A Nivel de la infraestructura de Sistema de Agua y Saneamiento

The table below summarises the findings for the monolingual English speakers in terms of attractiveness.

162

Table 6.1: Summary table for monolinguals in terms of attractiveness

Question Statistically significantly different

Awful vs Nice ×

Hostile vs Good Natured ×

Unfriendly vs Friendly ×

Unlikeable vs Likeable ×

Inconsiderate vs Considerate ×

For the attractiveness categories, prior information did not influence the participants’ attitudes towards the monolingual speakers. As explained in the previous superiority section, participants easily identified the speakers to be native speakers of English regardless of the information given to them so no difference between the two groups was expected. Even when the range differed, the difference was not wide enough to show a statistically significant difference between the two groups. No difference was observed previously for the superiority category also so if no there is no statistical difference between the two groups in the dynamism section, it could be concluded that prior information of the speakers has no influence on the first language English users’ attitudes towards monolingual English speakers which will not be surprising as even without prior information of the speakers, the listeners viewed the monolinguals as being first language English users with a UK accent.

6.2 Early Bilinguals

The difference between the two groups for attractiveness for the early bilinguals will be observed in this section.

6.2.1 Awful vs Nice

163

bilinguals for the “Awful vs Nice” question. Although the median (5.0), range (2 to 7) and interquartile range (4 to 6) was equal between the two groups of participants, the mean was different by 0.4 (Group A: 5.3, Group B: 4.9). Group A had a mean higher than the median while Group B had a lower mean.

Figure 6.10: Box plots of Awful vs Nice for early bilinguals

The Wilcoxon rank sum test showed that the scores from Group A were statistically significantly different from those of Group B (W = 4339, p < 0.05). Therefore, participants who had prior information of the speakers had a significantly higher score than the Group B participants. This could be an influence of being perceived as a bilingual and being native in two languages or being a native speaker of Japanese as well. Either way, the results show that when listeners are told that the speakers are native speakers of both English and Japanese, they are perceived to be nicer than when they are listening to the speech with no information. As majority of participants perceived both monolinguals and early bilinguals as first language English users with a UK accent (as discussed in chapter 4), the results of the two speaker groups will be compared in detail later in the chapter.

164 6.2.2 Hostile vs Good Natured

The boxplots below illustrate participants’ attitudes towards the early bilinguals for the “Hostile vs Good Natured” question. The two groups have an equal range (3 to 7) and interquartile range (4 to 6) but have different median (Group A: 6.0, Group B: 5.0) and mean (Group A: 5.4, Group A: 5.1).

Figure 6.11: Box plots of Hostile vs Good Natured for early bilinguals

Although the scores from the two group of participants had different mean and median, the Wilcoxon rank sum test did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups (W = 4349.5, p > 0.05).

6.2.3 Unfriendly vs Friendly

The graph below illustrates the ratings in terms of friendliness towards the early bilinguals. It shows a graph identical to the previous question on “Hostile vs Good Natured”.

165

Figure 6.12: Box plots of Unfriendly vs Friendly for early bilinguals

The scores for the early bilinguals again did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups of participants with the Wilcoxon rank sum test (W = 4170, p > 0.05).

6.2.4 Unlikeable vs Likeable

The boxplots below show the attitudes in terms of likeableness towards the early bilinguals of English and Japanese. The two boxplots show an equal median (5.0), range (2 to 7), and interquartile range (4 to 6) but the mean is plotted differently. Group A has a mean of 5.2 which is higher than the median and Group B has a mean of 4.9, lower than the median.

166

Figure 6.13: Box plots of Unlikeable vs Likeable for early bilinguals

The calculations show that there was a statistically significant difference between the scores from the two groups of participants (W = 4557.5, p < 0.05). Participants who knew that the speakers were fluent in English and Japanese viewed them to be more likeable than participants who did not hold this information. This demonstrated that participants had a more positive view in terms of likableness for bilinguals who spoke fluently in English. Previous studies have shown that UK English speakers are seen more positively than other international English speakers in many attitude questions (Anisfeld et al., 1962). However, as previous studies have looked at internationally accented English, the results cannot be compared directly to the current research as my early bilingual speakers had very little or no foreign accent as they were identified similarly to the monolingual English speakers if they were not given prior information. The only research done on attitudes towards English and Japanese bilinguals was done by Watanabe (2008) where a bilingual was generally rated lower than a New Zealand English accented speaker. However, the bilingual used in his study was a female native speaker of US English and Japanese, and the research was conducted in New Zealand. Consequently, it is uncertain how comparable the results are with the current study

167

where the speakers are male UK English speakers rated by native speakers of UK English. Furthermore, the listeners in Watanabe’s study did not know that the speaker was fluent in two languages so it can be compared with my Group B participants but not my Group A participants who were told that the speakers were bilingual. The discussion will continue later when the scores of monolinguals and early bilinguals are compared.

6.2.5 Inconsiderate vs Considerate

The two boxplots for considerateness show equal median (5.0), range (2 to 7) and interquartile range (4 to 6) which are similar to the previous question. The mean for Group A is plotted above the median line (5.2) while the mean for Group B is plotted below the median line (4.8).

Figure 6.14: Box plots of Inconsiderate vs Considerate for early bilinguals

The Wilcoxon rank sum test on attitudes towards early bilinguals in terms of considerateness showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (W = 4416.5, p < 0.05). Therefore, as before, participants who knew that the speakers were bilinguals rated the speakers higher in terms of considerateness. As mentioned

168

in the question for “Awful vs Nice”, there are a several reasons which could explain why this is the case. Firstly, as the listeners were told that the speakers were native speakers of both English and Japanese, there is a possibility that the listeners viewed bilinguals more positively. Another reason could be the influence of Japanese. Studies on stereotypes found that the students and adults viewed the Japanese as courteous (Maykovich, 1972). Thus, as the listeners knew that the speakers were also fluent in Japanese, the stereotypes of Japanese people may have influenced the listeners to perceive the speakers as being more considerate than if listeners had no information about the Japanese background of the speakers.