Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:11:29.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interactive alignment between bilingual interlocutors: Evidence from two information-exchange tasks*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2014

PAVEL TROFIMOVICH  and
SARA KENNEDY
PAVEL TROFIMOVICH*
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University, Montreal
SARA KENNEDY
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University, Montreal
*
Address for correspondence: Pavel Trofimovich, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W., Montreal, Quebec, CanadaH3G 1M8[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the occurrence of interactive alignment between bilingual interlocutors communicating in a shared second language (L2). Thirty university-level students from various language backgrounds completed two information-exchange tasks in L2 English. Excerpts from the beginning and end of the interactions were presented to ten native-speaking listeners who rated each interlocutor individually and both interlocutors as a team for speech and personality variables, including degree of alignment. Results revealed interactive alignment which encompassed different aspects of interlocutors’ speech and personality characteristics in each task. Theoretical and practical implications for alignment as a sociocognitive phenomenon in lingua franca contexts are discussed.

Keywords

interactive alignmentbilingual interactionlistener perceptionsreferential communication taskslingua franca communication
Type
Research Notes
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 822 - 836
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was made possible through grants from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture. We are grateful to Vanessa Copeland, Jennifer Foote, Luke Ptak, Carla Pastorino, Ricole Lui, and Michelle Lee for their help with data collection and analyses. We also thank anonymous BLC reviewers for their helpful input and feedback on the content of this manuscript.

References

Anderson, A. H., Bader, M., Bard, E. G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H. S., & Weinert, R. (1991). The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 34, 351–366.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. (2011). A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition: How mind, body, and world work together in learning additional languages. In Atkinson, D. (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, pp. 143–166. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91, 169–188.Google Scholar
Babel, M. (2012). Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 177–189.Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., McLean, J. F., & Brown, A. (2011). The role of beliefs in lexical alignment: Evidence from dialogs with humans and computers. Cognition, 121, 41–57.Google Scholar
Bremer, K., & Simonot, M. (1996). Joint negotiation of understanding: Procedures for managing problems of understanding. In Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M., Simonot, M. & Broeder, P. (eds.), Achieving understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters, pp. 181–206. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1482–1493.Google Scholar
British National Corpus (2007). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Yule, G., & Shillcock, R. (1983). Teaching talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chartrand, T. L., & Dalton, A. (2008). Mimicry: Its ubiquity, importance, and functionality. In Morsella, E., Bargh, J. & Gollwitzer, P. (eds.), Oxford handbook of human action, pp. 458–483. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, P. Y., & Popovich, P. M. (2002). Correlation: Parametric and nonparametric measures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchill, E., Nishino, T., Okada, H., & Atkinson, D. (2010). Symbiotic gesture and the sociocognitive visibility of grammar. Modern Language Journal, 94, 234–253.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cobb, T. (2000). The compleat lexical tutor [website]. http://www.lextutor.ca.Google Scholar
Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (2013). A corpus approach to studying structural convergence in task-based Spanish L2 interactions. In McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts, pp. 167–188. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Pickering, M. J., & Sorace, A. (2008). Alignment in second language dialogue. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 528–556.Google Scholar
Gambi, C., & Pickering, M. J. (2013). Prediction and imitation in speech. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–9.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27, 181–218.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 292–304.Google Scholar
Gibson, W., & Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Giles, H., & Ogay, T. (2007). Communication accommodation theory. In Whaley, B. B. & Santer, W. (eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars, pp. 293–309. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In Giles, H., Coupland, J. & Coupland, N. (eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics, pp. 1–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251–279.Google Scholar
Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 475–505.Google Scholar
Kim, M., Horton, W. S., & Bradlow, A. R. (2010). Phonetic convergence in spontaneous conversations as a function of interlocutor language distance. Laboratory Phonology, 2, 125–156.Google Scholar
Lev-Ari, S., & Keysar, B. (2010). Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1093–1096.Google Scholar
Levelt, W., & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 78–106.Google Scholar
Lewandowski, N. (2009). Sociolinguistic factors in language proficiency: Phonetic convergence as a signature of pronunciation talent. In Dogil, G. & Reiterer, M. S. (eds.), Language talent and brain activity, pp. 257–278. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, R. (2011). English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2010). Collaborative syntactic priming activities and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 817–841.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (2005). Imitation and other minds: The ‘Like Me’ hypothesis. In Hurley, S. & Chater, N. (eds.), Perspectives on imitation: From neuroscience to social science (vol. 2), pp. 55–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miller, R. M., Sanchez, K., & Rosenblum, L. D. (2010). Alignment to visual speech information. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72, 1614–1625.Google Scholar
Namy, L. L., Nygaard, L. C., & Sauerteig, D. (2002). Gender differences in vocal accommodation: The role of perception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 422–432.Google Scholar
Nye, P. W., & Fowler, C. A. (2003). Shadowing latency and imitation: The effect of familiarity with the phonetic patterning of English. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 63–79.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Pardo, J. S. (2006). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2382–2393.Google Scholar
Pardo, J. S., Jay, I. C., & Krauss, R. M. (2010). Conversational role influences speech imitation. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72, 2254–2264.Google Scholar
Pardo, J. S., Gibbons, R., Suppes, A., & Krauss, R. M. (2012). Phonetic convergence in college roommates. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 190–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardo, J. S., Jay, Hoshino, I. C., Hasbun, R., Sowemimo-Coker, S. M., C., & Krauss, R. M. (2013). Influence of role-switching on phonetic convergence in conversation. Discourse Processes, 50, 276–300.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–225.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 329–392.Google Scholar
Rindal, U. (2010). Constructing identity with L2: Pronunciation and attitudes among Norwegian learners of English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14, 240–261.Google Scholar
Samuel, A. G., & Kraljic, T. (2009). Perceptual learning for speech. Attention, Perception, Psychophysics, 71, 1207–1218.Google Scholar
Schenkein, J. (1980). A taxonomy for repeating action sequences in natural conversation. In Butterworth, B. (ed.), Language production, pp. 21–47. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2005). Intention reading and imitative learning. In Hurley, S. & Chater, N. (eds.), Perspectives on imitation: From neuroscience to social science (vol. 2), pp. 133–148. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P. Interactive alignment: A teaching-friendly view of second language pronunciation learning. Language Teaching, doi:10.1017/S0261444813000360. Published online by Cambridge University Press, October 14, 2013.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., McDonough, K., & Foote, J. A. Interactive alignment of multisyllabic stress patterns in a second language classroom. TESOL, doi:10.1002/tesq.156. Published online by TESOL, January 4, 2014.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (eds.) (2005). Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Engen, K. J., Baese-Berk, M., Baker, R. E., Kim, M., & Bradlow, A. R. (2010). The Wildcat Corpus of native- and foreign-accented English: Communicative efficiency across conversational dyads with varying language alignment profiles. Language & Speech, 53, 510–540.Google Scholar
Watterson, M. (2008). Repair of non-understanding in English in international communication. World Englishes, 27, 378–406.Google Scholar
Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1988). Identity markers and L2 pronunciation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar