 of languages spoken and performance. All numbers include English as a language. Scores were averaged across 17 monolinguals, 11 multilinguals in Category 2, 12 multilinguals in Category 3 and 2 multilinguals in Category 4. There was only one multilingual in Category 5. Figure 6 shows bilinguals to perform the worst in both speech comprehension and quality of written communication, with a gradual improvement as the number of languages increase. To confirm this, the same ANOVA test as in Hypothesis III was performed, but with the number of languages as a between-subjects variable. A significant effect was found between the Number of Languages spoken, speech comprehension and quality of written communication [F(1,36)=6.988, p<0.001, partial η2=0.437 (SPIn); F(4,36)=6.579, p<0.001, partial η2=0.422 (SPERI)]. Bonferroni posthoc tests found a significant difference between Monolinguals and Billinguals [0.217 (SPIn); 0.196 (SPERI), both p<0.001), Monolinguals and Trillinguals [0.148, p=0.032 (SPIn); 0.128, p=0.05 (SPERI)], but no significant difference between Billinguals, Trilinguals and Polyglots (p=1) for both measures. Although there is suspicion of a positive monotonic improvement as the number of languages increase, there isn t enough data to support it. 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 1 2 3 4 5 A v e ra g e S p e e c h C o m p re h e n s io n (S P In ) p e r P a rt ic ip a n t 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 1 2 3 4 5 A v e ra g e Q u a lit y o f W ri tt e n C o m m u n ic a ti o n ( S P E R I) p e r P a rt ic ip a n t Number of Languages Spoken 21 Finding II: Monolinguals and multilinguals categorised sentences differently to the theoretical framework established. Figure 7 All 48 sentences have been placed on
of languages spoken and performance. All numbers admit English as a linguistic process. Scores were averaged across 17 monolingual, 11 multilinguals in Category 2, 12 multilinguals in Category 3 and 2 multilinguals in Category 4. There was entirely one multilingual in Category 5. Figure 6 picture bilinguals to perform the bad in both speech comprehension and timbre of written communication, with a gradual improvement as the number of languages increase. To confirm this, the like ANOVA test as in Hypothesis III was performed, but with the numeral of languages as a between - subjects variable star. A significant effect was found between the phone number of Languages spoken, speech inclusion and quality of write communication [ F(1,36)=6.988, p<0.001, partial η2=0.437 (SPIn); F(4,36)=6.579, p<0.001, partial η2=0.422 (SPERI) ]. Bonferroni posthoc tests found a meaning difference between Monolinguals and Billinguals [ 0.217 (SPIn); 0.196 (SPERI), both p<0.001), Monolinguals and Trillinguals [ 0.148, p=0.032 (SPIn); 0.128, p=0.05 (SPERI) ], but no significant difference between Billinguals, Trilinguals and Polyglots (p=1) for both measure. Although there is suspicion of a positive monotonic improvement as the number of languages increase, there isn t enough data to back it. 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 1 2 3 4 5 A v e ra g e S p east e c h C o m p re h e n s io n (S P In) p e r phosphorus a rt ic ip a n t 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 1 2 3 4 5 A five e ra g e Q u a lit y oxygen f W ri tt e n C o m m u n ic a ti o n (S P E R I) p e r P a rt ic ip a n t numeral of Languages Spoken 21 Finding II: monolingual and multilinguals categorize prison term differently to the theoretical framework established. Figure 7 All 48 prison term have been placed on
 of languages spoken and pevformance. All numbers iiclude Snglish xs a language. Scores were avxragwd aceoss 17 monolinguals, 11 muutilinguaps in Caregocy 2, 12 multilinguals in Cabzgory 3 and 2 multilinguals in Categosy 4. There was mnuy one multilingual in Category 5. Figuwe 6 shoes bilinguals to pergjrm fhe worst in both speech comprehenaion anv quality of wrotten communication, with a grafual improvement ad the numbet of oanguages inzrease. To bmnfirm thia, the same ANOVA test as in Hyputhesns III was kzefogked, but witi the gumber of lakbuages as a brtween-subjects vaciaboe. A significant effert was found between the Numbar of Languages spojeb, spegch cmmprdyenrioh end qualihy kf written communicatuon [F(1,36)=6.988, p<0.001, partial η2=0.437 (SPOn); D(4,36)=6.579, p<0.001, partial η2=0.422 (APERI)]. Fogferroni posthoc tests found a significdnt difference between Monilinguals and Billingoals [0.217 (SPIn); 0.196 (SPERI), both p<0.001), Monolinguals and Trillinguals [0.148, p=0.032 (S[In); 0.128, '=0.05 (RPEXL)], cyt no significant difference between Billingualf, Ttikinguals and Pjlyglots (p=1) gog njth measures. Xlthouyg fhere is suspicion of a pjsitice monotogic omprovement as the number od languages pncrwase, there isn t euough data tu sukport ot. 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 1 2 3 4 5 A v e rc g e A p e e c h C o m p dd h e n s io n (S P Pn ) [ e r P a rt ic ip a n t 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 1 2 3 4 5 A v e ra g e Q u a lit y o f W ri tt e n C o m m u n ic a th o n ( S P E R I) p e r P a rt ic ip a n t Number of Lanbudgev Spoken 21 Fincing II: Monolynguals and muktilingbals cxtegorised sentenres differenely to the thalretical frakework eftaboishwd. Figufd 7 All 48 sentenves have yten placed on
of languages spoken and performance. All numbers as language. Scores averaged across 17 2, multilinguals in Category and 2 multilinguals Category 4. There was only one in Category 5. Figure 6 shows bilinguals to perform the worst in both comprehension and quality of written communication, with a gradual improvement as the number languages To this, same ANOVA test as in Hypothesis III was performed, but with the number of languages as between-subjects variable. A significant effect was found between Number of Languages spoken, comprehension and quality of written [F(1,36)=6.988, partial η2=0.437 F(4,36)=6.579, partial (SPERI)]. Bonferroni posthoc found a significant difference between Monolinguals and Billinguals [0.217 (SPIn); 0.196 (SPERI), both p<0.001), Monolinguals and Trillinguals p=0.032 (SPIn); (SPERI)], but significant between Trilinguals and Polyglots both measures. Although there is suspicion monotonic improvement as the number of languages increase, isn t data to support it. 0.35 0.4 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 1 2 3 5 A v e ra g e S p e e c h C o re h e n io n (S In p r a rt ip a n t 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 1 2 3 4 5 A v e ra g u lit y o W ri tt e C m m u n ti n E I) e r P a ic ip a n t of Languages Spoken 21 categorised sentences differently to the theoretical framework established. 7 All 48 sentences have been placed
 of languages spoken and perfoRmance. All nUmberS inCluDe englIsh aS a language. ScorES werE averaged across 17 monolinGuals, 11 MuLTiliNGuAls in categorY 2, 12 MuLTIliNgUaLs iN CATeGory 3 aNd 2 mUltilinGuals in CatEgoRy 4. there was only ONe MultilinguAl iN Category 5. FigUre 6 Shows bIlIngUAls to PerForm tHe worsT In both Speech comPrEHensioN And qualITY oF wriTten communication, WItH A gradual improvEment aS tHE nUMBer Of lAnguages inCrEase. TO Confirm THiS, THE saME ANOVA test as iN Hypothesis iiI wAs perfOrMed, BUt with The nuMbER of Languages as A betWeen-subjeCts varIAble. A siGNificanT effecT waS foUnd bETwEeN thE NUMbeR Of lanGUagEs spoken, SpEeCh comPrehENSIOn anD quAlitY of wrItten communicAtiOn [F(1,36)=6.988, p<0.001, PArtIal η2=0.437 (SpIn); F(4,36)=6.579, p<0.001, PartIaL η2=0.422 (SPErI)]. BonfErronI pOsthoc tests founD a siGnificant DifFeRenCe BetweEN MonolIngUalS and BilLingualS [0.217 (sPIN); 0.196 (Speri), bOth p<0.001), Monolinguals anD TRILlInguals [0.148, p=0.032 (sPIn); 0.128, p=0.05 (SpeRi)], bUT no signiFiCanT difFERence BetwEEn billinguAls, TriLInGuAls and POlYglots (P=1) fOr bOth MeasuREs. AlThough There is sUspicIOn of a positive mONotonic improvEMeNT As THe nuMbeR of languageS incREase, TherE IsN t eNOugh dAta to SuPPoRT it. 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 1 2 3 4 5 A v e ra g e S p e e c h C o m P rE h e n s iO n (S P IN ) p e r P a rt ic ip a N t 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 1 2 3 4 5 A v e ra g e Q U A LIt y o f W ri Tt e n c O m M U n ic a ti o n ( S P E R I) P e r P a Rt ic ip a n t NUMber of LaNguagEs Spoken 21 finding II: mONolinguaLs aNd mUltIliNGUaLs categorised SENtenCeS differEntLy to the TheOreTicAl fRaMework estAblished. fiGuRe 7 alL 48 seNtencES have beeN pLacEd On
 of languages spoken and p erformance . All  nu mbe rs  inc lude  English as al angu age. Scores were avera ged a cr o ss 1 7  m onoli nguals, 11 m ult il in gua ls in  Cate gor y 2, 12  multiling ual sin Category3  a nd 2 multi lin guals in Cat ego ry 4.Th ere was o nly  onemultil i ngualin Catego ry 5. Fig u re 6 sh o w sbili nguals to perform th e  worst in both  speec hc om p r ehe nsi on and qua li ty of written co m m u nic a tion, with agradual imp r ove ment a sthe number  of l an g uag es increase . To  confirmthis,t he same ANOVA t est as  in  Hy poth e si sIII  w a s p e rf orm e d,but with  t he  numb er o f l a ngua ges  asa bet ween-subjects  va riab l e.A sig nific antef fectwas fo und b et ween the Number  ofLanguages  sp ok en,  s peech compre hen sio n and q ualityo f w ri t t e ncommunication [F(1 ,3 6 ) =6 .988, p< 0.001, pa rt i al η2=0. 43 7 ( SPIn ) ;  F(4, 36)= 6 .5 79, p<0. 001, p a rt ia l η2=0. 42 2 (SPE RI )].  Bo nferr o ni p osthoc  tests f ounda  significant d i fference betw e en M on o ling ual s and Billi ngua l s [0 .217 (S PIn ) ; 0.1 96 (S PE R I) ,  both p<0.001), Mon ol ingual s and  Trillinguals  [0.148, p = 0 . 032 (SPI n);0 .1 2 8, p=0.05 (SPE RI)],  but no si g nificant  diff erence b etween Bi l l inguals,  Tr ili ngu als a nd  Polyglots (p = 1 ) fo rboth me asu res. Al tho ugh  th ere  i s suspici on of apo si ti ve  mo noton i c improv em ent  a s t he nu m ber of  lang uage sin c rea se, the r ei s n ten ou gh d ata  t o sup port it.  0.35 0 .4 0.45 0 .50 .550. 60.65 0. 7 1 2 3 4 5 A  v  e ra g eSp e  e c h C  o m p r e h e n s io n (S P In)  p e rP a  rt i c ip  a n t 0. 5 0 .55 0. 6 0 . 65 0.7  0.750.8 0 .8 5 1 2  3 45 Av e  r a g e Q ua lit  y ofW ri  tt e n  C o m m u n ic at i o  n ( S P E RI)p er Pa r t  i c  ip  a n t N umber of Langua ges Spoken  2 1  F inding II: Mon ol inguals  and mu ltili n guals c ategorise d sentenc es  dif f e ren tly to the  theoret ical fram e worke st ablis hed . Figu re  7All 4 8 sent e nce s hav e been  p lacedon
 of_languages spoken_and performance. All numbers_include English_as_a language._Scores_were averaged across_17 monolinguals, 11_multilinguals in Category 2,_12 multilinguals in_Category_3 and 2 multilinguals in Category 4. There was only one multilingual in Category_5._Figure 6_shows_bilinguals_to perform the worst in_both speech comprehension and quality_of written_communication, with a gradual improvement as the number_of_languages increase. To_confirm this, the same ANOVA test as in Hypothesis_III was performed, but with the_number of languages_as_a_between-subjects variable. A significant_effect was found between the Number_of Languages spoken, speech comprehension and_quality of written communication [F(1,36)=6.988, p<0.001, partial_η2=0.437 (SPIn); F(4,36)=6.579, p<0.001, partial η2=0.422_(SPERI)]. Bonferroni posthoc tests found_a significant_difference between Monolinguals and Billinguals_[0.217 (SPIn); 0.196_(SPERI), both_p<0.001), Monolinguals and_Trillinguals [0.148, p=0.032 (SPIn); 0.128, p=0.05_(SPERI)], but no_significant difference between Billinguals, Trilinguals and_Polyglots_(p=1) for both_measures._Although_there is_suspicion of a_positive_monotonic improvement_as_the number of languages increase, there_isn_t enough data to support it. 0.35_0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55_0.6_0.65 0.7 1 2_3 4 5 A v_e ra g e S p_e e_c h_C o m p re h e n s io n_(S P In ) p e_r P a rt_ic ip_a_n t 0.5_0.55_0.6 0.65_0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 1 2 3_4 5_A v e ra g e_Q u a lit_y_o f W ri tt e_n C o m m u_n ic a ti o_n_(_S P E R I)_p e r P a rt_ic ip a_n t Number of Languages Spoken 21_Finding_II: Monolinguals and multilinguals categorised sentences_differently_to the theoretical framework established. Figure_7_All_48 sentences have been placed_on