Mother Tongue Attitude Scale ( MTAS)

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement scale that can be used to identify the bilingual individual’s attitude towards a mother tongue that is undergoing attrition due to a dominant second language. Scale research was applied to a total of 439 Kurdish-Turkish bilingual participants aged from 17-35 living in Turkey. An exploratory factor analysis and a reliability analysis were performed to determine the validity of the scale. The scale developed according to the results of exploratory factor analysis consists of 12 items in total from three dimensions, behavioral, cognitive and affective. KMO measure adequacy was found to be 0.874 and the strength of the relationship among variables by the Bartlett test was found to be 2047.005 and Chi-square output was statistically significant (p<0.05). The item factor loadings of the scale ranged from 0.845 to 0.613, and item total correlation values ranged from 0.671 to 0.478. In addition, the total Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was 0.874; accordingly, the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients for the sub-dimensions of the scale were estimated to be between 0.801 and 0.8769. Moreover, the fit indices of the model were examined and the Chi-square value (x2 = 256.01, N = 439, do = 51, p = 0.00) was significant. The fit index values of the scale were: AGFI=0.86, RMSEA= 0.096, SRMR=0.066, CFI=0.90, IFI=0.95, NFI=0.94, NNFI= 0.94. It was concluded that the scale developed for this study is valid and reliable, theoretically providing a basis for evaluating the attitude of individuals towards their mother tongues.

Keywords

• Scale
• Bilingualism
• Mother tongue
• Attitude

Mother Tongue Attitude Scale ( MTAS)

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement scale that can be used to identify the bilingual individual’s attitude towards a mother tongue that is undergoing attrition due to a dominant second language. Scale research was applied to a total of 439 Kurdish-Turkish bilingual participants aged from 17-35 living in Turkey. An exploratory factor analysis and a reliability analysis were performed to determine the validity of the scale. The scale developed according to the results of exploratory factor analysis consists of 12 items in total from three dimensions, behavioral, cognitive and affective. KMO measure adequacy was found to be 0.874 and the strength of the relationship among variables by the Bartlett test was found to be 2047.005 and Chi-square output was statistically significant (p<0.05). The item factor loadings of the scale ranged from 0.845 to 0.613, and item total correlation values ranged from 0.671 to 0.478. In addition, the total Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was 0.874; accordingly, the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients for the sub-dimensions of the scale were estimated to be between 0.801 and 0.8769. Moreover, the fit indices of the model were examined and the Chi-square value (x2 = 256.01, N = 439, do = 51, p = 0.00) was significant. The fit index values of the scale were: AGFI=0.86, RMSEA= 0.096, SRMR=0.066, CFI=0.90, IFI=0.95, NFI=0.94, NNFI= 0.94. It was concluded that the scale developed for this study is valid and reliable, theoretically providing a basis for evaluating the attitude of individuals towards their mother tongues.

Keywords

• Scale
• Bilingualism,
• Mother tongue
• Attitude

References

1. Aslan, S. (2014). Nation Building in Turkey and Morocco. Cambridge University Press.
2. Andrew D.P.S., Pedersen P.M., McEvoy, C.D. (2011). Research Methods in Sport Management. Champaign: Human Kinetics
3. Babayiğit, M. V. (2020a). Expressions of Determination, Success, Diligence, Stability and Laziness in Kurdish, Turkish and English Proverbs. International Journal of Kurdish Studies 6 (2), 244 – 257, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21600/ijoks. 760441.
4. Babayiğit, M.V. (2020b). Native Kurdish Teenage Learners' Language Shift from English to Kurdish in Learning the Target Language; A Case of High School Students with Samples, ECLSS Online 2020f.
5. Babayiğit, M. V. (2020c). Does Multimedia Technology Facilitate Pragmatics Awareness among Teenage Learners? A Case of Secondary-School Students. International Journal of Kurdish Studies 6 (2), 164 – 174, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21600/ijoks. 724142
6. Başkaya, F. (1991). Paradigmanın İflası, Doz Yayınları, İstanbul
7. Bozavli, E.&Gulmez, R. (2012). Turkish students’ perspectives on speaking anxiety in native and non-native English speaker classes. US-China Education Review B, 12, 1034-1043.
8. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88 (3), 588-606.

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. (12. baskı). Ankara: Pegem A Yayınları.
10. Cherciov M. (2013). Investigating the impact of attitude on first language attrition and second language acquisition from a dynamic systems theory perspective. Int. J. Biling. 17 716-733.
11. Cigerli, S. (2000) La reformulation de l’idéologie officielle turque et la langue kurde L’autorisation d’un prénom kurde, CONFLUENCES Méditerranée.
12. Çubukcu, F. (2008). A study of the correlation between self-efficacy and foreign language learning anxiety. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 4 (1), 148-158.
13. De Bot, K., Lowie, W., and Verspoor, M. (2007). A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10 (1), 7-21
14. Gatignon H. (2011) Statistical Analysis of Management Data. London: Springer.
15. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Hamers, J. F. and Blanc, M. H. A. (2000 ). Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
18. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. R.(2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6 (1): 53-60.
19. Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal.
20. Hu, L.T., ve Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55.
21. Karacan, H. & Khalid, H. S. (2016). Adjectives in Kurdish language: Comparison between dialects. International Journal of Kurdish Studies 2 (2), 15 – 23
22. Karacan, H. & Babayiğit, M. V. (2017). Türk ve Kürt Dillerinin Sentaks (Sözdizimsel) Karşılaştırması. Tiydem Yayıncılık, Editör: Hasan KARACAN, Basım sayısı:3, Sayfa sayısı:238, ISBN:978-605-9512-03-9, Bölüm Sayfaları: 7 -31.
23. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge
24. Kline RB.(2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press: 154-186.
25. Köpke, B.; Schmid, M. S. (2004) First Language Attrition: The Next Phase. In: Schmid, M.S.; Köpke, B.; Keijzer, M.; Weilemar, L. (Ed). First Language Attrition: Interdisciplinary Perspectives On Methodological Issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
26. Köpke B. (2018). First language attrition: from bilingual to monolingual proficiency. The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods, 1(2), 130-149.
28. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J. L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360.
29. McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence based inquiry. Boston: Brown and Company.
30. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575.
31. Prescher, P. (2007). Identity, immigration and first language attrition. In: B. Köpke, M. S. Schmid, M. Keijzer, & S. Dostert (Eds.), First language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 189-205). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
32. Schmid, M. S. (2011). Language Attrition. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
33. Schmid M. S., Yilmaz G. (2018). Predictors of language dominance: an integrated analysis of first language attrition and second language acquisition in late bilinguals. Front. Psychol. 9:1306. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01306 .
34. Schmid M. S. (2014). The debate on maturational constraints in bilingual development: a perspective from first language attrition. Lang. Acquis. 21 386–410.
35. Schmid M. S., Köpke B. (2017). The relevance of first language attrition to theories of bilingual development. Linguist. Approaches Biling 7: 637–667.
36. Schmid, M. S. (2004) First Language Attrition: The Methodology Revised. International Journal of Bilingualism, v. 8, n. 3: 239-255.
37. Schmid, M. S. and De Bot, K. (2004) Language Attrition. In: Davies, A. and Elder, C. (Ed.). The Handbook Of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing (2004): 210-34.
38. Schmid M. S., Köpke B. (2017). The relevance of first language attrition to theories of bilingual development. Linguist. Approaches Biling 7: 637–667.
39. Seliger, H. W. (1989). Deterioration and Creativity in Childhood Bilingualism. In: Hyltenstam, K. and Obler, L. K. (1989). Bilingualism Across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity, And Loss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:173-184.
40. Seliger, H. W. (1991). Language Attrition, Reduced Redundancy, and Creativity. In: Seliger, H. W.; Vago, R. M. (Ed.). First Language Attrition. Cambridge.
41. Seliger, H. W.; Vago, R. M. (1991). The Study of First Language Attrition: An Overview. In: Seliger, H. W.; Vago, R. M. (Ed.). First Language Attrition. Cambridge.
42. Sharwood Smith, M. A. (1983). On First Language Loss in The Second Language Acquirer: Problems of Transfer. In: Gass, S.; Selinker, L. (Ed.). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, Ma: Newbury House (1983): 222-231.
43. Sharwood Smith, M. A (1989) Crosslinguistic influence in language loss. In: HYLTENSTAM, K.; OBLER, L. K. Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1989): 185-201.
44. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., and Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-offit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8 (2): 23-74.
45. Tabachnick B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. (4th ed.). M.A.: Allyn and Bacon.
46. Tayiz, V. & Özok, H.İ. (2020). Eğitim Stresi, Yalnızlık ve Akıllı Telefon Bağımlılığı. Eğitim Ortamlarında Nitelik (Ed. Tanhan, F. & Özok H. İ.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
47. Tavşancıl, E. (2006). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
48. Özok, H. İ. (2019). Eğitim Vizyonu ve Öğretmen Stresi. Türkiye Eğitim Vizyonu Üzerine Değerlendirmeler (Ed. Tanhan, F.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi
49. Zhang, X. (2013). Foreign language listening anxiety and listening performance: Conceptualizations and causal relationships. System, 41: 164-177. l, 70: 125-132.