1. Linguistic Predictors of Cultural Identification in Bilinguals
By:Scott R. Schroeder, Tuan Q. Lam, and Viorica Marian

2. WORDS TO KNOW Monolingual: Speaking only one language.
Bilingual: Ability to fluently speak two languages.
Bidialectal: Natively using or capable of using two dialects of a language.
Cultural Identification: The feeling or belonging to a group.
Linguistic predictors: A prediction in language comprehension.
WORDS TO KNOW

3. Review of Literature:
Prior studies have examined the linguistic predictors of cultural identification in the monolingual population with extensive research in sociolinguistics (the effects on aspects of society) and linguistic anthropology (language influencing society) (Tannen, 1981; Trudgill, 1972).
Social Categories and Identity In the High School, has helped determine the level of comfort students have with certain groups (Teachers College Press; New York: 1989.)

4. Review of Literature:
In other work, Eckert (1989, 2000) analyzed students in various subcultural groups in Detroit, U.S.A. and observed a relationship between students’ group affiliations and their linguistic patterns..
Recent studies have extended this research and identified language-culture links in monolingual populations that speak other varieties of English (e.g., Pittsburghese; Johnstone, Andrus, & Danielson, 2006) and monolingual populations that speak a language other than English (e.g., Chinese; Zhang 2008).

5. Review of Literature:
As with monolinguals, language-culture links have also been observed in bidialectalism. (ie). Among African-Americans who speak both African-American English and Standard American English, usage patterns and perceptions of the two dialects have been linked to degree of affiliation with their respective cultures (DeBose, 1992).
By learning a second language, bilinguals gain access to a second culture, enabling them to learn about, participate in, and potentially identify with that culture (Tong & Cheung, 2011).

6. Review of Literature:
Linguistic knowledge also enables bilinguals to directly engage in the culture's practices, including religious, artistic, medical, dietary, and political activities. (Brown, 2009)
While a bilingual's two cultures may be very different, it has been suggested that cultures are becoming increasingly more similar due to globalization (Pieterse, 2009).

7. Purpose:
To examine which aspects of bilingual language knowledge, use, and experience are indicators of cultural identity.

8. Materials and Methods:
Abbreviations:
L1- First acquired language
L2- Second acquired language
C1- Cultural Identification linked to L1
C2- Cultural identification linked to L2
Materials and Methods:

9. Questionnaire Materials:
The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q) was used to collect self reported data about linguistic and cultural background by using Microsoft Word.

11. Current Exposure Contexts ~ Participants Rated on a 0-10 scale the extent to which they were exposed to their language in the context of:. friends, family, television, music.
Immersion Contexts ~ Participants marked the number of years in which they spent in a country, school, or family the language was spoken in.
Proficiency ~ Participants assessed their abilities (speaking, listening, and reading) in both languages on a 0-10 scale.
Accent~ Participants Rated the extent to which they perceive themselves to have a foreign accent on a 0-10 scale.
Age of Acquisition~ Participants provided the age of initial acquisition, age of fluency, age of initial reading, and age of reading fluency.
Leap~Q Requirements

12. Participants:
209 participants (140 female, 69 male; with a mean age of 27.4).
Participants were residing in the U.S and 42 candidates migrated to the U.S.
English was the L1 for 110 participants (4 who migrated) and English was the L2 for 99 participants (38 who migrated).
FACTORS-
73 of the participants that started learning the L2 before the age of 5 were considered early learners, while the other 136 that learned it after 5 were considered late learners
Participants were also labeled as informal or formal speakers based on the contributions interactions with family and friends affected their learning and rated it from a 0-10 scale

13. Data Analysis/ Results:
Left of Figure 1: The significant linguistic predictors of C1 identification came from the categories- immersion contexts, current exposure contexts, and proficiency- indicating specific circumstances of language use and language competency are relevant to identification with L1 culture.
Right of Figure 1: The significant linguistic predictors of C2 came from the categories- immersion contexts, accent, and age of acquisition- which indicates circumstances of language use, pronunciation, and an offset of language learning are relevant to the L2 culture.

14. Discussions:
These results were provided evidence that current exposure contexts, immersion contexts, and age of acquisition are relevant to cultural identification. Language exposure through media, school work, and family were also predictors of cultural identification. To explain how these linguistic factors correlate to cultural identification, a theoretical framework composed of three parts were used.

15. Theoretical Framework:
(1) The cultural learning and participation through language account- By learning and participating in a culture by language use, bilinguals may identify more or potentially less with the culture.
(2) The self-reflection of language use account -Predicts that subjective/personal variables like self-related accents and proficiency measures will be related to CI.
(3) The stylistic language use account- This implies that linguistic factors that have a degree of self-control (and can be deliberately altered by the speaker) will relate to CI.

16. Limitations + Delimitations
The sample size was small; even though it is large enough for accuracy in regression results, the results of the whole study should be interpreted with some degree of caution.
Analyses were conducted across a range of bilinguals; thus, the results may not fully capture the unique relationships between language and culture for a specific type of bilingual.
Included a wide range of bilinguals who varied in age of L2 acquisition (early vs. late), in context of of L2 acquisition (informal vs, formal), in L2 proficiency (high vs. low), and the L2 language (English vs. non-English).
Wide range of bilinguals was necessary in order to asses the linguistic factors, such as age of L2 acquisition, because without it, age of acquisition would not contribute to cultural identification.

17. Conclusion:
Purpose: To examine which aspects of bilingual language knowledge, use, and experience are indicators of cultural identity.
Overall this study has identified aspects of bilingualism that are relevant for cultural identification and has provided a framework to explain these language -culture relations.

18. Future:
Future work should compare different cultures directly to determine the extent to which language-culture relations vary from culture to culture.
Have variability in participants' interpretation of the questions in LEAP-Q, including the question addressing cultural identification.