Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presenter: Paul Lochland. Contents Trends & Perspectives Definitions Listener factors 4 1 2 Speaker factors 3.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Presenter: Paul Lochland. Contents Trends & Perspectives Definitions Listener factors 4 1 2 Speaker factors 3."— Presentation transcript:

1 Presenter: Paul Lochland

2 Contents Trends & Perspectives Definitions Listener factors 4 1 2 Speaker factors 3

3 Implications for TESOL 6 Conclusion 7 References 8

4 Trends & Issues Text in here The spread of English 1975 = 300 million ‘Native Speakers’ (NS) = 300 million ‘Native Speakers’ (NS) = 300 million ‘Non- Native Speakers’ (NNS) (Strevens, 1980) = 300 million ‘Non- Native Speakers’ (NNS) (Strevens, 1980)1997 = 320 - 380 million NS = 320 - 380 million NS = 1 billion NNS (Crystal, 1997) = 1 billion NNS (Crystal, 1997)

5 English as a lingua franca (Elf) in the academic domain of an inner circle country Proportion of overseas students at Australian universities that come from non-English speaking countries. Deakin University = 17.3% Monash University = 20.1% Melbourne University = 21.12% La Trobe University = 30.6% Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology = 36% (Deakin University, 2011; La Trobe University, 2011; Marginson, 2011; RMIT, 2011)

6 Traditional perspectives SLA research shrouded in NS perspectives Only NS can judge the intelligibility of English as an Additional Language (L2) speech Current perspectives There is a significant gap in our understanding of how foreign-accented English speech is perceived by Non-Native Listeners (NNL) (Derwing & Munro, 1997, 2009; Munro, 2008; Munro & Derwing, 1995, 1999, 2010) & Native Listeners (NL) and NNL may be affected differently by certain pronunciation features of L2 speech (Kashiwagi & Snyder, 2008)

7 Definitions

8 Accentedness may be defined as the degree of contrast between a listeners’ expectation of phonological patterns and the perception of speech sounds at any given time Exposure means a passive experience with an accent Familiarity describes an active experience that results from phonetic training

9 Speaker factors Short term vocal outputs Speech rate - Natural speech rates influence intelligibility for NL (Firth, 1992; Kashiwagi & Snyder, 2008) - Likewise, natural speech rates affect intelligibility for NNL (Kashiwagi & Snyder, 2008) - Synthesised speech rates affect both NL and NNL (Jones, Berry & Stevens, 2007)

10 Accentedness -Quasi- independent of intelligibility and accentedness for NL. (Derwing & Munro, 1997, 2009; Munro, 2008; Munro & Derwing, 1995, 1999, 2010) -Similarly, the independence of accentedness judgments and intelligibility for NNL (Lochland, forthcoming; Munro, Derwing & Morton, 2006)

11 Long term vocal outputs Linguistic features  Suprasegmental features contribute to intelligibility for NL (Anderson-Hsieh, Johnson & Koehler, 1992; Anderson-Hsieh & Koehler, 1988; Derwing, 2008; Gallego, 1990; Johansson, 1978; Munro & Derwing, 1995, 2001; Meng, Tseng, Kondo, Harrison and Viscelgia, 2009; Nida, 1957; Tajima, Port, & Dalby, 1997  A few studies have investigated the influence of L2 suprasegmentals on NNL (Field, 2005; Jenkins, 1998) Segmentals influence NL (Derwing, 2008; Koster & Koet, 1993 and Fayer & Krasinski, 1987 as cited in Munro & Derwing, 1999, p. 289; Field, 2005) Likewise, segmentals have been found to impact the perceptions of NNL ( Deterding & Kirkpatrick, 2006; Field; Jenkins, 1998, 2000; Zielinski, 2008) However, only some segmentals may impact intelligibility for NNL (Field, 2005)

12 Listener factors No Exposure NL find novel accented L2 speech intelligible (Munro,Derwing & Morton, 2006; Kirkpatrick, Deterding & Wong, 2008) The intelligibility of novel foreign accents for NNL (Lochland, forthcoming; Munro et al, 2006)

13 Exposure  Exposure to an L2 accent improves its intelligibility for NL (Bradlow & Bent, 2008; Catford, 1950; Floccia, Butler, Goslin & Ellis, 2009; Kennedy & Trofimovich, 2008; Nelson, 2008; Norris, McQueen & Cutler, 2003)  Exposure to a particular L2 accent also increases intelligibility for NNL (Lochland, forthcoming) Exposure doesn’t improve the intelligibility of an L2 accent for NL (Gass & Varonis, 1984; Munro, Derwing & Morton, 2006; Kirkpatrick, Deterding & Wong, 2008) Exposure to a specific accent doesn’t improve intelligibility for NNL (Munro et al, 2006)

14 Familiarity - Familiarity leads to increased intelligibility of foreign accents for NL (Munro et al, 2006) - NNL? - Combination of exposure and familiarity increase intelligibility for NL (Sabin and Wright, 2006 as cited in Bradlow & Bent, 2008, p. 727) - NNL?

15 Psycholinguistics Shared L1 advantage No benefit (Hayes-Harb, Smith, Bent & Bradlow, 2008; Lochland, forthcoming; Major, Fitzmaurice, Bunta, and Balasubramanian, 2002; Harding, 2008) Benefit (Bent & Bradlow, 2003; Munro et al., 2006; Smith & Bisazza, 1982) Shared isochronous advantage Intelligibility enhanced when L2 interlocutors share language family (e.g. the syllable timed languages of Spanish and French) ( Lochland, forthcoming; Major, Fitzmaurice, Bunta & Balasubramanian, 2002) Shared L1- Elf advantage Intelligibility is improved when a listener’s L1 shares pronunciation features with an Elf (Deterding & Kirkpatrick, 2006)

16 Implications for TESOL Pronunciation focus ∼ A balanced approach to the teaching of suprasegmentals and segmentals Listening focus ∼ Exposing learners to and phonetically train them with accents pertinent to their communicative needs. ∼ Expose learners to a variety of L2 accents to facilitate the development of perceptual flexibility Assessment ∼ Evaluate the possibility of listening test bias due to shared L1/ isochronous advantage

17 Conclusions Although research findings indicate that NNL and NL share similar perceptions of L2 features, there is still a significant gap in our understanding of possible factors that may influence the intelligibility of L2 speech for NNL. For example, a number of studies have suggested that segmentals may play a fundamental role in the intelligibility of L2 speech for NNL. Despite this, “during the past 25 years, pronunciation teachers have emphasized suprasegmentals rather than segmentals in promoting intelligibility” (Levis, 2005). In addition, recent publications have emphasized the need for current pedagogical practices to focus on suprasegmentals (Hahn, 2004), and stressed ”the importance of suprasegmental training in [L2] acquisition (Meng, Tseng, Kondo, Harrison and Viscelgia, 2009, p. 1715). It appears that the call for research to consider the perspectives of NNL has, for the most part, fallen on deaf ears. Given that the usage of English between NNS is growing at an exponential rate, further studies into the perceptions of NNL are certainly warranted.

18 References Anderson-Hsieh, J. & Koehler, K. (1988). The effect of foreign accent and speaking rate on native speaker comprehension. Language Learning, 38, 561-613. Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42, 529–555. Bradlow, A. R. & Bent, T. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 114 (3), 1600-1610. Bradlow, A. R. & Bent, T. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition, 106, 707–729. Catford, J. C. (1950) Intelligibility. ELT Journal, 1, 7-15. Deakin University (2011). Student Enrollments Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.deakin.edu.au Derwing, T. M. (2008). Curriculum Issue in Teaching Pronunciation to Second Language Learners, In J. G. Hansen & M. L. Zampini, Phonology and Second Language Acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Derwing, T. M. & Munro, M. (1997). Accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 1–16. Derwing, T. M. & Munro, M. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42 (4), 476–490. Deterding, D. & A. Kirkpatrick (2006). Intelligibility and an emerging ASEAN English lingua franca. World Englishes 2 (3), 391–410. Fiedler, S. (2010). The English-as-a-lingua-franca approach: Linguistic fair play? Language Problems & Language Planning, 34(3), 201–221. Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39 (3), 339-424 Firth, S. (1992) Pronunciation syllabus design: a question of focus, P. Avery, S. Ehrlich, Editors, Teaching American English Pronunciation, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1992), pp. 173–183.

19 Floccia, C., Butler, J., Goslin, J. & Ellis, L. (2009). Regional and Foreign Accent Processing in English: Can Listeners Adapt? Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 38, 379–412. Gallego, J. C. (1990). The intelligibility of three nonnative English speaking teaching assistants: An analysis of student- reported communication breakdowns. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 219-237. Gass, S, & Varonis, E. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 34, 65–89. Hahn, L. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (2), 201-223. Harding, L. (2008). ‘Accent and academic listening assessment: A study of test-taker perceptions’. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 13, 1-33 Hayes-Harb, R., Smith, B. L., Bent, T. & Bradlow, A. R. (2008). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit for native speakers of Mandarin: Production and perception of English word-final voicing contrasts. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 664–679. Jenkins, J. (1998). Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an International Language? ELT Journal, 52(2), 119-126. Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Hong Kong, Oxford University Press Johansson, S. (1978). Studies in error gravity: Native reactions to errors produced by Swedish learners of English. Gothenburg Studies in English, 44, 131-138. Jones, C., Berry, L. & Stevens, C. (2007). Synthesized speech intelligibility and persuasion: Speech rate and non-native listeners. Computer Speech and Language, 21, 641–651. Kashiwagi, A. & Snyder, M. (2008). Speech Characteristics of Japanese Speakers Affecting American and Japanese Listener Evaluations, Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 1-14.

20 Kennedy, S. & Trofimovich, P. (2008). Intelligibility, Comprehensibility, and Accentedness of L2 Speech: The Role of Listener Experience and Semantic Context. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64 (3), 459-489. Kirkpatrick, A., Deterding, D. & Wong, J. (2008). The international intelligibility of Hong Kong English. World Englishes, 27, (3/4), 359–377. La Trobe University (2011). Student Enrollments Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.latrobe.edu.au Levis, J. (2005). Changing Contexts and Shifting Paradigms in Pronunciation Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39 (3), 369-378 Major, R., Fitzmaurice, S., Bunta, F., & Balasubramanian, C. (2002). The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 173–190. Marginson, S. (2011) International education in Australia 2011: Crisis and opportunity. Retrieved from http:// www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/marginson_docs/NEAS_ELT_ManagementConf_ %2012May2011_DOC.pdf Meng, H., Tseng, C., Kondo, M., Harrison, A. & Viscelgia, T. (2009). Studying L2 Suprasegmental Features in Asian Englishes: A Position Paper. Sourced on 28/11/2011 ftp://ftp.cs.pitt.edu/web/projects/nlp/conf/interspeech2009/IS2009/PDF/AUTHOR/IS090245.PDF Munro, M. J. (2008). Foreign accent and speech intelligibility. In J. G. Hansen & M. L. Zampini, Phonology and Second Language Acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 193–218. Munro, M. & Derwing, T. M. (1995) Foreign Accent, Comprehensibility, and Intelligibility in the Speech of Second Language Learners. Language Learning, 45 (1), 73-97 Munro, M. & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign Accents, Comprehensibility and Intelligibility in the Speech of Language Learners. Language Learning, 49 (Suppl. 1), 285–310. Munro, M. & Derwing, T. M. (2001). Modelling Perceptions of the Accentedness and Comprehensibility of L2 Speech: The Role of Speaking. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 23, 451–468.

21 Munro, M. & Derwing, T. M. (2010). Symposium – Accentuating the Positive: Directions in Pronunciation Research. Language Teaching, 43:3, 366–368 Munro, M., Derwing, T. M. & Morton, S. L. (2006). The Mutual Intelligibility of L2 Speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 111–131 Nelson, C. L. (2008). Intelligibility since 1969. World Englishes, 27 (3/4), 297-308 Nida, E. (1957). Learning a foreign language. Ann Arbor: Friendship. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 204–238. RMIT (2011). Student Enrollments Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.rmit.edu.au Smith, L, & Bisazza, J (1982). The comprehensibility of three varieties of English for college students in seven countries. Language Learning, 32, 259–269 Strevens, P. (1980). Teaching English as an international language: From practice to principle. Oxford: PergamonPress Tajima, K., Port, R., & Dalby, J. (1997). Effects of temporal correction on intelligibility of foreign-accented English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 1–24. Zielinski, B. W. (2008). The listener: No longer the silent partner in reduced intelligibility. System, 36, 69–84.

22


Download ppt "Presenter: Paul Lochland. Contents Trends & Perspectives Definitions Listener factors 4 1 2 Speaker factors 3."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google