1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation
  4. Volume 2, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2215-1931
  • E-ISSN: 2215-194X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The current study investigated the effect of listener status (native, nonnative) and language background (French, Mandarin) on global ratings of second language speech. Twenty-six nonnative English listeners representing the two language backgrounds ( = 13 each) rated the comprehensibility and accentedness of 40 French speakers of English. These same speakers were previously rated by native listeners and coded for 19 linguistic measures of speech (e.g., segmental errors, word stress errors, grammar accuracy) in Trofimovich and Isaacs (2012). Analyses indicated no difference in global ratings between nonnative and native listeners, or between the two nonnative listener groups. Similarly, no major differences in the linguistic dimensions associated with each group’s ratings existed. However, analyses of verbal reports for a subset of nonnative listeners ( = 5 per group) demonstrated that each group attributed their ratings to somewhat different linguistic cues.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.2.2.02cro
2016-08-12
2024-10-03

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jslp.2.2.02cro
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bent, T. , & Bradlow, A
    (2003) The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 1600–1610. doi: 10.1121/1.1603234
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1603234 [Google Scholar]
  2. Blommaert, J
    (2010) The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511845307
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845307 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bradlow, A. , & Bent, T
    (2008) Perceptual adaptation to nonnative speech. Cognition, 106, 707–729. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, A
    (1995) The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupation-specific language performance test. Language Testing, 12, 1–15. doi: 10.1177/026553229501200101
     https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229501200101 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cook, V
    (2007) The goals of ELT: Reproducing native-speakers or promoting multicompetence among second language users?In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching. New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Crowther, D. , Trofimovich, P. , Saito, K. , & Isaacs, T
    (2015) Second language comprehensibility revisited: Investigating the effects of learner background. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 814–837. doi: 10.1002/tesq.203
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.203 [Google Scholar]
  7. Derwing, T.M. , & Munro, M.J
    (2013) The development of L2 oral language skills in two L1 groups: A 7‐year study. Language Learning, 63, 163–185.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2015) Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.42 [Google Scholar]
  9. Derwing, T.M. , Munro, M.J. , Thomson, R.I. , & Rossiter, M.J
    (2009) The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 533–557. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990015
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990015 [Google Scholar]
  10. Deterding, D. , & Kirkpatrick, A
    (2006) Emerging south-east Asian English and intelligibility. World Englishes, 25(3/4), 391–409. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2006.00478.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2006.00478.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Duanmu, S
    (2007) The phonology of standard Chinese: The phonology of the world’s languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fayer, J.M. , & Krasinski, E
    (1987) Native and nonnative judgments of intelligibility and irritation. Language Learning, 37, 313–326. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1987.tb00573.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1987.tb00573.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Field, J
    (2005) Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 399–423. doi: 10.2307/3588487
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3588487 [Google Scholar]
  14. Flege, J.E
    (1988) Factors affecting degree of perceived foreign accent in English sentences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 70–79. doi: 10.1121/1.396876
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.396876 [Google Scholar]
  15. Harding, L
    (2012) Accent, listening assessment and the potential for a shared-L1 advantage: A DIF perspective. Language Testing, 29, 163–180. doi: 10.1177/0265532211421161
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211421161 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hayes-Harb, R. , & Hacking, J.F
    (2015) Beyond rating data: What do listeners believe underlies their accentedness judgments?Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1, 43–64. doi: 10.1075/jslp.1.1.02hay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.1.1.02hay [Google Scholar]
  17. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2008.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2008.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  18. Isaacs, T
    (2013) International engineering graduate students’ interactional patterns on a paired speaking test: Interlocutors’ perspectives. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 227–246). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.34.17ch12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.34.17ch12 [Google Scholar]
  19. Isaacs, T. , & Thomson, R
    (2013) Rater experience, rating scale length, and judgments of L2 pronunciation: Revisiting research conventions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 125–159. doi: 10.1080/15434303.2013.769545
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2013.769545 [Google Scholar]
  20. Issacs, T. , & Trofimovich, P
    (2012) Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 475–505. doi: 10.1017/S0272263112000150
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000150 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jenkins, J
    (2000) The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (2014) English as a lingua franca: The politics of academic English language policy. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Jenkins, J. , Cogo, A. , & Dewey, M
    (2011) Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44, 281–315. doi: 10.1017/S0261444811000115
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000115 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jesney, K
    (2004) The use of global foreign accent rating in studies of L2 acquisition. Calgary, AB, Canada: University of Calgary Language Research Centre Reports.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Jun, H.G. , & Li, J
    (2010) Factors in raters’ perceptions of comprehensibility and accentedness. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st pronunciation in second language learning and teaching conference, Iowa State University, Sept 2009 (pp.53–66), Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Jun, S.–A
    (2005) Prosodic typology. In S.–A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp.430–458). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.003.0016
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.003.0016 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kahng, J
    (2014) Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning, 64, 809–854. doi: 10.1111/lang.12084
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12084 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kang, O
    (2010) Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38, 301–315. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2010.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2012) Impact of rater characteristics and prosodic features of speaker accentedness on ratings of international teaching assistants’ oral performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(3), 249–269. doi: 10.1080/15434303.2011.642631
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.642631 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kang, O. , & Rubin, D.L
    (2009) Reverse linguistic stereotyping: Measuring the effect of listener expectations on speech evaluation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28, 441–456. doi: 10.1177/0261927X09341950
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09341950 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kang, O. , Rubin, D. , & Pickering, L
    (2010) Supresegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. Modern Language Journal, 94, 554–566. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2010.01091.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01091.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Kormos, J. , & Dénes, M
    (2004) Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145–164. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Larson-Hall, J
    (2010) A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Levis, J.M
    (2005) Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 369–377. doi: 10.2307/3588485
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mackey, A. , Gass, S. , & McDonough, K
    (2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100004022
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004022 [Google Scholar]
  36. MacKay, I.R. , Flege, J.E. , & Imai, S
    (2006) Evaluating the effects of chronological age and sentence duration on degree of perceived foreign accent. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 157–183. doi: 10.1017/S0142716406060231
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060231 [Google Scholar]
  37. Major, R.C. , Fitzmaurice, S.F. , Bunta, F. , & Balasubramanian, C
    (2002) The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 173–190. doi: 10.2307/3588329
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3588329 [Google Scholar]
  38. May, S
    (Ed.) (2014) The multilingual turn. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Munro, M.J
    (2008) Foreign accent and speech intelligibility. Phonology and second language acquisition, 193–218. doi: 10.1075/sibil.36.10mun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.36.10mun [Google Scholar]
  40. Munro, M.J. , & Derwing, T.M
    (2001) Modeling perceptions of the accentedness and comprehensibility of L2 speech: The role of speaking rate. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 451–468.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (2006) The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34, 520–531. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2006.09.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  42. Munro, M.J. , Derwing, T.M. , & Morton, S.L
    (2006) The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 111–131. doi: 10.1017/S0272263106060049
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060049 [Google Scholar]
  43. Ortega, L
    (2013) SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63(S1), 1–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00735.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00735.x [Google Scholar]
  44. Park, J. S-Y. , & Wee, L
    (2015) English as a lingua franca: Lessons for language and mobility. In C. Stroud & M. Prinsloo (Eds.), Language, literacy and diversity: Moving words (pp.55–71). New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Pickering, L
    (2009) Intonation as a pragmatic resource in ELF interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 235–255. doi: 10.1515/IPRG.2009.013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.013 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pickering, L. , & Litzenberg, J
    (2011) Intonation as a pragmatic resource in ELF interaction, revisited. In A. Archibald , A. Cogo , & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Latest trends in ELF research (pp. 77–92). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Ramus, F. , Nespor, M. , & Mehler, J
    (1999) Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal. Cognition, 73, 265–292. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00058‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00058-X [Google Scholar]
  48. Saito, K. , Trofimovich, P. , & Isaacs, T
    (2015) Using listener judgments to investigate linguistic influences on L2 comprehensibility and accentedness: A validation and generalization study. Applied Linguistics. Published online29 September 2015.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. (2016) Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 217–240. doi: 10.1017/S0142716414000502
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000502 [Google Scholar]
  50. Scheuer, S
    (2005) Why native speakers are (still) relevant). In K. Dziubalska-Kolacyzuk & J. Przedlacka (Eds.), English pronunciation models: A changing scene (pp.111–130). Frankfurt a/M: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Seidlhofer, B
    (2004) Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239. doi: 10.1017/S0267190504000145
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000145 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2011) Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Smith, B.L. , & Hayes-Harb, R
    (2011) Individual differences in the perception of final consonant voicing among native and non-native speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 115–120. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.11.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  54. Swan, M. , & Smith, B
    (Eds.) (2001) Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Trofimovich, P. , & Isaacs, T
    (2012) Disentangling accent from comprehensibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 905–916. doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000168
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000168 [Google Scholar]
  56. Walker, R
    (2010) Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Winke, P
    (2013) Rating oral language. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp.1–7). Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Winke, P. , & Gass, S
    (2013) The influence of L2 experience and accent familiarity on oral proficiency rating: A qualitative investigation. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 762–789. doi: 10.1002/tesq.73
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.73 [Google Scholar]
  59. Xie, X. , & Fowler, C.A
    (2013) Listening with a foreign-accent: The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit in Mandarin speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 369–378. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2013.06.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2013.06.003 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.2.2.02cro
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accent; comprehensibility; English language; native; nonnative; pronunciation; raters

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error