Introduction

(a) Effect of bilingualism on overall performance and language achievement

(b) Comparison of overall performance, first and third language achievement

(c) Language achievement in relation to the achievement in non-language subjects

(d) Comparison of the achievements of KH, UH and HK groups

(e) Comparison of the achievements of different categories of bilinguals

(f) Individual variation among the subjects

(g) Comparison of the achievement of the students with different media of instruction

(h) The effect of socio-economic background on language achievement

Conclusion

Appendix I

Appendix II(Selected Bibliography)

Introduction
Emergence of a bilingual population can be expected in any area in which different language groups reside and interact. When two language groups, who have no language in common, come into contact, the speakers of either language may learn partially or fully the other language. The result is bilingualism and the individuals or groups involved become bilinguals. In India, the individual as well as the societal bilingualism is widespread. In this study the term bilingualism is used in the wider sense to include multilingualism.

For over two decades linguists, psychologists, sociologists and educationists have become increasingly concerned with the problem of bilingualism. They are divided on the effect of bilingualism on the individual. Many scholars [Rao, T.S. (1971), Anand, C.L. (1972), Chickermane (1971)] are of the opinion that a bilingual child differs from a monolingual child in his academic achievement. Extensive studies have been undertaken elsewhere to study the influence of bilingualism upon the children's achievement in school in general and in languages in particular. Some studies have shown positive correlation between the two and some others revealed negative correlation. In India, however, only two or three studies have been undertaken (op.cit.). The present study is undertaken with a view to fill this gap to some extent. It is a pilot study done on some selected secondary schools in Mysore city. Its scope is restricted to the language achievement of students studying in the X class (age group 14-16). The achievement scores for the preceding two years are taken into consideration for comparative purposes.

Objectives
The main objectives of the study are to study the
(i) effect of bilingualism on language achievement;
(ii) effect of bilingualism on overall performance;
(iii) relation, if any, between the achievement in languages and in other subjects

The secondary objectives are to study the
(iv) influence of the medium of instruction on language achievement, and
(v) relationship between socio-economic background and language achievement.

Sample
From the list of secondary schools in Mysore city, five schools were selected randomly. The required information was collected in the questionnaire given as Appendix-I form each student in the X class of these schools. Two schools were of government, one private aided, one unaided and the remaining one was government school of special type. The private aided schools and one of the government schools were meant for girls only. Information was thus collected from a total of 427 students.

Data Collection
The investigator personally visited the selected schools and got the questionnaire (Appendix-I) filled (except item 13) on the spot by the subjects. The marks required under item 13 were collected later from school records. Though it was originally planned to collect annual examination marks of three consecutive years starting form 7th class, only the examination marks of 8th and the 9th classes could be collected because the examination at the end of the 7th class was a district level examination and the marks registers were not available.

Analysis
Eventhough marks in all the subjects were collected, the analysis was confined mainly to three aspects, viz., overall performance, first language achievement and third language achievement. The subjects were first divided into two groups, viz., monolingual and bilingual on the basis of their answers to item 9 in the questionnaire. If a subject spoke only one language, he was classified as a monolingual; if he spoke more than one he was classified as a bilingual. The monolingual group was further divided on the basis of the mother tongue of the subject as given in the questionnaire (like Kannada, Urdu etc.). The bilingual group was subdivided on the basis of the bilingual components of the subjects (Kannada and Telugu, Kannada and Urdu etc.). The distribution of the subjects into these classes can be seen from Table 1. Other variables like the medium of instruction, educational and occupational back-ground of parents were considered separately. }

figure

In addition to the distribution on the basis of mother tongue and bilingual composition, the languages studied in school as first and third languages were considered for further classification. (The second language in English for all the subjects). Subjects who studied Kannada as first language and Hindi as third language were called KH group; subjects who studied Urdu as first language and Hindi as third language were called the UH group; subjects who studied Hindi as first language and Kannada as third language were called HK group. This distribution can also be seen from Table 1. These groups, called language option groups (LOG), were used as subgroups for comparison within monolinguals and bilinguals. The diagrammatic representation of the above distributions is given on page 2.
Groups like TLH (TL- Tamil, H-Hindi), SK (S-Sanskrit, K-Kannada) indicated in Table 1 were grouped under others in the final analysis as the number of subjects in these groups was very small.

TABLE 1
Distribution of Subjects

Abbreviations:
KH = Kannada first language Hindi third language
HK = Hindi first language Kannada third language
UH = Urdu first language Hindi third language
SH = Sanskrit first language Hindi third language
SK = Sanskrit first language Kannada third language
TLH = Tamil first language Hindi third language
O.B. = Other Bilinguals
O.M. = Other Multilinguals
For purposes of comparison of the language achievement of monolinguals and bilinguals, only the KH and UH groups were considered. Since most of the HK groups students were bilinguals, this group was not considered for purposes of comparing the achievement of monolinguals and bilinguals. Of the 427 subjects covered in the survey about 43 per cent spoke more than one language and thus were bilinguals. A little over 56 per cent were monolinguals. Out of the monolinguals, about 83.5 per cent were Kannada mother tongue speakers, and 14.8 percent Urdu mother tongue speakers.

83 per cent of the monolinguals studied Kannada as first language and Hindi as third language and 14.88 per cent studied Urdu as first language and Hindi as third language. This entire 14.88 per cent consists of Urdu Mother tongue speakers. There were however, some Urdu Mother tongue speakers who belong to the KH group. Among the bilinguals, 64.32 per cent studied Kannada as first language and Hindi as third language; 11.89 per cent studied Urdu as first language and Hindi as third language and 22.16 per cent studied Hindi as first language and Kannada as third language. Here also, all the students who studied Urdu as first language were bilinguals with Urdu as mother tongue.

(a) Effect of bilingualism on overall performance and language achievement
It may be observed form Table 2 that in almost all the cases the average marks in overall performance and in language achievement of bilinguals are higher than those of monolinguals. But when Smirnov's test (which is used to test whether the two populations are identical or not) is used (Table 4) for the equality of two distributions form which the two sample were drawn, it is revealed that the monolinguals and bilinguals do not differ in their achievement. The exception to this is the difference in the case of the third language of single group viz., KH group, where bilinguals show better performance than monolinguals.

Out of the 242 monolinguals, 235 (97.10 per cent) have opted for their mother tongue as first language. Among the 185 bilinguals, on the other hand, only 41 (22.16 per cent) have opted for their mother tongue as first language. This means that the achievement of bilinguals in a language which is not their mother tongue has a slight edge over the achievement of monolinguals in their mother tongue. This could be interpreted as the better language achievement for the bilinguals.

The distribution of the marks among the subjects of the different groups of monolinguals and bilinguals can be seen from the Table 3(a) to 3(c) and form graphs 1 to 12. The slight but statistically insignificant edge of the bilinguals over the monolinguals in their achievement can be seen more clearly in the graphs.

There is no significant difference between the achievement of subjects in the 8th and the 9th classes as can be observed form Table 2. However, the variation in the achievement of bilinguals in the two years is relatively more than that of the monolinguals and the achievement is higher in the 9th class.
Graph 1

Graph 12

TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations of the Marks of the Students of Different Language Option

Groups in Eighth and Ninth Classes

Group	Subject	Mono/Bi/ In all	Eighth Class		Ninth Class
			Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.
	Overall Performance	Mono	44.3	9.509	46.2	11.737
		Bi	45.9	11.306	49.1	12.249
		In all	44.8	10.402	47.3	12.024
KH	First Language	Mono	46.4	11.420	47.8	11.407
		Bi	47.0	12.434	48.7	11.194
		In all	46.6	11.799	48.2	11.331
	Third Language	Mono	38.7	15.070	40.8	18.234
		Bi	43.7	15.905	47.3	17.819
		In all	40.5	15.561	43.2	18.341
	Overall Performance	Mono	41.2	4.195	40.6	3.760
		Bi	44.9	9.014	48.3	5.523
		In all	42.5	6.812	43.5	6.081
UH	First Language	Mono	51.1	11.137	54.6	10.285
		Bi	55.0	15.862	58.4	15.784
		In all	52.5	13.187	56.1	12.632
	Third Language	Mono	47.9	13.878	41.8	12.454
		Bi	49.6	17.262	44.7	13.658
		In all	48.5	15.243	42.9	12.901
	Overall Performance	Bi	54.0	11.732	61.1	12.226
HK	First Language	Bi	49.5	14.442	55.3	13.892
	Third Language	Bi	44.7	11.894	60.9	16.618

Table 3 (a) and Table 3 (b)

(b) Comparison of overall performance, first and third language achievement
Comparison between overall performance and achievement in first and third languages was made for the three L.O. groups (KH, UH, HK). First language performance is better than the overall performance and third language performance in the KH and UH groups but not in the HK group.

In the UH group the performance in the first language is very high. About two-thirds of the students in the 9th class and half of the students in the 8th class of the UH group have got more than 50 per cent of marks in their first language (i.e., Urdu). In the KH group slightly more than one-third of students in the 9th class and exactly one-third students in the 8th class got more than 50 per cent marks in their first language, (i.e., Kannada). Though the corresponding figures of first language (i.e., Hindi) performance for the HK group are more or less the same as in the UH group, its overall performance, particularly in the 9th class, is far better than its first language performance. 84 per cent of the students of the HK group in the 9th class have got more than 50 per cent of marks in overall performance and more than 50 per cent of the students of this group in the 8th class have got more than 50 per cent of marks in overall performance. In the KH and UH groups, on the other hand, at the most one-third and one-eighth of the students respectively, have got more than 50 per cent marks in overall performance. These differences have been represented in Tables 3(a) to 3(c) and in graphs 13-21. The reasons for these differences must have been that the performance of the HK group in non-language subjects like Mathematics, Science and Social Studies is better than the performance of the other groups in these subjects, since there is no significant difference in the language achievement between the three groups. It follows form this that the performance of HK group in non-language subjects is better than its performance in languages.

The marks of overall performance include the marks in first and third languages. Therefore, when overall performance is compared with language achievement, the comparison is not between independent entities. In order to find out the influence of language achievement in overall performance, the various regression equations of the overall performance, achievement in first and third languages with respect to different groups and classes were found out (Table 5). The regression equations partial out the other subjects like Mathematics, Science, Social Studies and English. Equations in Table 5 show that for every one per cent of increase in the first language there will be 0.4453 per cent rise in the overall percentage and every one per cent rise in the third language gives 0.2349 per cent rise in the overall percentage, provided there is no change in the marks in other subjects. The influence of language achievement on the overall performance in the KH and the HK groups in both classes is more or less the same but in the UH group it is different. For one per cent rise in the marks of the first language of the UH group, there is 0.3 per cent rise in the overall performance, and for one per cent rise in the marks of the third language there is 0.17 per cent and 0.31 percent rises in the overall performance in the eighth and ninth classes respectively. The UH group thus differs significantly from the other groups with regard to the influence of language achievement in overall performance.

From equations IA and IB, it may be observed that for KH group the increases in the overall performance of eighth class are 0.6408, 0.2340 for monolinguals and 0.5664, 0.1976 for bilinguals for one per cent rise in the first and the third languages respectively. Similarly, the corresponding figures for the ninth class are 0.5663, 0.2834, 0.5568 and 0.2869 respectively. That is, the influence of the achievement in languages on the overall performance is more in the case of monolinguals. Also, the influence of language achievement is higher in the ninth class.

Table 3(a)	Graph 13	Graph 14	Graph 15
Graph 16	Graph 17	Graph 18	Graph 19
Graph 20	Graph 21	Graph 22

TABLE 4
Smirnov's Test for the Equality of the Distributions of Mono and Bilinguals of UH Group

Subject	Class	Variables	Static	Calculated Value	Tabulated Value		Decision Regarding Distribution	Remarks
					Two-Tail	One-Tail
Overall Performance	Eighth	Mono and Bi	T	0.2569	0.4007	0.3594	Mono=Bi	No difference in Performance
			T1
	Ninth	Mono and Bi	T	0.3434	0.3680	0.3302	Mono=Bi	,,
			T1
First Language	Eighth	Mono and Bi	T	0.2952	0.4007	0.3594	Mono=Bi	,,
			T1
	Ninth	Mono and Bi	T	0.1818	0.3680	0.3302	Mono=Bi	,,
			T1
Third Language	Eighth	Mono and Bi	T	0.1771	0.4007	0.3594	Mono=Bi	,,
			T1
	Ninth	Mono and Bi	T	0.1767	0.3602	0.3302	Mono=Bi	,,
			T1

Note: T = Max [Sn1-Sn2]
T1 = Max (Sn1-Sn2)

TABLE 5

Regression Equations of Overall Performance and Achievement in First and Third Languages

Variable	8th Class	9th Class
Mono (KH)	X1 = 0.6408X2 + 0.2340X3 + 5.5111	X1 = 0.5663X2 + 0.2834X3 + 7.5681
Bi (KH)	X1 = 0.5664X2 + 0.1976X3 + 10.6441-IA	X1 = 0.5568X2 + 0.2869X3 + 8.4135
KH	X1 = 0.4453X2 + 0.2349X3 + 14.5356	X1 = 0.5761X2 + 0.3091X3 + 6.1789
UH	X1 = 0.3114X2 + 0.1721X3 + 17.8046-*	X1 = 0.2983X2 + 0.3101X3 + 13.4621
HK	X1 = 0.6447X2 + 0.1407X3 + 15.7981	X1 = 0.5794X2 + 0.2784X3 + 12.1046

Note:   X¹  denotes overall performance

            X²  denotes first language performance

            X³  denotes third language performance

* This is equation I

TABLE 6
Correlations Between the Languages and Overall Performances of the Students of Different Groups

Group	Mono / Bi	Subjects	Eighth Class	Ninth Class
1	2	3	4	5
	Mono	OP and First Language	0.7800	0.7979
		OP and Third Language	0.6345	0.7497
		First and Third Languages	0.4229	0.5623
		First Language and Maths	0.5295	0.5543
		First Language and Science	0.5267	0.5695
		First Language and Social Studies	0.4087	0.7040
KH	Bi	OP and First Language	0.6946	0.7655
		OP and Third Language	0.4382	0.7300
		First and Third Languages	0.2571	0.6115
		First Language and Maths	0.5462	0.6056
		First Language and Science	0.5734	0.6324
		First Language and Social Studies	0.4778	0.6785
	Total	OP and First Language	0.7157	0.7819
		OP and Third Language	0.5597	0.7467
		First and Third Languages	0.3519	0.5069
		First Language and Maths	0.5356	0.5777
		First Language and Science	0.5442	0.5976
		First Language and Social Studies	0.4371	0.6926
HK		OP and First Language	0.8483	0.8573
		OP and Third Language	0.4469	0.7246
		First and Third Language	0.3834	0.5259
		First Language and Maths	0.7869	0.7281
		First Language and Science	0.6579	0.6710
		First Language and Social Studies	0.7385	0.7142
UH		OP and First Language	0.6476	0.5486
		OP and Third Language	0.5166	0.6135
		First and Third Languages	0.3176	0.2358
		First Language and Maths	-0.1125	0.0866
		First Language and Science	0.2644	0.2219
		First Language and Social Studies	-0.0555	0.2279

Note: OP is overall performance
Because the groups were very small, separate correlations for mono and bilinguals of UH and HK groups were not given.

It may be observed form Table 6 that the correlation between first language and overall performance is more than 0.54 in all the cases and the maximum (0.857) is in the HK group and minimum (0.548) in the UH group for the ninth class. For the eighth class, the correlation between first language achievement and overall performance is more than 0.64 in all the cases and maximum (0.848) is in the HK group and minimum (0.648) in the UH group. Similarly, the correlations between the overall performance and the third language performance for KH, HK and UH groups are 0.5597. 0.4469, 0.5166 in the eighth class and 0.7467, 0.7246 and 0.6135 in the ninth class, respectively.

It may also be seen from Table 6 that the correlations between the first language achievement and the third language achievement are very low compared to the other correlations. In the case of the UH group one would expect a high correlation between Urdu, the first language, and Hindi, the third language. But it is not so here.

The correlations between the first and the third language achievement and the overall performance were also tested by the 'Wilcoxon signed rank test' and the decisions are given in Tables 7(a) to 7(c). As found earlier, it can be seen here also [Table 7(a) to 7(c)] that the average performance in first language is better than the overall performance in all the cases except for HK group. The third language performance in the ninth class is better than the performance in the eighth class. The 'decision' column in Tables 7(a) to 7(c) also gives whether the average performance is lower or higher

(c) Language achievement in relation to the achievement in non-language subjects
The correlations between achievement in first language and other non-language subjects like Mathematics (M), Science (S) and Social Studies (SS) were calculated and are given in Table 6. It may be seen that the correlations in the case of KH and HK groups are very significant. The correlations of HK group are the highest. The actual values lie between 0.5356 and 0.7869 for Mathematics, between 0.5442 and 0.6710 for Science and between 0.4371 and 0.7385 for Social Studies. In the eighth class, the correlations between the first language and Mathematics and Social Studies of the UH group are negative but all the correlations of this group are very insignificant. In the 9th class the correlations for the UH group are also insignificant but all are positive.

(d) Comparison of the achievements of KH, UH and HK groups
The comparison of the achievements of different groups was made by drawing the 'frequency polygons' of their distributions as shown in graphs 22-27. It was also tested for the differences between the groups by using Smirnov's two sample test. It may be observed from both the graphs and the Smirnov's test that the performance of HK group is better than the other two groups. The performance of the UH group in Hindi (the third language) is better than that of the KH group. The overall performance of the UH group is low eventhough its first language performance is far better than the other groups.

(e) Comparison of the achievements of different categories of bilinguals
The different categories of bilinguals are Kannada and Telugu, Kannada and Urdu, Kannada and Malayalam, Kannada Tulu, Kannada Marathi, and Kannada Tamil bilinguals. The equality of the average performance of the different categories of bilinguals in the first language, the third language, etc., was tested by using Smirnov's two sample test. It is observed that all the bilinguals groups do not differ significantly in overall performance as well as in first and third language achievement.

Graph 23	Graph 24	Graph 25	Graph 26	Graph 27	Graph 28	Table 7(a)
Graph 29	Graph 30	Graph 31	Graph 32	Graph 33	Table 7(b)	Table 7(c)

(f) Individual variation among the subjects
From Table 2 it is observed that the standard deviations among the marks of bilinguals are greater than those of monolinguals in all cases. For all the groups the variation in the first language achievement in the eighth class is greater than that of ninth class variation. For KH and HK groups, the variation in the third language achievement and overall performance in the eighth class are less than that of ninth class. But for UH group, the variation in the third language of the eighth class is more than the variation in the ninth class of the same group. For all the groups (KH, HK, UH), the variation in the overall performance is less than the variations in the first and third language achievements. The maximum variation is found in case of third language (Hindi) achievement.

(g) Comparison of the achievements of the students with different media of instruction
Earlier studies (Anand 1971) have shown that educational achievement is better when the medium of instruction is the mothertongue. In this study, as a secondary interest, the performances of the Kannada medium students of KH group and the English medium students of the same group were compared and tested for their disparity. The comparison was also made by drawing the 'Percentage polygons of their distributions as shown in graphs 34-39. The performance differences of the student sin the two media were tested by using Smirnov's two sample test for the identity of the two distributions from which the two samples were drawn. Tables (9a) and 9(b) show that the students with English medium do better than the Kannada medium students in both the first and the third languages in the eighth and the ninth classes. Their overall performance is also better than the Kannada medium students. This is also true in the case of mother tongue groups. This observation must be verified by a larger and more controlled survey.

(h) The effect of socio-economic background on language achievement
Anand (1971) has shown that the socio-economic factors influence the academic attainment of students to a great extent. This study also substantiates this finding as far as the overall performance is concerned, but not in the case of language achievement. The parental occupation and education do not seem to affect the student's language achievement except in the case of students whose parents are teachers.

Conclusion
1. There is no significant difference between the first language achievement of monolinguals and bilinguals though the bilinguals have a slight edge-over over the monolinguals in their achievement in the first language.

2. In the case of third language (Hindi) performance, the bilinguals differ form the monolinguals. Bilinguals have done better (44.61 per cent) than the monolinguals (40.10 per cent). The languages of the major bilingual groups are Telugu and Kannada, Tamil and Kannada, Urdu and Kannada, Marathi and Kannada and Tulu and Kannada. Among these bilingual groups, the third language (Hindi) performance of each group is equal. Among the monolinguals, Urdu mother tongue students' performance in the third language (Hindi) is better (47.9 per cent) than the Kannada mother tongue students' performance (38.7 per cent).

3. The overall performance of monolinguals and bilinguals does not differ significantly.

4. Language achievement has high positive correlation with the overall performance in the case of monolinguals, except in the case of the UH group of the monolinguals. Its performance in the first language (Urdu) is much higher than their overall performance. Given conclusion 3, this implies that in the case of bilinguals, achievement in non-language subjects has high positive correlation with the overall performance.

Graph 34

Graph 35

Graph 36

Graph 37

Graph 38

Graph 39

Table 7(d)

TABLE 8 Smirnov's Test for the Equality of the Distributions of the Students from Different Groups

Class	Subject	Variable	Statistic	Calculated Value	Tabulated Value		Decision Regarding Distributions	Conclusion
					Two- tail	One-tail
	Overall Performance	KH and UH	T T”	0.1347	0.2081	0.1866	KH=UH	No significant difference between the KH and UH groups regarding their OP
		KH and HK	T T1	0.4166	0.2267	0.2034	KH>HK	The OP of HK group is better than that of KH group
		UH and HK	T T1	0.5005	0.2865	0.2570	UH>HK	The Op of HK group is better than that of UH group
Eighth	First Language	KH and UH	T T”
		KH and HK	T’
		UH and HK	T’

 

Table 9(a)

Table 9(b)

5. The average first language performance of both monolinguals and bilinguals is better than their average overall performance except in the case of HK group. (Only the bilinguals of this group are included for analysis since the monolinguals of this group are not significant in number).

6. The different bilingual groups do not differ significantly in their performance in all subjects.

7. The different language option groups (KH, UH, HK) do not differ significantly in all subjects except the HK group whose performance in non-language subjects like Mathematics, Science and Social Studies is far better than its performance in languages and consequently is better than the performance of other groups in these subjects.

8. Individual variations in the achievement of bilinguals are more than those of monolinguals.

9. Language achievement of all the students in the ninth class is better than their achievement in the eighth class.

10. The English medium students have done better in all subjects than the Kannada medium students with similar socio-economic background.

11. Language achievement is not significantly influenced by parental occupation and education except for the fact that the language achievement of teachers' children is slightly better than that of the others.

Table 10(a)

Table 10(b)

APPENDIX I
CONFIDENTIAL LANGUAGE ACHIEVEMENT STUDY
STUDENT PROFORMA

1. Name of the Student :

2. Sex : Boy / Girl

3. Age :

4. Class Studying :

5. Medium of instruction :

6. Mother tongue :
(a) Mother's :
(b) Father's :
(c) Language spoken at home :

7. (a) Whether the family has migrated? Yes / No

8. Religion and Caste

9. Language (speak, read and write)

Language	Speak	Read	Write	Examinations Passed
Kannada Marathi Telugu Urdu Hindi Others                                   (Specify)

10. Educational levels of parents:

(a) Father: Nil/ Below Middle / Middle/ Matric/ Inter or Higher Secondary or P.U.C. / Graduation / Post Graduation.

(b) Mother: Nil/ Below Middle / Middle/ Matric / Inter or Higher Secondary or P.U.C./ Graduation / Post Graduation.

11. Occupation of Parents:
(a) Father:
(b) Mother:

12. Classes Studied:

Year	Class	First language	Second language	Third language	Fourth language
1971 1972 1973

13. Marks obtained in Annual examinations:

Subject	1971		1972		1973
	Maximum Marks	Marks Obtained	Maximum Marks	Marks Obtained	Maximum Marks	Marks Obtained
English Kannada Marathi Telugu Urdu Tamil Hindi Sanskrit Maths Social Studies Science Other (Specify) In All

APPENDIX II
[SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY]

1. Anand, C.L., A study of the effect of Socio-Economic Environment and Medium of Instruction on the Mental abilities and the Academic achievement of children in Mysore State, Ph.D. thesis in Education (unpublished: 1972), Mysore University, Mysore.
2. Arsenian Seth, Bilingualism and Mental Development, New York, 1937.
3. … Bilingualism in the Post-War World, Psychological Bulletin, 42, 65-86 (1945).
4. Aucamp, (Anna) J., Bilingual Education and Nationalism with special reference to South Africa, Pretoria, 1926.
5. Babin, Partick, Bilingualism - A Bibliography. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard Graduate School of Education, May 8, 1968, 30 pp. Unpublished.
6. Barke and Williams, A further study of the comparative intelligence of children in certain bilingual and monolingual schools in South Wales. Brit. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1938.
7. Barker, George, C., Growing up in a Bilingual community, The Kiva 17, 17-32, 1951.
8. Bossard, James, H.S., The Bilingual Individual as a Person - Linguistic Identification with Status, American Sociological Review, 10, 699-709, 1945.
9. A Bulletin of Bilingual Studies, Published by the Bilingualism Committee to the University of Wales, No.1, October, 1936, (mimeographed); No.2, June, 1938; No.3, June, 1939.
10. Buros, Oskar Krisen, (ed.); Third Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Brunswick (N.J.), 1949.
11. Carrow, Sister Mary, A., Linguistic Functioning of Bilingual and Monolingual children, Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, Vol. XXII, pp. 371-380, 1957.
12. Chen, Elinor Yuk Lin, A study of sentences by the Bilingual Child of Chinese Ancestry Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Honolulu, 1935.
12.A. Chickermane, Dr V., Impact of Bilingualism on the progress of Children in primary schools in Rural areas, NCERT, 1971.
13. Christopherson, Paul, Bilingualism, London, 1948.
14. Coale, Willis Branson, Successful Practices in the Teaching of English to Bilingual Children in Hawaii (-U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Education, Bulletin, 1937, 14), Washington, 1938.
15. Coleman, W. and Cureton, E.E., Intelligence and achievement; The Jangle fallacy again Educ. Psychol. Measmt., 1954, 14, pp. 347-351.
15A. Conover, W.J., Practical Nonparametric Statistics, John Williamsons, New York, 1971.
16. Cooper, James, G., Predicting school Achievement for Bilingual pupils, The Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. XLIX, No. 1, (Feb. 1958), pp. 31-36, 8 references.
17. Darcy, N.T., The effect of Bilingualism upon the Measurement of the Intelligence of Children of Preschool Age, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Fordham University, 1945.
18. … Review of the literature on the Effects of Bilingualism upon the Measurement of Intelligence Journal of Genetic Psychology, 82, 21-57, 1953.
19. Davies, M. and Hughes, A.G., An Investigation into the comparative intelligence and attainments of Jewish and Non-Jewish Children, British Journal of Psychology (General section), 18, 134-46, 1927.
20. Diebold, A. Richard, Incipient Bilingualism, Language, XXXVII, (1961a), pp. 97-112.
21. … Bilingualism and Biculturalism in Huave Community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, 1961b.
22. … Mexican and Guatemalan Bilingualism, Frank A. Rice, ed. Study of the Role of Second Languages in Asia, Africa and Latin America (Washington, Centre for Applied Lingualistics, 1962), pp. 26-33.
23. Dodd, Stuart, C., On Measuring Languages, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44, 77-88, (1949).
24. Ervin, S.M. and Osgood, C.E., Second Language Learning and Bilingualism, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (Supplement), (1954), 49, 139-146.
25. Eswara, H.S., Language behaviour in relation to social acceptability.
26. Fishman, Joshuaa, Degree of Bilingualism in a Yiddish School and Leisure Time Activities, Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 155-65, 1952.
27. … Bilingualism in the Barrio, Indiana University Publications, 7, 1971.
28. Friedrich, Paul, Languages and Politics in India, Daedalus, XCI, pp. 543-559, (1962).
29. Great Britain, Ministry of Education, Welsh Department, Bilingualism in the Secondary School in Wales, Y Broblem Ddwyiethog yn yr Ysgol Uwchradd Yng Nghymru (= Pamphlet 4), London, 1949.
30. Hall, Roberta, (Jr), Bilingualism and Applied Linguistics, Zeitschrifit wFilr Phoneitk und allgemeine sprachwissenschaft, 6, 13-30, 1952.
31. Hasselmo, Nils, American Swedish: A study in Bilingualism, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, 1961.
32. Haugen, Einar, Problems of Bilingualism, Lingua 2, 271-90, 1950.
33. … Bilingualism in the Americas: A bibliography and research Guide (Alabama, University of Alabama Press), 1956.
34. … The Norwegian Language in America: A study in Bilingual Behaviour, 2 Volumes (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1953).
35. Herrick, Virgile and Leland, B. Jacobs, Children and the Language Arts, Prentice Hall, (1955).
36. Hill, H.S., The effects of bilingualism on the measured intelligence of elementary school children of Italian Parentage, Journal of Experimental Education, 5, pp. 75-79, 1936.
37. Johnson, Granville, B., (Jr), The relationship existing between Bilingualism and Racial Attitudes, Journal of Educational Psychology, 42, 357-65, (1951).
38. … Bilingualism as measured by a Reaction-time technique and the relationship between a language Intelligent Quotient, Journal of Genetic Psychology, 82, 3-9, 1953.
39. Jones, W.R., A critical study of bilingualism and non-verbal intelligence, Brit. J. Educ. Psychology, 30, pp. 71-76, (1960).
40. … and Stewart, W.A.C., Bilingualism and Verbal Intelligence, Beitish Journal of Psychology, (Stastical Section), 4, 3-8, (1951).
41. Kelly, L.G., Description and measurement of Bilingualism. An International Seminar, (1970).
42. Khubchandani, L.M., Bilingual interference in Language Learning.
43. Lagarde-Quost, P.H.J., The bilingual citizen, Britain today, 140 (December 1947), 15-9, 141, 13-7, January 1948.
44. Lambert, W.E., A Social Psychology of bilingualism, Journal of Social issues, 23, 91-109, (1967).
45. … Linguistic manifestations of bilingualism, American Journal of Psychology, 72, 77-82, (1959).
46. … Measurement of the Linguistic Dominance of Bilinguals, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, L pp. 197-200, (1955).
47. Leopold, Werner, F., Speech Development of a Bilingual Child, 4 Vols, Evanston (III), 1939-50.
48. Levinson, B.M., A comparison of the performance of bilingual and monolingual native-born Jewish preschool children of traditional parentage on four intelligence tests, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15, pp. 74-76, (1959).
49. Lewis, Bilingualism and Bilingual Education in the Soviet Union.
50. Lowie, Robert H., A case of Bilingualism, Word, 1, 249-59, (1945).
51. Lynn, Konda, Bilingualism in the South West, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 31, 175-89, (1945).
52. Mackey, W.F., Bilingualism as a World Problem, Montreal, Harvest House.
53. … Bilingual interference; its analysis ad measurement, Journal of Communication, 15, 239-249, (1965).
54. … The description of bilingualism, Canadian Journal of linguistics, 7, 51-85, (1962).
55. … The measurement of bilingual behaviour, Canadian Psychologist, 7, 75-92, (1966).
56. Mackey, W.F. and Moonan, G.A., An experiment in bilingual education, English Language Teaching, 6/2 (Summer 1952), No.4, pp.125-132.
57. Macnamara, John, The bilinguals Linguistic Performance. A Psychological overview. The Journal of Social issues, 1967.
58. … The linguistic independence of bilinguals, Journal of verbal learning and verbal Behaviour, 6, 729-736, 1967b.
59. Malherbe, Ernest Gideon, The bilingual school; a study of Bilingualism in South Africa, Johannesburg, 1934; Afrikaans Edition, Capetown, 1943.
60. Mathai, S., The future of three Language formula, Secondary Education, October, pp. 9-10, 1959.
61. Mikes, M., Linguistic Inference in a bilingual community.
62. O'Doherty, E.F., Bilingualism; Educational Aspects, Advancing Science, 56, pp. 287-90, (1958).
63. Padma, Y.V., Assessment of Intelligence among mono and multilinguals (Dissertation, 1972), Department of Psychology, University of Mysore, Mysore.
64. Peal, Elizabeth and lambert, W.E., The relation of bilingualism to Intelligence, Psychological monograph, 76, No. 27, (1962).
65. Pieris, Ralph, Bilingualism and Cultural Marginality, British Journal of Sociology, 2, 328-39, (1951).
66. Pintner, R., (Udolf), and Arsenian, Seth, The relation of Bilingualism to verbal Intelligence and School adjustment, Journal of Educational Psychology. 51, 255-63, (1937).
67. Plant, Problems of Linguistic Interference in the Education of Bilingual Childrens.
68. Puitner, R. and Arsenian, S., The relation of bilingualism to verbal intelligence and school adjustment, Journal of Educational Research, 31, pp. 255-263, (1937).
69. Rao, T.S., Academic Achievement of Bilingual children, Indian Psychological Review, Vol. VIII, No. 1, pp. 8-9, (July 1971).
70. Raubicheck, Letitia, The Psychology of Multilingualism, Volta Review 36, 17-20, 57f, (1934).
71. Rayfield, R.J., The Language of a Bilingual Community, JL Series Practica 77, pp. 118, 1970.
72. Read, A(Llan) W(alker), Bilingualism in the Middle colonies, 1725-1775, American Speech 12, 93-100, (1937).
73. Roberts, Murat, H., The problem of the Hybrid Language, Journal of English and Germanic Philology 38, 23-41, (1937).
74. Rubin, John, Bilingualism in paraguay, Anthropological Linguistics, IV, pp. 52-58, (1962).
75. … National Bilingualism in Paraguay, Mouton, 1968.
76. Saer, D.L., The effect of Bilingualism on Intelligence, British Journal of Psychology 14, 25-38.
77. Sear, Hywella, A., Experimental Enquiry into the Education of Bilingual Peoples, Education in a Changing Commonwealth, London, 116-21, (1931).
78. Singer, H., bilingualism and elementary education, Moderna Language Journal 40, 444-58, (1956).
79. Sissons, Charles, B., Bilingual schools in Canada, London, 1917.
80. Smith, Christina, Mental Testing of Hebridean Children in Gaelic and English, London, 1948.
81. Smith, Madorah, E., A study of five bilingual children from the same family, Child Development 6, 184-7, (1931).
82. … A study of the speech of Eight Bilingual Children of the same family, Child Development 6, 19-25, (1935).
83. … Some Light on the Problem of Bilingualism as found from a study of the Progress in mastery of English Among Pre-school Children of Non-American Ancestry in hawaii, Genetic Psychology Monographs 21, 119-284, (1939).
84. … Measurement of Vocabularies of young bilingual children in both languages use, Journal of Genetical Psychology, 74, pp. 305-310, (1949).
85. … World variety as a measure of bilingualism in pre-school children, Journal of Genetical Psychology, 90, pp. 143-150, (1957).
86. Spoerl, Dorothy Tilden, Bilinguality and Emotional Adjustment, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 38, 37-57, (1946).
87. … The Academic and Verbal Adjustment of College Age Bilingual students, Journal of Genetic Psychology 64, 139-57, (1944).
88. St Denis, Henri, Bilingual Education, Canadian School Journal 12, 213-7, 246, (1934).
89. Theodore Andersson and Mildred Boyer, Bilingual Schooling in the United States, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Austin, Texas, January, 1970.
90. Travis, L.E., Johnson, W. and Shover, J., The Relation of Bilingualism to stuttering, Journal of Speech Disorders 2, 185-9, (1937).
91. Weinreich, U., Functional aspects of Indian bilingualism, Word 13, 203-233, (1957).
92. … Languages in a contact, Mouton, 1970.
93. … Present day approaches to the study of bilingualism. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Columbia University, 1949.
94. … Research Problems in Bilingualism with special reference to Switzerland Unpublished Dissertation, Columbia University, 1951, available on Microfilm; summary in Dissertation, abstracts 12-418f, (1952).
95. West, Michael, Bilingualism (with Special reference to Bengal), Calcutta, 1926.
96. Whitney, W (Lliam) D (Wight), On Mixture in Language, Transactions of the American Philological Association 12, 1-26, (1881).
97. Yammamoto, Kaoru, Bilingualism-A brief review, Mental Hygiene, Vol. XLVIII, No. 3 pp. 468-47, 10 reference, July (1964).