Hostname: page-component-8678677fb7-2d78d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-10-01T07:59:25.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is multilingualism linked to a higher tolerance of ambiguity?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2012

JEAN-MARC DEWAELE  and
LI WEI
JEAN-MARC DEWAELE*
Affiliation:
Birkbeck College, University of London
LI WEI
Affiliation:
Birkbeck College, University of London
*
Address for correspondence: Jean-Marc Dewaele, Department of Applied Linguistics & Communication, Birkbeck College, 30, Russell Square, London WC1B 5DT, UKj.dewaele@bbk.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigates the link between multilingualism and the personality trait Tolerance of Ambiguity (TA) among 2158 mono-, bi- and multilinguals. Monolinguals and bilinguals scored significantly lower on TA compared to multilinguals. A high level of global proficiency of various languages was linked to higher TA scores. A stay abroad of more than three months was also linked to higher TA although the effect levelled off after one year. Growing up in a multilingual family had no effect on TA. These findings show that a high level of multilingualism makes individuals more at ease in dealing with ambiguity, but we acknowledge that a higher level of TA can also strengthen an individual's inclination to become multilingual.

Keywords

multilingualismpersonalityTolerance of Ambiguitymulticompetenceindividual variation

Information

Type
Research Notes
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 231 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

A previous version of this paper was presented at the Eighth International Symposium on Bilingualism in Oslo in 2011. We would like to thank the participants and the anonymous reviewers for their excellent feedback on an earlier version of this paper. Thank you also to Ruxandra Comanaru for her statistical advice.

References

Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2012). Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakalis, S., & Joiner, T. (2004). Participation in tertiary SA programs: The role of personality. International Journal of Educational Management, 18, 286–291.Google Scholar
Baran-Lucarz, M. (2012). Ego boundaries and attainments in FL pronunciation. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2 (1), 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 240–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30 (1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, J., & Widaman, K. (1988). The effects of study abroad during college on attitudes toward other cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12 (1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity Tolerance and Field Independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J. (2002). Introduction: Background of the L2 user. In Cook, V. (ed.), Portraits of the L2 user, pp. 1–28. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J. (2010). The relationship between first and second language acquisition revisited. In Macaro, E. (ed.), The Continuum companion to second language acquisition, pp. 137–157. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Denissen, J. J. A., Neumann, L., & van Zalk, M. (2010). How the Internet is changing the implementation of tradi-tional research methods, people's daily lives, and the way in which developmental scientists conduct research. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34 (6), 564–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2010a). Emotions in multiple languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2010b). Multilingualism and affordances: Variation in self-perceived communicative competence and communicative anxiety in French L1, L2, L3 and L4. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 48, 105–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M., & Li Wei, (in press). Multilingualism, empathy and multicompetence. International Journal of Multilingualism, doi: 10.1080/14790718.2012.714380. Published online by Taylor & Francis, September 10, 2012.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M., Petrides, K.V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The effects of trait emotional intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning, 58 (4), 911–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M., & Stavans, A. (in press). The effect of immigration, acculturation and multicompetence on personality profiles of Israeli multilinguals. The International Journal of Bilingualism, doi: 10.1177/1367006912439941. Published online by Sage, April 26, 2012.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M., & van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2009). The effect of multilingualism/multiculturalism on personality: No gain without pain for third culture kids? International Journal of Multilingualism, 6 (4), 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ely, C. (1995) Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In Reid, J. M. (ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom, pp. 216–217. New York: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Eysenck, S., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the Psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A. (1994). A content, correlational and factor-analytic study of 4 Tolerance of Ambiguity questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14 (3), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosling, S. D., Srivastava, S., Pand, O., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herman, J. L., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (2010). The Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Korzilius, H., Van Hooft, A., Planken, B., & Hendrix, C. (2011). Birds of different feathers? The relationship between multicultural personality dimensions and foreign language mastery in business professionals working in a Dutch agricultural multinational. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 540–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R., Costa, P. T. Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebícková, M., Avia, M. D., Sanz, J., Sánchez-Bernardos, M. L., Kusdil, M. E., Woodfield, R., Saunders, P. R., & Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (1), 173–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual's tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishida, H. (1985). Japanese intercultural communication competence and cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford, R., & Ehrman, M. (1992). Second language research on individual differences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 188–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pervin, L. A., & Cervone, D. (2010). Personality: Theory and research (11th edn.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Regan, V., Howard, M., & Lemée, I. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a study abroad context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiterer, S. M., Singh, N. C., & Winkler, S. (to appear). Predicting speech imitation ability biometrically. In Stolterfoht, B. & Featherstone, S. (eds.), Investigating language interpretation: Perspectives from the Fourth Linguistic Evidence Meeting. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘Good Language Learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, J. (2008). Reflections. In Griffiths, C. (ed.), Lessons from good language learners, pp. 10–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrauf, R. (to appear). Using correspondence analysis to model immigrant multilingualism over time. In Duarte, J. & Gogolin, I. (eds.), Linguistic super-diversity in urban areas – research approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Seravalle, V. (2011). Native, non-native and near-native accent: The mediating role of identity in performance vs. perception. Ph.D. dissertation, Royal Holloway, University of London.Google Scholar
Wilson, R., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2010). The use of web questionnaires in second language acquisition and bilingualism research. Second Language Research, 26 (1), 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yashima, T. (2010). The effects of international volunteer work experiences on intercultural competence of Japanese youth. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 268–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar