The Effect of Bilingualism on Text Messaging Efficiency

1. The Effect of Bilingualism on Text Messaging Efficiency Sandra Yvette Benitez California State University, Dominguez Hills

2. Code Switching • Code switch: The alternation of two or more language dialects. • Example: • “I don’t want to go si tu no puedes ir” • “I don’t want to go if you can’t go”

3. Text Messages • Short Message Service (SMS), asynchronous communication • Individuals are limited to 160 characters per message. • Textisms • Language Abbreviations • Emoticons • Capitalization • Punctuation

4. Background Previous research has named common factors that affect an individual’s reasoning for code switching.

5. Background Cont. These Include: • Environmental settings • Your audience • Conversations with embarrassing or uncomfortable topics • Picking up “cues” from others that serve as an invitation to speak both languages

6. Background Cont. • Deficiency-Driven Code switching • Proficiency-Driven Code switching • Limited research available relating code switching to communication efficiency.

7. Background Cont. • Bautista (2004) • “Communicative Efficiency” • Friend’s Text: “Don’t get kidnapped.” • (Tagalog alternative is: Huwag kang magpapakidnap.) • Bautista’s Response: “Walang magra-ransom.” • (The alternative in English is: No one will pay ransom [for me] )

8. Purpose This study is testing Bautista’s hypothesis in an experiment comparing a bilingual group of English and Spanish speakers and a monolingual group of English only speakers.

9. Participants N= 38 pairs Monolingual = 22 pairs Bilingual =16 pairs Participants were undergraduate students recruited from the psychology subject pool at California State University, Dominguez Hills.

10. Texting Game Participants were asked to play a “Password” like game in which the objective was to make their partner guess as many words off of a word list by providing them with descriptions of the word. Participants were asked to complete this task communicating only via the text messaging service on their cell phones.

12. Example of Word Lists English Category: Having Sex Masturbation Oral Sex Condom Vagina Breast Penis Orgasm Testicles Sperm Erection Spanish Category: Having Sex Masturbacion Oral Sex Condon Vagina Pecho Penis Orgasmo Testicles Esperma Erection

13. Texting Game • IV • Language type: Monolingual vs. Bilingual group. • DV • The number of words guessed correctly • Character count per message in order to determine which group was most efficient • The message count per target word per game

14. Hypotheses • H1:Bilinguals will guess more words correctly than the monolinguals because they will be able to text more efficiently due to the availability of two languages. • H2:Bilinguals will use fewer characters within their text messages because they will be able to choose the shortest words from both languages. • H3:Bilinguals will send fewer messages and guess more words correctly than the monolingual pairs because they will be able to text more efficiently and choose the shortest words due to the availability of two languages.

15. Method • Requirements: • Sign up in pairs according to language capabilities • Bring and use their own cell phones • Text Messaging experience of more than a year. • Procedure: • Each pair was distributed the texting game packet

16. Method Cont. • Participants were then separated into two different rooms. • Official word lists were distributed. When the 10 min time limit expired, the pairs rotated. • Text messages were collected.

17. Examples of Code Switches • “Buen trabajo mija…next..”. • “Good job girl..next..” • “Te sale de atras n don’t smell so good” • “It comes out through the back and dont smell so good” • La mama le da leche al bebe con el q? • “The mother gives milk to the baby with what?”

18. Code Switches # Of Bilingual Pairs # Of Switches Per Pair

19. Hypothesis #1:Number Of Words Correct By Language Group Mean # of Words Guessed Correctly M=4.7 M=3.7 [SD=2.06] [SD=1.86] Language Condition Monolingual vs. Bilingual t(33)= 1.48, p=0.15

20. Hypothesis #2:Characters Per Message By Language Group • Mean # of • Characters • Per Message • Sent M=27.3 M=27.7 [SD=6.87] [SD=8.92] Language Condition Monolingual vs Bilingual t(33)= -.129, p=.898

21. Hypothesis #3:Messages Per Target Word By Language Group Mean # of Messages Sent to achieve target word M=4.4 M=3.8 [SD=3.2] [SD=2.7] Language Condition Monolinguals vs. Bilinguals t(33)=-0.56, p=0.58

22. Correlations with Switch Count ( all are 1 tailed tests) † p<.10

23. Results There was no statistical significance when comparing the bilingual vs. monolingual groups in each of the dependent variables.

24. Discussion • Bilinguals did not show greater efficiency over the Monolingual pairs. • Did not support Bautista’s hypothesis • Bilingual’s are code switching, however, it has not been directly related to communication efficiency.

25. Discussion Cont. • First experimental study conducted to try and test this hypothesis. • Bilinguals were shortening both English & Spanish words.

26. Future Studies • Analyzing the underlying mental structures of bilinguals by studying natural occurring text messages. • Elimination of experimental setting that can help capture the code switches in their natural settings.

27. Broader Implications • Texting as a way of communicating with outpatient clients after treatment. • Our study helped to show that this will be less effective due to the limitations of text messaging.

28. Thank you