Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:24:33.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The comprehensibility of non-native speech*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Evangeline Marios Varonis  and
Susan Gass
Evangeline Marios Varonis
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan
Susan Gass
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study presents data collected from both natural settings and controlled experiments in order to describe native speaker responses to non-natives and to discuss what variables of a non-native's speech might elicit these responses. We present the results of three experiments. The first investigates native speaker reactions to requests for information by both native and non-native speakers in a natural setting. Experiment two is a controlled study focussing on two variables of non-native speech—pronunciation and grammar—and the response of native speakers to these variables. Experiment three examines the relationship between these variables and native speaker comprehension. Experiment four focuses on the effect of ordering on comprehensibility. We then discuss the role all of these factors play in the comprehensibility of non-native speech. We suggest that comprehensibility is achieved through a complex interaction of many factors and that it is comprehensibility which largely contributes to the use of foreigner talk by native speakers.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , Spring 1982 , pp. 114 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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.)

References

Abunahleh, L.; Allen, S.; Arthur, B.; Beals, S.; Butler, M.; Drezner, B.; Frydenberg, G.; Galal, M.; Gass, S.; Hildebrandt, K.; Marios, L.; Ostrander, T.. (In press.) The scope and function of language repair in foreigner discourse. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin.Google Scholar
Adams, M. 1980. The FSI oral interview: test/conversation. Paper presented at the 14th annual TESOL Conference,San Francisco.Google Scholar
Arthur, B.; Weiner, R.; Culver, M.; Lee, Y.; Thomas, D.. 1980. The register of impersonal discourse to foreigners: verbal adjustments to foreign accent. Discourse analysis in second language research, ed. by Larsen-Freeman, D., 111–124. Rowley, Ma.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Breen, M., and Candlin, C.. 1980. The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics 1(1):89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, M., and Kiparsky, C.. 1972. The Gooficon. Rowley, Ma.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Carpenter, C. 1981. ‘Foreigner talk’ in university office-hour appointments. Paper presented at the 2nd annual colloquium on TESOL and Sociolinguistics, Detroit.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. 1971. Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: a study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk, and pidgins. Pidginization and creolization of languages, by Hymes, D., 141–150. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S., and Varonis, E.. 1982. The effect of familiarity on comprehensibility. Paper presented at the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1963. Behavior in public places: notes on the social origin of gatherings. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Grice, P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics: speech acts Vol. 3, ed. by Cole, P. and Morgan, J., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. 1967. Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Problems of bilingualism, ed. by J. McNamara. Journal of Social Issues (spec, issue) 23(2):8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. 1979. The FSI oral interview. Advances in language testing, Series 1, ed. by Spolsky, B., 8–28. Arlington, VA.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. 1967. A social psychology of bilingualism. Problems of bilingualism, ed. by J. McNamara. Journal of Social Issues, (spec, issue) 23(2):91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1981. Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning. 31(1):135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. 1976. Linguistic simplification: a study of immigrant workers' speech and foreigner talk. Second language development: trends and development, ed. by Felix, S., 13–40. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Mishler, E. 1975. Studies in dialogue and discourse:II. Types of discourse initiated by and sustained through questioning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 4(2):99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramamurti, R. 1980. Strategies involved in talking to a foreigner. Perm Review of Linguistics 4. 84–92.Google Scholar
Scarcella, R. 1981. Developmental trends in the acquisition of conversational competence by adult second language learners. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Colloquium on TESOL and Sociolinguistics, Detroit.Google Scholar
Turner, D. 1980. Native speakers' reactions to non-native speakers' morphological errors. TESL Talk 11(1):52–58.Google Scholar
Whinnom, K. 1971. Linguistic hybridization and the ‘special case’ of pidgins and Creoles. Pidgnization and creolization of languages, ed. by Hymes, D., 91–115. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilds, C. 1975. The oral interview test. Testing language proficiency, ed. by Jones, R. and Spolsky, B., 29–44. Arlington, Va.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. 1981. Rules of speaking. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Colloquium on TESOL and Sociolinguistics, Detroit.Google Scholar