Seite 116 [116]
CHAPTER 6 METHOD
perceived competence, their attitude to Hungarian/English, code-switching,
and also about their motivation (or the lack of it) to cherish Hungarian
language and/or traditions. A copy of the original guestionnaire can be found
in the Appendix (No. 3).
Those variables were included in the survey which in the light of previous
studies (conducted by Bolonyai in 2007, whose results are discussed in
Chapter 5) have turned out to have an impact on code-switching patterns.
The questionnaire has been compiled by the author relying on earlier studies”®.
The responses given to the questionnaire have been analyzed according to
the following categories: (1) Background sociolinguistic characteristics. The
responses given to the questionnaire’s questions included data regarding the
subjects’ sociolinguistic characteristics, such as sex, age, (declared) nationality,
(declared) mother tongue, vintage (time of immigrating), intergenerational
affiliation (first generation referred to as G1, second generation referred to
as G2) parental background (parents’ nationality), spouse’s mother tongue,
qualification, profession, competence (perceived, English and Hungarian oral
and written), frequency of visits to Hungary. The responses were quantified
in percentages, and salient differences between G1 and G2 speakers were
demonstrated in tables (see Chapter 7).
In order to learn more about the subjects’ language use patterns, in the
second part of the questionnaire, they were asked about the following: the
most intense language use with a Hungarian (a person living in Hungary)
contact, participant-related language use patterns with parents, siblings,
spouse, Hungarian-American friends, children, at work, and function-related
language use patterns, i.e. what language they use when dreaming, counting,
talking to oneself, praying, and cursing.
Three statements were provided as possible answers to choose from “I speak
in Hungarian, in English, alternating and mixing the two languages”. The
responses given to this question have been quantified as follows: Hungarian
— 1, English — 2, Alternating and mixing — 3. The responses given to each item
were collected in Excel tables and are attached in the Appendix. The responses
were quantified in percentages, and salient differences between G1 and G2
speakers were demonstrated in tables (see Chapter 7).
In the third part of the questionnaire, there were questions inquiring about
subjects’ motivation for retaining Hungarian language and traditions as well
as about what emotions they associate with speaking English and Hungarian;
how they feel about code-switching; and about being an American-Hungarian.
In question 27 “What do you think of mixed language use?” subjects were
asked to respond with one of four statements, reflecting their overt attitude to
268 Kimi Kondo-Brown, Bilingual heritage students’ language contact and motivation, in: Zoltan
Dörnyei — Richard Schmidt (eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition, Manoa:
University of Hawaii, 2001, 433-461; Hlavac, Second-generation Speech
- 114°