Seite 116 [116]
OCR
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°
