free University of

Brussels.

Holzman, P. S. (2020, February 24). personality. Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/personality

Hong, Y.-Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural

minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American

Psychologist, 55, 709 720.

John, O. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the

natural language and questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of

personality: Theory and research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford Press.

John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudgeagreement on personality

traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique

perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521-551.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement,

and theoretical perspectives. In L. a Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of

personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford

Press.

Larsen, R.R., & Buss, D.M. (2018). Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge

about Human Nature.

Mayer, J. D. (2007). Asserting the Definition of Personality. Scribd.

68
McCarty. S (2014, April 11). Taxonomy of Bilingualism series. Hcommons.org.

https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/hc:26570/CONTENT/taxonomy_of_bilin

gualism_series.pdf/

Myers, I. B., and McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and

Use of The Myers–Brigg Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.

Mackey, W. (1962). Description of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue

CanadienneDe Linguistique, 7(2), 51-85.doi:10.1017/S0008413100019393.

Pavlenko, A. 2006. “Bilingual Selves.” In Bilingual Minds: Emotional Experience,

Expression, and Representation, edited by A. Pavlenko, 1–33. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Pavlenko, A. (2012) „Affective Processing in Bilingual Speakers: Disembodied

Cognition?‟, in International Journal of Psychology, 47/6, pp. 405-428. [Online].

Available at: http://astro.temple.edu/~apavlenk/pdf/Pavlenko_IJP_2012.pdf

(Accessed: 27 November 2012).

Ramírez-Esparza, N., Gosling. S., Benet-Martínez, V., Potter, J., & Pennebaker, J (2004).

Do bilinguals have two personalities? A Special Case of Cultural Frame Switching.

Journal of research personality.

Rezapour, R., &Zanjirani , S. (2020). Bilingualism and Personality Shifts: Different

Personality Traits in Persian- English Bilinguals Shifting Between Two Languages.

Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory, 2020, 3 (10), 23-30.

Doi:10.22034/IEPA.2020.230347.1169.

69
Titone, R. (1972) Le Bilinguisme Pre´ coce. Brussels: Dessart Traits in Persian- English

Bilinguals Shifting Between Two Languages. Iranian Journal of Learning and

Memory, 2020, 3 (10), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.22034/IEPA.2020.230347.1169.

Wedérus, T. (2017). Changing language, changing personality: Swedish bilinguals on the

effects of speaking English.Semantic Scholar.

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition (pp, 193-196). New

York: Routledge

70
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

LETTER OF REQUEST

Republic of the Philippines

Tarlac State University
College of Arts and Social Science
English Department

February 8, 2022
DR. BRENDALYN MANZANO
Dean, College of Arts and Social Sciences
This University

Dear Dr. Manzano:

We, the 4th Year students at Tarlac State University College of Arts and Social Science, are
conducting research titled: Bilingualism and Its Effect on Speaker’s Personality Among AB ELS
Students in partial fulfillment of the Bachelor's degree requirements Arts in English
In line with this, we would like to respectfully ask permission from your good office to conduct
our study and to accumulate information needed from the students enrolled in the Bachelor of
Arts in English Language Studies course. Rest assured that all policies you have will be highly
respected.
Your affirmative response regarding this matter is highly appreciated.
Respectfully yours,

KARL WENCY DELA PENA

BERYL KAY R. VALERIO
JOAN P. LAYUG
AB English 4B – Researchers

71
Noted:
(Sgd) DAVID V. LIP
Thesis Adviser

Recommending Approval:
(Sgd.) HENRY M. ANDRES
Thesis Coordinator, English Department

Approved:
(Sgd.) DR. BRENDALYN A. MANZANO
Dean, College of Arts and Social Sciences

72
 APPENDIX B

TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

January 29, 2022

DR. BRENDALYN A. MANZANO

Dean, College of Arts and Social Sciences
Tarlac State University
Tarlac City

REQUEST LETTER FOR LIST OF RESPONDENTS

Madam:
The undersigned is a Bachelor of Arts in English Language Study student at the Tarlac
State University. The research we wish to conduct is entitled “Bilingualism and Personality traits
of AB English Language Studies Learners: a correlation” for our undergraduate degree which
involves the 4th year students of Bachelor of Arts in English Academic Year 2021–2022. This
project will be conducted under the supervision of Mr. David V. Lip, our research adviser, and
Mr. Henry M. Andres, the Thesis Coordinator.
The researchers seeking your consent to request a copy of the official list and contact
information of the AB English 4TH Year students currently enrolled in the English language
Studies Department Academic Year 2021-2022. The requested copy shall be used for research
purposes only. The students' information would be treated with the utmost confidentiality and
protected by the RA. No. 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012.
Your response and time are greatly appreciated. We are hoping for your kind
approval and support regarding this undertaking.
Very truly yours,

KARL WENCY T. DELAPENA

BERYL KAY R. VALERIO

JOAN B. LAYUG
AB ELS 4B – Student Researcher

73
Noted by:

Mr. DAVID LIP

Thesis Adviser

Recommending Approval:

(SGD) Mr. HENRY M. ANDRES

Thesis Coordinator

Approved by:

(SGD)DR. BRENDALYN A. MANZANO

Dean, College of Arts and Social Sciences

74
 APPENDIX C
LETTER TO THE RESPONDENTS

December 6, 2021
Dear Fourth Year AB English Students:

The undersigned researchers carry out a baccalaureate thesis entitled “Bilingualism and
Personality traits of AB English Language Studies Learners: A correlation.”
You are kindly requested to answer the questionnaire on google form, which is the tool that will
be used to achieve the outcome of the future research. It is only for research purposes and has
nothing to do with evaluating the courses or the teachers.
Your participation will be highly appreciated.
Respectfully yours,
(Sgd.) KARL WENCY T. DELAPENA
(Sgd.) BERYL KAY R. VALERIO
(Sgd.) JOAN B. LAYUG

AB English Student Researchers

Noted:
(Sgd.) SIR. DAVID LIP
Thesis Adviser

75
 APPENDIX D

LETTER TO THE VALIDATOR

January 29, 2022

MR. ROLIEN M. BALISI

LECTURER, ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

Dear Sir:

The undersigned fourth-year students are currently conducting a study on “Bilingualism and Personality
traits of AB English language studies learners: a correlation” in partial fulfillment of the requirement for
the degree Bachelor of Arts in English.

In line with this, we would like to seek help in validating our research questionnaire respectfully. We
believe that your experience and expertise will significantly help us with our study.

Your affirmative response regarding this matter is highly appreciated.

Respectfully yours,

(Sgd) KARL WENCY T. DELAPENA

(Sgd) BERYL KAY R. VALERIO

(Sgd) JOAN B. LAYUG

Student Researchers

Noted

(Sgd) SIR. DAVID V. LIP

Thesis Adviser

76
 APPENDIX E

VALIDATION RUBRICS

Mr. Howard Aries V. Ronquilo

77
Prof.Myrel M. Santiago

78
Mr. Justine Red M. Versola

79
Dr, JiYoung Lee

80
Dr. Neptune C. Manalese

81
 APPENDIX F

LEVEL OF BILINGUALISM QUESTIONNAIRE (Self-Devised based on McCarty (2014) taxonomy)

Introduction

It is a self-report test that will help you and the researcher determine your levels of
bilingualism in terms of individual, family, societal, and school levels. Please follow the
instructions below.

Instruction
The table below contains 40 statements that describe the Level of bilingualism of a
speaker. Read each statement carefully and decide how much you agree with each. Mark each
statement from 1 to 5, where 1 means you disagree, 2 is you slightly disagree, 3 is you are
neutral, 4 is you slightly agree, and 5 is you agree. Place your mark on the line before the
statements.
INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL
_____ 1. I have been bilingual since I was a child.
_____ 2. I can express my thoughts and ideas more using both English and Filipino.
_____ 3. I started using both English and Filipino after puberty.
_____ 4. I have to use both English and Filipino because I have to express something without
direct translation in my first language (Filipino).
_____ 5. I have actively used both English and Filipino languages since childhood.
_____ 6. I am more confident when using both English and the Filipino language.
_____ 7 I feel more reserved when speaking English and Filipino.
_____ 8. I find it easier to communicate when I use both English and Filipino.
_____ 9. I am talkative when using both English and Filipino.
_____ 10. I mix both English and Filipino languages strategically and creatively with a view to
the linguistic repertoire of listeners.
SOCIETAL LEVEL
_____ 1.I grew up in a bilingual community.
_____ 2. I express myself using both English and Filipino because this is the way I see my friends
at my age when they are speaking with me.
_____ 3. I speak both English and Filipino because one of these languages alone is not sufficient
to fulfill the information I need in society.
_____ 4. I speak both English and Filipino because the people around me do the same.
_____ 5. I speak both English and Filipino because of the influence of the people in my society.

82
_____ 6. I mix both English and Filipino languages not for lack of vocabulary but because of
cultural nuances that better suit what I aim to express.
_____ 7. I speak both English and Filipino to socialize with others.
_____ 8. For life opportunities, I speak both English and Filipino.
_____ 9. When I am with people, I mostly use English and Filipino.
_____ 10. I am more outgoing and sociable when switching from English to Filipino.
FAMILY LEVEL
_____ 1. I speak English and Filipino at home.
_____ 2. In the family, I frequently speak English and Filipino.
_____ 3. I speak both English and Filipino because this is what my parents have taught me to do.
_____ 4. I speak both English and Filipino because my parents speak both languages.
_____ 5. I speak both English and Filipino because my father speaks English while my mother
speaks Filipino or vice versa.
_____ 6. I use mostly English and Filipino with my family.
_____ 7. I speak both English and Filipino because of the language shift in the family.
_____ 8. I feel more confident talking in English and Filipino to my family members.
_____ 9. I mix both English and Filipino because this is how my parents raised me.
_____ 10. I find it easier to discuss emotions with my family using English and Filipino.
SCHOOL-LEVEL
_____ 1. I acquired English as a second language academically.
_____ 2. I learned and studied in an ESL (English as a Second Language) program.
_____ 3. I speak English and Filipino because one of these languages alone is insufficient to
fulfill the information I need to learn in school.
_____ 4. I speak English and Filipino because that is how I can express myself easily.
_____ 5. Because my classmates do the same, I speak both English and Filipino.
_____ 6. I mix both English and Filipino languages for academic purposes.
_____ 7. I mix English and Filipino to balance input and interaction in two languages.
_____ 8. Because my teacher used this as the medium of instruction, I speak both English and
Filipino.
_____ 9.I use mostly English and Filipino in school.
_____ 10. I feel more confident when using English and Filipino inside the classroom.

83
84
 APPENDIX G
The Big Five Personality Test
from personality-testing.info courtesy ipip.ori.org
Introduction
It is a personality test; it will help you understand why you act the way you do and how your
personality is structured. Please follow the instructions below.
Instructions
In the table below, for each statement 1-50 mark how much you agree with on the scale of 1-5,
where 1=disagree, 2=slightly disagree, 3=neutral, 4=slightly agree, and 5=agree, in the box to the
left of it.
Test

I I
1. Am the life of the party.
2. Feel little concern for others
3. Am always prepared.
4. Get stressed out easily.
5. Have a rich vocabulary.
6. Do not talk a lot.
7. Am interested in people.
8. Leave my belongings around.
9. I Am relaxed most of the time.
10. Have difficulty understanding
abstract ideas.
26. Have little to say
27. Have a soft heart.
28. Often forget to put things back in their
proper place
29. Get upset easily.
30. Do not have a good imagination
31. Talk to a lot of different people
32. Am not interested in others.
33. Like order
34. Change my mood a lot.
35. Am quick to understand things.

11. Feel comfortable around
people.
12. Insult people.
13. Pay attention to details.
14. Worry about things.
15. Have a vivid imagination.
16. Keep in the background.
36. Do not like to draw attention to myself.
37. Take time out for others.
38. Shirk my duties.
39. Have frequent mood swings.
40. Use difficult words
41. Do not mind being the center of
attention

85
17. Sympathize with others'
feelings.
18. Make a mess of things.
19. Seldom feel blue.
20. Am not interested in abstract
ideas.
21. Start conversations.
22. Am not interested in other
people's problems.
23. Get chores done right away.
24. Am easily disturbed.
25. Have excellent ideas.
42. Feel others' emotions.
43. Follow a schedule.
44. Get irritated easily.
45. Spend time reflecting on things.
46. Am quiet around strangers.
47. Make people feel at ease.
48. Am exacting in my work.
49. Often feel blue.
50. Am full of ideas.
86
 CURRICULUM VITAE
Dela Pena, Karl Wency T.
Zone 5, Bantog, Tarlac City
wencydelapena77@gmail.com
(0912) 1259407

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Tertiary: Tarlac State University S.Y 2018- Present

Bachelor of Arts Major in English Language Studies
Romulo Blvd., San Vicente Tarlac City
Secondary: Central Azucarera de Tarlac High School S.Y 2011- 2015
Elementary: Bantog Elementary School S.Y 2005-2011
Rose Park, Minane Concepcion, Tarlac City

PERSONAL DATA:
Age: 23
Birthday: November 25, 1998
Sex: Male
Civil Status: Single
Language spoke: Filipino, English
Nationality: Filipino

SEMINARS ATTENDED:
Cisco Seminar
September 26, 2015
Information Security and Data Privacy Management
October 16, 2018
How to Survive BPO
November 17, 2018
Seminar on Special Issues in Language Acquisition
April 23, 2019

87
Comprehension and Expression in English Seminar
October 29, 2019

WEBINAR ATTENDED:
Webinar on Linguistic Landscape: Approaches and Prospects for the Philippine Settings
November 21, 2020
Demystifying Language: A Workshop on Linguistic Analysis
Demystifying Language Part II: Grammatical Analysis
November 28, 2020
How to Cope with Anxiety in the New Normal
October 30, 2020
Foundation Course on Intellectual Property
April 26, 2021

88
Valerio, Beryl Kay R.
Sapang Maragul, Tarlac City
valerioberylkay@gmail.com
(0950) 2812948

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Tertiary: Tarlac State University S.Y 2018- Present

Bachelor of Arts Major in English Language Studies
Romulo Blvd., San Vicente Tarlac City
Secondary: Our Lady of the Pillar Academy S.Y 2012- 2015
Tibag High School S.Y 2015- 2018
Tibag, Tarlac City
Elementary: Atipuluan Elementary School S.Y 2007-2012
Negros Occidental

PERSONAL DATA:
Age: 22
Birthday: January 16, 2000
Sex: Female
Civil Status: Single
Language spoke: Hiligaynon, Filipino, English
Nationality: Filipino

AFFILIATION/ORGANIZATION
Linguistic Society
Board of Directors (2019-Present)

SEMINARS ATTENDED:
Training on Effective Public Speaking
TSU Amphitheater, Villa Lucinda Campus, Tarlac City
December 03, 2018

89
Student Organization Leadership Training Seminar
TSU Amphitheater, Villa Lucinda Campus, Tarlac City
February 23, 2019
Seminar on Comprehensive and Expression in English
CASS Theater Hall, Main Campus, Tarlac City
October 29, 2019

WEBINAR ATTENDED:
Webinar on Linguistic Landscape: Approaches and Prospects for the Philippine Settings
November 21, 2020
Demystifying Language: A Workshop on Linguistic Analysis
Demystifying Language Part II: Grammatical Analysis
November 28, 2020
How to Cope with Anxiety in the New Normal
October 30, 2020

90
Layug, Joan B.
San Juan Concepcion, Tarlac
Anlayug05@gmail.com
(0948) 3337649

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Tertiary: Tarlac State University S.Y 2018- Present

Bachelor of Arts Major in English Language Studies
Romulo Blvd., San Vicente Tarlac City
Secondary: Capas High School S.Y 2011- 2014
Elementary: San Juan Elementary School S.Y 2004- 2011
Rose Park, Minane Concepcion, Tarlac City

PERSONAL DATA:
Age: 25
Birthday: March 5, 1997
Sex: Female
Civil Status: Single
Language spoke: Filipino, English
Nationality: Filipino

SEMINARS ATTENDED:

Seminar on Special Issues in Language Acquisition

Engineering AVR, TSU Main Campus, Tarlac City
April 23, 2019
Seminar on Comprehensive and Expression in English
CASS Theater Hall, Main Campus, Tarlac City
October 29, 2019

91
WEBINAR ATTENDED:
Webinar on Linguistic Landscape: Approaches and Prospects for the Philippine Settings
November 21, 2020
Demystifying Language: A Workshop on Linguistic Analysis
Demystifying Language Part II: Grammatical Analysis
November 28, 2020
How to Cope with Anxiety in the New Normal
October 30, 2020
Foundation Course on Intellectual Property
April 26, 2021

92