TBLT Nonnative-Nonnative Negotiations on Targeted, Communicative Pronunciation Tasks Laura Sicola University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education & English Language Programs

TBLT The Research Gap Issues in L2 Phonology (Status-oriented) Issues in SLA & Task- based Interaction (Process) L1 Transfer Instruction Learner Characteristics Task Formality Attention/Noticing Negotiation & Feedback Target Form Essentialness Interaction Requirements NS-NNS/NNS-NNS Morphosyntactic Forms typically preselected as targets ?

TBLT L2 Phonology & Task-Based Development? POSITIVE INDICATORS: POSITIVE INDICATORS: 1. Intra-learner variation shows adult learners can modify pronunciation accuracy to some extent, so… 2. Most targetlike production = indicator of linguistic and physical capability; degree to which least targetlike pronunciation should be able to improve 3. Possibility of “noticing the snag” 3. Possibility of “noticing the snag” (Ask me about this!) CHALLENGES CHALLENGES 1. Near immediate establishment of complete interlanguage phonology requires ability to “notice the gap” 2. Lack of perceptual salience or communicative value of some forms in certain contexts (arguably ideal for form-focused instruction) 3. Less likelihood of “noticing the hole”BUT: 

TBLT NNS-NNS Interaction & Pronunciation: “But won’t they just sound like each other? ” NO, and here’s why: Revised Interaction Hypothesis applicable to all forms of language, including phonology Revised Interaction Hypothesis applicable to all forms of language, including phonology NS -NNS negotiations do attend to phonological form, & learners accurately perceive corrective nature of pronunciation-oriented feedback NS -NNS negotiations do attend to phonological form, & learners accurately perceive corrective nature of pronunciation-oriented feedback NNS-NNS can provide each other with feedback signals & modified output NNS-NNS can provide each other with feedback signals & modified output Two NNSs of different L1s accommodate pronunciation toward more targetlike form Two NNSs of different L1s accommodate pronunciation toward more targetlike form Opportunity to self-correct regardless of interlocutor’s L1 Opportunity to self-correct regardless of interlocutor’s L1

TBLT Optimal Conditions for Facilitating Attention to Form in Task-Based Negotiation: Communication Requirements: Communication Requirements: –Must attend to meaning as overarching focus –Mutually request and provision of uniquely-held information –Single mutual goal –Single possible correct outcome Level of Target-form involvement: Level of Target-form involvement: –To maximize attention to less salient L2 forms, target form accuracy should be essential for successful task completion

TBLT Form Essentialness v. Communicative Value: The missing link in common pronunciation tasks in research & pedagogy Highly Communicative Useful but Non- Essential Minimally to Non-Communicative A. - Open discussion - Role play - Picture Description D. This study B. - Read Aloud (any kind of text) - Listen/repeat drills C. - Minimal pair exercises

TBLT Research Questions 1. When working together on communicative pronunciation tasks, can NNSs draw each other’s attention to targeted phonological forms in ways generally understood to facilitate SLA? –Do they provide each other with corrective feedback on the target form? –Do they modify their production of the target form? 2. If NNSs do provide each other with corrective feedback that focuses on the target form, are there specific ways in which they do so? 3. If NNSs do modify their target form production, do the modifications result in more targetlike pronunciation?

TBLT Target Form Selection: Theta (/θ/) Rationale: Not found in L1 of any class participant Not found in L1 of any class participant Not perceptually salient Not perceptually salient all students had ability to produce it, but no student had 100% automatized use all students had ability to produce it, but no student had 100% automatized use /s//t//f/ JapaneseKoreanSpanishKorean ChineseRussianArabicChineseRussianArabicChinese NNSs’ Typical Substitutions for theta*

TBLT Methodology Setting: University intensive English program, intermediate pronunciation elective courses Setting: University intensive English program, intermediate pronunciation elective courses –Weekly language lab meeting (instead of classroom) Participants: Approx. 34 adults (over 3 classes), overall intermediate English proficiency Participants: Approx. 34 adults (over 3 classes), overall intermediate English proficiency –L1 = Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Spanish, Russian Materials: Map Task Materials: Map Task –Inherent communicative, real-world value –Controlled discourse to allow maximal opportunity for attention to target forms –Requires accurate oral/aural discernment of target form from other commonly substituted forms

TBLT The Map

TBLT Procedures & Data Collection Dyads communicated through headsets (no visual contact, so no gestures, lip-reading, etc.) Dyads communicated through headsets (no visual contact, so no gestures, lip-reading, etc.) –Mixed L1 when possible (primary aim) –Mixed gender when possible (secondary) Materials distributed, Teacher read aloud all directions and all street names, to allow students opportunity to make pronunciation notes. Materials distributed, Teacher read aloud all directions and all street names, to allow students opportunity to make pronunciation notes. Teacher modeled examples w/ volunteer to clarify procedure, chance for Q&A Teacher modeled examples w/ volunteer to clarify procedure, chance for Q&A Dyads recorded task performance through same headphones onto lab cassette recorders Dyads recorded task performance through same headphones onto lab cassette recorders

TBLT Data Analysis Procedures Transcription phonemically reflects non- targetlike pronunciation involving mispronounced/misperceived street names that cause a breakdown in communication Transcription phonemically reflects non- targetlike pronunciation involving mispronounced/misperceived street names that cause a breakdown in communication Coding of Corrective Feedback: Coding of Corrective Feedback: –Phonologically Implicit/Explicit –Negotiation moves as Implicit/Explicit Coding of Modified Output: Coding of Modified Output: –Change or no change to target form word or contrast word –Result = +/- targetlike

TBLT Data Excerpt #1: Dyad 17, intersection of “Truth Alley and Fateful Way” Evidence of: – –Explicit Phonological attention to contrast via juxtaposition of contrasted forms with implicit negotiation moves – –Corrective feedback in the forms of clarification requests, confirmation checks, segmentation, repetition – –Pushed output/modification yields more targetlike results, – –On-going hypothesis testing in self-correction, likely due to audio & proprioceptive feedback – –Use of paralinguistic cues such as pausing, target phoneme gemination and post-target schwa-epenthesis to increase salience of target form – –Final resolution yielded greater accuracy of both target-form words by both interlocutors Ask to listen! It’s worth it! See excerpts on next page

TBLT Data (2) Excerpt #2: Dyad 6, “Mossy or Mothy?” Evidence of (e.g.): – –Feedback (CFB) and Modification strategies included: Segmentation at word- and phoneme-level; juxtaposition; paralinguistic cues (intonation, mid-word pausing) – –Metalinguistic feedback (see line 9, “simple.”) – –Result: accurate production, uncertain perception, of target form Excerpt #3: Dyad 3, “North Man’s Alley” Evidence of (e.g.): – –CFB = Exp & Imp negotiation moves, Exp & Imp phonological focus – –Juxtaposition, pausing, gemination of target sound – –Use of task-referential metalinguistic cues (line 8) – –Result: accurate production and perception of target form Excerpt #4: Dyad 7, “Truth Alley” Evidence of (e.g.): – –CFB = Exp & imp negotiation moves, exp & imp phonological focus – –Segmentation at word- and phoneme-level; – –post-form epenthetic schwa (to raise form salience) – –Result: Person B – targetlike perception & production; Person A – targetlike perception, nontargetlike production, and unaware of her own inaccuracy. Ask to listen! It’s worth it!

TBLT Results RQ1. When working together on communicative pronunciation tasks, NNSs CAN draw each other’s attention to targeted phonological forms by providing corrective feedback and modifying their production of the target form and/or its contrast. RQ 2 & 3. There are multiple ways in which NNSs provide each other with corrective feedback that focuses on the target form, and modify their production of it. Sometimes these strategies overlap. Most commonly, they result in more targetlike perception and/or production of the target form and/or its contrast. (See summary chart on attached MS Word File for typology of feedback and modification strategies.)

TBLT Implications NNSs can draw each other’s attention to phonological forms in ways that will push each other toward more accurate perception and production of the target form. NNSs can draw each other’s attention to phonological forms in ways that will push each other toward more accurate perception and production of the target form. Even the most “fossilized” adult learners have the ability to modify their own pronunciation under the right conditions. Even the most “fossilized” adult learners have the ability to modify their own pronunciation under the right conditions. Interactive tasks that balance communicative value and target-form essentialness provide optimal conditions to direct attentional resources to less-salient phonological forms, and “re-sensitize” the learner to sound contrasts. Interactive tasks that balance communicative value and target-form essentialness provide optimal conditions to direct attentional resources to less-salient phonological forms, and “re-sensitize” the learner to sound contrasts. Even when one interlocutor demonstrates momentary neuromuscular inability to produce/perceive the target, interlocutors are able to negotiate their way to a correct phonetic solution. Even when one interlocutor demonstrates momentary neuromuscular inability to produce/perceive the target, interlocutors are able to negotiate their way to a correct phonetic solution.

TBLT References by Slide Number 4. Ellis (1999); Mackey, Gass & McDonough (2000); Pica et. al (1996), also Gass & Varonis (1989); Long & Porter (1985); Jenkins (2000); 5. Pica, Kanagy & Falodun (1993); Loschky & Bley-Vroman (1993) 8. Archibald, 1998; Avery & Ehrlich, 1992; Swan & Smith, 1987