University of Szeged

Institute of English & American Studies

Examining language proficiency and semantic fluency of mono -and

bilingual individuals
Seminar Paper

by
Gábor Szőcs

Instructor: Bence Illés

Course: Academic Writing for teachers

Szeged, 2022

1
Table of contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................3
2. Literature review.....................................................................................................................4
2.1 The interpretation of language proficiency and semantic fluency..........................................4
2.2 The contrast between mono- and bilinguals concerning language proficiency and semantic
fluency........................................................................................................................................4
2.3 What research shows in practice............................................................................................5
3.1 Research question..................................................................................................................6
3.2 Methodology..........................................................................................................................6
3.2.1 Data Collection......................................................................................................................... 6
3.2.2 Participants...............................................................................................................................6
4. Results.....................................................................................................................................7
4.1 Measuring semantic fluency of mono - and bilingual Italian native speakers.........................7
4.1.1 Table 1: Italian semantic fluency of Italian native mono - and bilingual students....................7
4.1.2 Table 2: English semantic fluency of Italian native mono - and bilingual students..................8
5. Discussion...............................................................................................................................8
6. Conclusion............................................................................................................................10
7. References.............................................................................................................................11

2
1. Introduction

Every individual has the innate ability to acquire any language that is being heard during
their early childhood. People are exposed to a language, and without knowing anything about its
system and complexity, they learn how to use it in their remaining life. But what is the case with
those ones whose parents are from different nations, and who is being exposed to at least two
distinct languages? Are these people, more precisely bilinguals, better than those who are
monolinguals concerning their language skills?
There are numerous aspects that can – and should be – studied in the field mono -and
bilingual’s language proficiency. In the following study I attempt to examine the semantic fluency
of seven people who are either mono -or bilinguals in order to shed a light on their language
proficiency, and their ability to learn a new language after the exposure of their mother tongue. In a
brief literature review I identify and discuss several important academic sources that add further
context to the issue under study and that helped establish and support my hypotheses. Then in
Research Question and Methodology I go into further depth about the precise question that will be
the subject of this study as well as its methodology. The answer ratio will be show in the Results,
and these statistics will be carefully assessed and analyzed in the Discussion part. A succinct
overview and some closing remarks can be found under the section Conclusion.

3
2. Literature review
Bilingualism is a term in linguistics that refers to the acquisition of two languages in early
childhood. This concept in language acquisition has always been one of the most controversial
topics all around the globe (Bhatia & Ritchie 2008: 3). People from different nations travel to
another place, meet with other human beings, decide to stay there, and settle down. Today, it is a
common and unstoppable phenomenon affecting children and adults born into this situation
concerning their language skills and use. In this literature review, I will focus on the notions of
language proficiency and semantic fluency; moreover, the contrast between mono- and bilingual
people regarding these key concepts and language learning. Furthermore, I will examine three
pieces of research concerning the differences between the two above-mentioned categories of
individuals.

2.1 The interpretation of language proficiency and semantic fluency.

Language proficiency and semantic fluency are two separate yet interrelated notions in the
field of language acquisition. (Bialystok & Craik 2010: 19). The ability to use a language in a
manner acceptable to native speakers of the language in real-world interactions or non-rehearsed
settings is considered language proficiency. Proficiency can be measured on a scale which includes
different levels, namely no, elementary, limited working, professional working, fully professional
and native- or bilingual proficiency.
The meaning and interpretation of words, signs and sentence structures are referred to as
semantics. The comprehension of what is being read, the comprehension of others, and every
decision that is made are all heavily influenced by semantics. (ibid.) As regards semantic fluency
means the ability to produce words in diverse categories within a previously given time frame. A
great example of this phenomenon is the category of ‘animals’, which involves mammals, birds,
reptiles, and fish, too.
These two definitions are inevitable in the field of linguistics regarding mono- and bilingual
people. Not only language proficiency but also semantic fluency should be a test criterion in
examining the different types of language acquisition and use.
2.2 The contrast between mono- and bilinguals concerning language proficiency and semantic
fluency.
There is a huge contrast between mono- and multilingual people regarding language
proficiency and semantic fluency. Every person is blessed with the innate ability to acquire any
language at a very young age, but there are some whose fortunate situation enables them to begin
the acquisition of two distinct languages. This phenomenon is directly proportional to the fact that

4
their linguistic abilities are somewhat contrasting when trying to compare them with monolinguals’
language competencies (Aarts, Demir-Vegter, Kurvers & Henrichs 2016: 274).
Research in connection to semantic fluency shows that bilingual children’s scores are lower
than monolinguals concerning the native languages, but when testing in a second, or even third
language, these tendencies are reversed, and bilinguals score higher (ibid.). Concerning language
proficiency, the data is almost the same: monolinguals' linguistic abilities were slightly higher than
bilinguals’, but when testing a language other than the mother tongue, bilinguals got better scores
(Bialystok & Craik 2010: 22).
It is also important to make a distinction between young and adult people. Bilingual people
at older ages show better language competencies and learn languages more efficiently than
monolinguals (ibid.). The semantic fluency of their third language is also much higher than the level
of those human beings who speak a sole language. (ibid.) Concerning my opinion, these phenomena
may be answered by the early exposure to two diverse languages, and the early recognition of two
different language systems. Being able to produce more languages at a high level at a young age,
therefore, can be beneficial in the long term, too.
2.3 What research shows in practice
Feggy Ostrosky-Solis, Azucena Lozano Gutierrez, Maura Ramirez Flores, and Alfredo
Ardila’s study focuses on semantic fluency across Spanish speakers from different countries. This
research looks at how age, education, and culture affect semantic fluency in Spanish-speaking
mono- and bilingual people. The researchers state that semantic fluency performance is influenced
by factors like age and education level; furthermore, mono-and bilingualism are also important
perspectives in the study regarding the other language that is spoken by the subjects. The source of
the observed differences, therefore, may be the cultural background, and the knowledge of a second
language (Ostrosky-Solis et al. 2007: 368-373).
Anna F. Scheele, Paul P. M. Leseman, and Aziza Y. Mayo’s study’s subjects were a sample
of 3 years old Moroccan Dutch, Turkish-Dutch, and monolingual native Dutch speakers. The main
aim of the research was to examine vocabulary skills and language proficiency concerning the
Dutch language. On an L1 vocabulary test, Dutch children scored higher than bilingual children,
while on an L2 oral test, Moroccan Dutch children scored much higher than Turkish-Dutch
children. Language-specific input in literate and oral activities had a significant impact on both L1
and L2 skills according to multigroup analysis (Scheele et al. 2009: 118-138). In the end, evidence
of successful L1 to L2 cross-linguistic transfer and rivalry between L1 and L2 input were
discovered (ibid.).

5
Tessel Boerma, Paul Leseman, Frank Wijnen, and Elma Blom’s research examines bilingual
children and kinds with language impairment concerning their language proficiency. The
researchers wished to draw a parallel between the two types of children and understand why
resemblance can be found between the groups. The results of this study show that there is a
significant overlap between the language profiles of bilingual children and kids with language
impairment in the early (pre)school years, but that this overlap decreases over time (Boerma et al.
2017: 5-10). This was explained by the fact that bilinguals and children with L1 maintain attention
to auditory stimuli harder than a normal monolingual child, which ‘interferes with how well
incoming language is processed’ (ibid.).
After examining all these studies, it is clearly visible that the results are varied. Each of these
claims that there is a difference between mono- and bilingual people’s language proficiency and
semantic fluency; furthermore, it became obvious that these fields can be studied from other
perspectives, as well.
3. Research question and methodology
3.1 Research question
These findings lead me to questioning and examining the language proficiency and semantic
fluency of mono- and bilingual people speaking Italian as L1 and English as a foreign language.
This study sets out to answer the following question: Is monolinguals’ or bilinguals’ semantic
fluency bigger concerning Italian and English?
3.2 Methodology
3.2.1 Data Collection
First, to establish a strong theoretical foundation for my research, I gathered pertinent research
studies in the area of language proficiency and semantic fluency of mono- and bilingual people. The
main aim of my study was to assess the proficiency level of some of the above-mentioned
individuals regarding their semantic fluency. Therefore, the survey contained various questions,
from concrete to abstract concerning semantic fluency and knowledge of language use in different
fields. I defined a category and then asked the participants to write as many examples as they could
into the given category. The survey had two parts; one was concerning Italian, while the other was
regarding the English language. The participants could not return to the question already answered.
3.2.2 Participants
The participants who took part in my survey were 7 students from the University of La
Sapienza in Rome. 5 of them were bilinguals, and the remaining two were monolinguals. All of
them speak and use Italian daily; meanwhile, among the 5 bilinguals there were also native speakers
of French, Portuguese, Spanish and German. Each of them studied English as a first or second

6
language in their secondary grammar school, and each of them obtained a certificate in English on
level B2 as well. In everyday contexts, they use Italian, but at home, the bilingual
responders/participants use their other language.

4. Results
The main aim of my research was to examine the semantic fluency of mono- and bilingual
people living in Italy and to draw a parallel between their language proficiency. My study was
carried out orally, giving the participants one and a half minutes to give as many examples within a
given category as they could.
4.1 Measuring semantic fluency of mono- and bilingual Italian native speakers
Measuring semantic fluency has always been one of the most effective ways of measuring
people’s language fluency (Bialystok & Craik 2010: 19). This is why I decided to examine verbal
fluency with this method, too. 7 participants, whose native language is Italian, blessed me with their
presence and helped me carry out my research. I asked every participant to tell me as many words
as they can in these given categories: body parts, food, work, school, animals, verbs, and adjectives.
First, their Italian language proficiency was measured. In most of the given categories,
monolinguals earned much higher scores than bilinguals did. Furthermore, they were much more
confident when they were telling me their examples in Italian. The results are shown in the
following diagram:

7
 4.1.1 Table 1: Italian semantic fluency of Italian native mono- and bilingual students
The next step was to examine the participants' English semantic fluency. The questions that I
asked were all the same, while the answers were slightly different. Here the differences can be seen
better. Bilingual students’ English language semantic fluency, in most cases, was higher than Italian
monolinguals’, and they didn’t have to think as much as monolinguals did. The results are
represented in this diagram:

4.1.2 Table 2: English semantic fluency of Italian native mono- and bilingual students
5. Discussion
The outcomes of this research have provided insight into the differences concerning
semantic fluency of mono- and bilingual Italian native speakers. As the above-presented tables
indicate, I divided the study into two separate sections, each containing seven categories in itself.
The first five categories are concepts that are about everyday life and in which students could
express their ideas with ease, without thinking much. The last two categories were rather different.
After asking them to name as many familiar words as they could, I wanted to be sure that they could
name items within linguistic categories, too. This is the reason why I decided to ask them for verbs
and adjectives, as well.
The first part of my research concerns the Italian semantic fluency of the participants. As the
first table shows, Italian monolinguals scored higher in almost every category containing the two
abstract ones. It is interesting to see that bilinguals scored nearly the same among themselves: no
significant difference can be observed between the results of bilinguals. According to a study
carried out by four well-known researchers in the field of linguistics, in semantic fluency tests,
8
monolinguals’ scores are higher than bilinguals’, because during the early ages of language
acquisition there is no need to divide their attention into two parts; they are exposed to a sole
language which makes it twice as ‘facile’ to learn a language than being exposed to two (Bialystok
et al. 2010:19). Therefore, monolinguals’ advantage can be traced back to childhood. Furthermore,
it becomes easily visible that bilingual people could much harder obtain such language proficiency
in their native language than monolinguals do.
The second section of my study indicates a much more significant difference compared to
the previous one. While Italian monolinguals performed better in the first section of the study,
concerning English semantic fluency, bilingual students showed better language use and
knowledge. In some categories, bilinguals could name more words in English than in their mother
tongue, more precisely in Italian. An appealing example is the sixth category in which the Italian-
German bilingual alumna listed 52 verbs in English, while in Italian she could tell me no more than
32. In my opinion, this phenomenon could be answered by the similarities between the German and
the English language; both are derived from the same language family which makes it easier to
learn and remember the concepts of the languages. A recent study by Bhatia and Ritchie (2008)
states that language families do have an impact on the bilingual brain and their upcoming language
learning process, as well. A compelling example of this phenomenon is the case of a German-
Norwegian bilingual. According to the studies, this person could pick up Swedish easier but had a
hard time picking up Spanish and then French (Bhatia & Ritchie 2008:17). Concerning the other
bilinguals, their scores were almost always higher than monolinguals’, which leads us to the
conclusion that bilinguals semantic fluency in another language can be higher thanks for their early
exposure of not a sole, but two different languages.
The data contributes to a clearer understanding of the semantic fluency of the above-
mentioned two types of people, more precisely mono- and bilinguals. These results should be taken
into consideration when examining language proficiency concerning semantic fluency. Due to the
number of participants, this paper is considered a case study, so the outcome cannot be generalized
but can give us a starting point to carry out further research and get a more complex picture of this
field of study. Further research with more participants from other nations and other native speakers
is needed to get an even better understanding of the to-be-collected data.

9
6. Conclusion
The research reinforced and supported the hypothesis that there is a difference between
mono -and bilinguals’ semantic fluency and their language proficiency concerning their native
language. The results show that while monolinguals can use better their mother tongue and have a
stronger semantic fluency, bilinguals can be better in other languages besides their native
language(s).
Although my research highlights out that bilingual people may be better in the field of
language learning, it may not always be right. Without motivation and persistence, a language never
could be learnt; this is the reason why these concepts also could have a huge role in this study.
Bilingual individuals may have an advantage in language learning, and monolinguals may be better
users of their mother tongue, but that easily visible contrast can fade away quickly if the above-
mentioned concepts are not present in the lives of the people concerned.

10
7. References
Aarts, Rian; Demir‐Vegter, Serpil; Kurvers, Jeanne; Henrichs, Lotte. 2016. Academic language in
shared book reading: Parent and teacher input to mono‐and bilingual
preschoolers. Language learning, 66 (2): 263-295.

Bhatia, Tej; Ritchie, William. 1999. The bilingual child: Some issues and perspectives. In Bhatia,
Tej (ed.) Handbook of child language acquisition. 569–643. Oxford. Academic Press.

Bhatia, Tej; Ritchie, William. 2008. The bilingual mind and linguistic creativity. Journal of
Creative Communications 3(1): 5-21.

Bialystok, Ellen; Craik, Fergus. 2010. Cognitive and linguistic processing in the bilingual mind.
Current directions in psychological science 19(1).19-23.

Damian, Markus F, Ye, Wenting; Oh, Minah; Yang, Sian. 2019. Bilinguals as “experts”?
Comparing the performance of mono-to-bilingual individuals via a mouse tracking
paradigm. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22 (5): 1176-1193.

Fishman, Joshua. 1982. Sociolinguistic Foundations of Bilingual Education. Bilingual Review / La

Revista Bilingüe, 9 (1): 1–35.

Kovelman, Ioulia; Baker, Stephanie A; Petitto, Laura-Ann. 2008. Bilingual and monolingual brains
compared: a functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of syntactic processing
and a possible “neural signature” of bilingualism. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20 (1):
153-169.

Portocarrero, José; Burright, Richard; & Donovick, Peter. 2007. Vocabulary and verbal fluency of
bilingual and monolingual college students. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22 (3):
415-422.

Sorace, Antonella. 2007. The more, the merrier: facts and beliefs about the bilingual mind. Tall
Tales about the Mind and the Brain: Separating Fact from Fiction, 193-203.

S. Rios, Emilia. TEDx Talks. 2019. July 30. “The Overlooked Struggle of Bilingualism.” July 30.
https://youtu.be/8SbijUdgivQ

11