THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BILLINGUALISM

LEVEL, PRONUNCIATION RATING, AND SPEAKING

SCORE

Group Members:

1. Adz Dzaa Riaat Fajri

2. Cynthia Handayani
3. Dendy Kurniawan

English Language Education Department

Teacher Training and Education Faculty

Tanjungpura University
A. Research Background

Cited from Oxford Dictionary, the definition of bilingual is:

- Bilingual as a Noun: “A person fluent in two languages”

- Bilingual as an Adjective: “Speaking two languages fluently”

Thus, a bilingual child can be defined as a child who speaks

two different languages. There are many reasons, but the two

most common are:

1. The parents speak different languages (for example, an

American woman and a Japanese man).

2. The parents speak the same language but live in a

community where most people speak something else (for

example, a British couple living in the Indonesia).

In the first case, both the mother and father may want to be

able to use their own language when talking to their children.

This is the bilingual home situation. In the second, the parents

may want to be able to use their own language at home even

though their children also need to function in the world outside

the front door. This is the bilingual setting situation. As

explained by Specialist in bilingualism Professor Francois

Grosjean (2010), one can become bilingual in childhood, but

also in adolescence and in adulthood. In fact, many adults

become bilingual because they move from one country (or

region) to another and must acquire a second language. By the

time, they can become just as bilingual as children who acquire

their languages in their early years (minus the native speaker

accent). In general, people become bilingual because life

requires the use of two or more languages. This can be due to

immigration, education, intermarriage, contact with other

linguistic groups within a country, and so on.

It is explained by Mc Carty (2014) that bilingualism

includes 1) the individual level, such as one's own bilingual

and bicultural development; 2) the family level, such as

bilingual child-raising; 3) the societal level, such as cultural

issues or government policies toward minorities; and 4) the

school level, particularly bilingual education.

Rather than just an abstract understanding of concepts, these

four levels help learners understand bilingual phenomena in

their fuller dimensionality, in the context where they manifest.

For example, it is important to distinguish between bilingual

child-raising at home and bilingual education in schools,

which these levels help explain. As another example, in

discussing the overly idealized image of the bilingual in Japan,

which sounds boastful to attribute to oneself, students can be

referred to the square grid to focus on the individual level of

bilingual development and how it is a matter of degree. Family

bilingualism often involves analysing what languages are

spoken among members of an international family. Societal

bilingualism takes up broader issues such as the percentage of

speakers of different languages in a geographical area.

Sometimes human rights are not protected, such as the right to

choose the languages through which one's children are

educated. At the individual level, people should have the right

to their own linguistic and cultural identity, as more languages

bring more choices and therefore greater freedom.

 Table 1. Taxonomy of Bilingualism (McCarty, 2014)

Pronunciation is one way to externalize language (Peng,

2014). It is important because it can facilitate communication

(Gilner, 2008; Ketabi, 2015) and raise one’s social status

(Derwing, Rossiter & Munrol, 2002). A rating scale is essential

for the successful execution of all kinds of language

assessments. It is a manifestation of the underlying construct

of language assessment (Isaacs & Thomson, 2013), the

reference for raters to score test takers’ performances

(Harding, 2017; Isaacs & Thomson, 2013; Mcnamara, 2002;

Underhill, 1987) and the guidelines for test takers or other

 score users to interpret the assessment results (Isaacs &

Thomson, 2013).

As the bilingualism level gives impact on the bilingual

child’s language proficiency. Therefore, the researchers would

like to find out the correlation of bilingualism level to the

bilingual children’s pronunciation rating and their speaking

score in the school, simultaneously.

B. Research Questions
1. How strong is the correlation between students’ bilingualism
level and their speaking score?
2. How much is the contribution of students’ bilingualism level
and their speaking score?
3. What is the pattern of the correlation between students’
bilingualism level and their speaking score?
4. How strong is the correlation between students’
pronunciation rating and their speaking score?
5. How much is the contribution of students’ pronunciation
rating and their speaking score?
6. What is the pattern of the correlation between students’
pronunciation rating and their speaking score?
7. How strong is the correlation between students’ bilingualism
level and their pronunciation rating?
 8. How much is the contribution of students’ bilingualism level
and their pronunciation rating?
9. What is the pattern of the correlation between students’
bilingualism level and pronunciation rating?
10. How strong is the correlation between students’ bilingualism
level, pronunciation rating, towards their speaking score?
C. Findings and Discussions
As the bilingual children had been observed during the
previous semester, the researchers come up with the data as
follows:

N X1 X2 Y X12 X22 Y2 X1Y X2Y X1X2

1 3 80 76 9 6400 5776 228 6080 240
2 2 58 89 4 3364 7921 178 5162 116
3 1 87 67 1 7569 4489 67 5829 87
4 4 70 78 16 4900 6084 312 5460 280
5 4 36 68 16 1296 4624 272 2448 144
6 3 90 56 9 8100 3136 168 5040 270
7 4 76 72 16 5776 5184 288 5472 304
8 2 69 80 4 4761 6400 160 5520 138
9 4 46 72 16 2116 5184 288 3312 184
10 1 88 90 1 7744 8100 90 7920 88
∑ 28 700 748 92 52026 56898 2051 52243 1851
Table 2. Students’ bilingualism level (X1), pronunciation rating (X2), and
speaking score (Y).

The researchers then answering each of the research questions

one by one since they are systematic and related to each other as
follows:
1. The correlation between bilingualism level (X1) and students’
speaking score (Y)

10 2051 − 28 × 748
r x y =
10 92 − 28 10 56898 − 748

20510 − 20944
r=
920 − 784 568980 − 559504

−434 −434 −434

r x y = = = = −0.38
136 9476 √1288736 1135.22

2. The contribution of bilingualism level (X1) towards students’

− . × = . %
speaking score (Y)

3. The pattern of the correlation between bilingualism (X1) and

students’ speaking score (Y)
-0.38 (Negative)
4. The correlation between pronunciation rating (X2) and students’
speaking score (Y)

10 52243 − 700 × 748

r x y =
10 52026 − 700 10 56898 − 748

522430 − 523600
r=
520260 − 490000 568980 − 559504

−1170 −1170 −1170

r x y = = = = −0.07
30260 9476 √286743760 16933.51

5. The contribution of pronunciation rating (X2) towards students’

− . " × = . #%
speaking score (Y)
6. The pattern of the correlation between pronunciation rating (X2)
and students’ speaking score (Y)
-0.07 (Negative)
7. The correlation between bilingualism level (X1) and pronunciation
rating (X2)

10 1851 − 28 × 700
r x x =
10 92 − 28 10 52026 − 700

18510 − 19600
r=
920 − 784 520260 − 490000

−1090 −1090 −1090

r x y = = = = −0.54
136 30260 √4115360 2028.63

8. The contribution of bilingualism level (X1) towards pronunciation

− .$ × = #. %%
rating (X2)

9. The pattern of the correlation between bilingualism level (X1) and

−0.54 (Negative)
pronunciation rating (X2)

10. The multiple correlation value of bilingualism level (X1) and

pronunciation rating (X2) towards students’ speaking score (Y):
REGRESSION EQUATION

Deviation Score

a. ∑x
∑x 28
∑x = ∑x − = 92 −
n 10
784
= 92 − = 92 − 78.4 = 13.6
10
b. ∑x
∑x 700
∑x = ∑x − = 52026 −
n 10
490000
= 52026 −
10
= 52026 − 49000 = 3026

c. ∑y
∑y 748
∑y = ∑y − = 56898 −
n 10
559504
= 56898 −
10
= 56898 − 55950.4 = 947.6

d. ∑x y
∑x × ∑y 28 748
∑x y = ∑x y − = 2051 −
n 10
20944
= 2051 −
10
= 2051 − 2094.4 = −43.4

e. ∑x y
∑x × ∑y 700 748
∑x y = ∑x y − = 52243 −
n 10
523600
= 52243 −
10
= 52243 − 52360 = −117
 f. ∑x x
∑x ∑x 28 700
∑x x = ∑x x − = 1851 −
n 10
19600
= 1851 −
10
= 1851 − 1960 = −109

g. x̅
)
x̅ = *
= 2.8 x̅ 21 = 2.8 = 7.84

h. x̅
+**
x̅ = * = 70 x̅ 22 = 70 = 4900

748
i. ȳ
ȳ= = 74.8 ȳ = 74.8 = 5595.04
10
The value of b (constant)

∑x ∑x y − ∑x x ∑x y
b =
∑x ∑x − ∑x x

3026 −43.4 − −109 −117

=
13.6 3026 − −109

−131328.4 − 12753 −144081

= = = 3.897
41153.6 − 11881 29272.6
The value of b (constant)

∑x ∑x y − ∑x x ∑x y
b =
∑x ∑x − ∑x x
 13.6 −117 − −109 −43.4
=
13.6 3026 − −109
−1591.2 − 4730.6 6321.8
= = = 0.216
41153.6 − 11881 29272.6
The value of a (constant)

∑y ∑x ∑x
a= −b / 0−b / 0
10 10 10
748 28 700
= − 3.897 / 0 − 0.216 / 0
10 10 10
= 74.8 − 3.897 2.8 − 0.216 70

= 74.8 − 10.9 − 15.12 = 48.78

Then the multiple regression equation will be:

y = a + b x + b x + b2 x2 … … … . +b4 x4

y = 48.78 + 3.897x + 0.216x

The multiple correlation value is:

b . ∑x y + b . ∑x y
Rx x y = 6
∑y

3.897 −43.4 + 0.216 −117

=6
56898

169.1 + 25.272
=6
56898
 194.372
=6 = √0.003 = 0.05477
56898

Rx . x . y n − m − 1
F89:;4< =
m 1−R x x y

0.05477 10 − 2 − 1
=
2 1 − 0.05477

0.003 7 0.021 0.021

= = =
2 1 − 0.003 2 0.997 1.994
= 0.01053

F:>?@A = m=2; n=10; α=0,05; dk=7

F:>?@A = 4.74

Table 3. Ftable formats on α=0,05

 0.01 (Fhitung) < 4.74 (Ftabel)

F89:;4< < F:>?@A , hence, there is no significant impact

between bilingualism level and pronunciation rating towards
students’ speaking score.

0.01 4,74

Coefficient of Determination

KD = 0.01 × 100% = 0.01%

Partial correlation value (E towards y)

Multiple regression variation (SG .G )

∑HI J ?K ∑GK H L?I GI H

SG .G =
4JMJ

947.6 − 3.897 −43.4 + 0.216 −117

=
7
947.6 − −169.13 + −25.272
=
7
NO+.PJ J NO.O* O .**
= = 163.14
+ +
=

Standard Deviation of regression (SQ Q )

SQ Q = RSG .G = √163.14 = 12.77

Statistic values

(xS =4900 ∑x =3026 ∑x =13.6

b = 3.897 xS =7.84

Standard Error value

TV
TU =
V

RWX∑Y − Z Y̅ [\ 1 − ]^ ^

12.77
=
13.6 − 10 7.84 1 − −0.54

12.77
=
13.6 − 78.4 1 − 0.2916

12.77 12.77 12.77

= = = = 1.89
−64.8 0.7084 √45.90432 6.77

_`abcde value

f 3.897
_`abcde = = = 2.06
TU 1.89

_ − _gfhi value

0.05
_bjUkl = _ / 0 10 − 2
2
 _ *.* m, ) = 2.036

-2.306 < 2.06 < 2.306

-2.306 2.06 2.306

_`abcde < _bjUlk , this means that there is no significant impact
between bilingualism level towards students’ speaking score.

Coefficient of Determination

op = ]^ .q × 100% = −0.38 × 100% = 14.44%

Partial correlation value (r towards y)

TV V
TU =
RWX∑Y − Z Y̅ [\ 1 − ]^ ^

12.77
=
3026 − 10 4900 1 − −0.54

12.77
=
3026 − 49000 1 − 0.2916

12.77
=
−45974 0.7084

12.77 12.77
= = = 0.07
√32567.98 180.47
_`abcde value

f 0.216
_`abcde = = = 3.08
TU 0.07

_ − _gfhi value

0.05
_bjUkl = _ / 0 10 − 2
2
_ *.* m, ) = 2,306

-2.306 < 3.08 > 2.306

_`abcde > _bjUlk ,

There is a significant impact between pronunciation rating

towards students’ speaking score.

-2.306 2.306 3.08

Coefficient of Determination

op = ]^ q × 100% = −0.07 × 100% = 0.49%

Conclusion
1. The correlation between bilingualism level (X1) and students’ speaking
score (Y) is −0.38 (very low)
2. The contribution of bilingualism level (X1) towards students’ speaking
score (Y) is 14.44%
3. The pattern of the correlation between bilingualism level (X1) and
students’ speaking score (Y) is negative
4. The correlation between pronunciation rating (X2) and students’
speaking score (Y) is −0.07 (very low)
5. The contribution of pronunciation rating (X2) towards students’
speaking score (Y) is 0.0049%
6. The pattern of the correlation between pronunciation rating (X2) and
students’ speaking score (Y) is negative.
7. The correlation between bilingualism level (X1) and pronunciation
rating (X2) is -0.54 (low)
8. The contribution of bilingualism level (X1) towards pronunciation
rating (X2) is 29.16%
9. The pattern of the correlation between bilingualism level (X1) and
pronunciation rating (X2) is negative
10. Simultaneously, there is no significant impact between bilingualism
level (X1) and pronunciation rating (X2) towards students’ speaking
score (Y) as the value of (t`abcde < tbjUlk ) which is 0.01 < 2.306
However, there is a significant impact in the partial correlation between
pronunciation rating (X2) towards students’ speaking score (Y) since
the value of (t`abcde > tbjUlk ) which is 3.08 > 2.306