Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:07:10.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PRONUNCIATION IN FACE-TO-FACE AND AUDIO-ONLY SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED LEARNER INTERACTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2017

Shawn Loewen  and
Daniel R. Isbell
Shawn Loewen*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Daniel R. Isbell
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shawn Loewen, Second Language Studies, B255 Wells Hall, 619 Red Cedar Road, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1027. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies of learner-learner interactions have reported varying degrees of pronunciation-focused discourse, ranging from 1% (Bowles, Toth, & Adams, 2014) to 40% (Bueno-Alastuey, 2013). Including first language (L1) background, modality, and task as variables, this study investigates the role of pronunciation in learner-learner interactions. Thirty English learners in same-L1 or different-L1 dyads were assigned to one of two modes (face-to-face or audio-only synchronous computer-mediated communication) and completed three tasks (picture differences, consensus, conversation). Interactions were coded for language-related episodes (LREs), with 14% focused on pronunciation. Segmental features comprised the majority of pronunciation LREs (90%). Pronunciation LREs were proportionally similar for same-L1 and different-L1 dyads, and communication modality yielded no difference in frequency of pronunciation focus. The consensus task, which included substantial linguistic input, yielded greater pronunciation focus, although the results did not achieve statistical significance. These results help clarify the role of pronunciation in learner-learner interactions and highlight the influence of task features.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 39 , Special Issue 2: TBLT and L2 Pronunciation: Do the Benefits of Tasks Extend Beyond Grammar and Lexis? , June 2017 , pp. 225 - 256
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

We would like to thank Dan Reed and Dennie Hoopingarner (Co-PIs) for funding the study’s data collection through their International Research and Studies Program Grant: Articulated Research: Web 2.0 Technology and Instructed Language Acquisition. In addition, we are indebted to Dominik Wolff and Xuehong (Stella) He for their assistance in data transcription and coding. Finally, we would like to thank the special issue editors for inviting us to be part of this special issue, as well as the anonymous reviewers who provided invaluable feedback.

References

REFERENCES

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 30–51). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 243–272.Google Scholar
Blake, R. J. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on Spanish L2 interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120–136.Google Scholar
Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 19–35.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. A., Toth, P. D., & Adams, R. J. (2014). A comparison of L2–L2 and L2-heritage learner interactions in Spanish language classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 92, 497–517.Google Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2010). Synchronous-voice computer-mediated communication: Effects on pronunciation. CALICO Journal, 28, 1–20.Google Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2011). Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 419–432.Google Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2013). Interactional feedback in synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication: Effect of dyad. System, 41, 543–559.Google Scholar
Chamberlin Quinlisk, C. (2008). Nonverbal communication, gesture, and second language classrooms: A review. In McCafferty, S. G. & Stam, G. (Eds.), Gesture: Second language acquisition and classroom research (pp. 25–44). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Saito, K., & Isaacs, T. (2015). Second language comprehensibility revisited: Investigating the effects of learner background. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 814–837.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Diepenbrooke, L. G., & Foote, J. A. (2012). How well do general-skills ESL textbooks address pronunciation? TESL Canada Journal, 30, 23–44.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 379–397.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Weibe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393–410.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (2008). Typological markedness and second language phonology. In Hansen Edwards, J. G. & Zampini, M. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 95–115). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.Google Scholar
Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 399–423.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-linguistic research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Foote, J., Holtby, A., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29, 1–22.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of non-native speech. Language Learning, 34, 65–89.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory setting. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37.Google Scholar
Hardison, D. M. (1999). Bimodal speech perception by native and non-native speakers of English: Factors influencing the McGurk effect. Language Learning, 49 (Suppl. 1), 213–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgues, C., & Scheuer, S. (2014). “I understood you, but there was this pronunciation thing…”: L2 pronunciation feedback in English/French tandem interactions. Research in Language, 12, 145–161.Google Scholar
Isaacs, T., & Thomson, R. (2012). Rater experience, rating scale length, and judgments of L2 pronunciation: Revisiting research conventions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 135–159. doi: 10.1080/15434303.2013.769545 Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83–103.Google Scholar
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—and negotiated interaction—in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 79–98.Google Scholar
Kang, O., Rubin, D., & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. Modern Language Journal, 94, 554–566.Google Scholar
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, N., Tracy-Venture, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kennedy, S., Guénette, D., Murphy, J., & Allard, S. (2015). Le rôle de la prononciation dans l’intercompréhension entre locuteurs de français lingua franca [The role of pronunciation on comprehension between speakers of French as a lingua franca]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 71, 1–25.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2014). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 1–23.Google Scholar
Levis, J. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 369–377.Google Scholar
Levis, J. (2016). Research into practice: How research appears in pronunciation teaching materials. Language Teaching, 49, 423–437.Google Scholar
Lin, H. (2015). Computer-mediated communication (CMC) in L2 oral proficiency development: A meta-analysis. ReCALL, 27, 261–287. doi: 10.1017/S095834401400041X Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2012). Instructed second language acquisition. In Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 53–73). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 162–184). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–449). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Successful ELF communications and implications for ELT: Sequential analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies. Modern Language Journal, 95, 97–114.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45, 73–97.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2006). The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34, 520–531.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2015). A prospectus for pronunciation research in the 21st century: A point of view. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1, 11–42.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M., & Morton, S. L. (2006). The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 111–131.Google Scholar
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 377–405.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2015). Statistical significance testing in second language research: Basic problems and suggestions for reform. Language Learning, 65 (Suppl. 1), 97–126.Google Scholar
Ortega-Llebaria, M., & Colantoni, L. (2014). L2 English intonation: Relations between form-meaning associations, access to meaning, and L1 transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 331–353.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3–21.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pickering, L. (2009). Intonation as a pragmatic resource in ELF interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 235–255.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2015). Statistical power, p values, descriptive statistics, and effect sizes: A “back-to-basics” approach to advancing quantitative methods in L2 research. In Plonsky, L. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 23–45). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2015). Communicative focus on second language phonetic form: Teaching Japanese learners to perceive and produce English /ɹ/ without explicit instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 377–409. doi: 10.1017/S0142716413000271 Google Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /r/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633.Google Scholar
Saito, K., & Shintani, N. (2016). Do native speakers of North American and Singapore English differentially perceive comprehensibility in second language speech? TESOL Quarterly, 50, 421–446. doi: 10.1002/tesq.234 Google Scholar
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. Online Advance Publication. doi: 10.1093/applin/amv047 Google Scholar
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (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 Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Fujii, A. (2013). International versus local computer-mediated peer interaction: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the 5th Biennial International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2011). SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28, 369–391.Google Scholar
Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31, 554–577.Google Scholar
Sicola, L. (2008). “No, they won’t ‘just sound like each other’”: NNS-NNS negotiated interaction and attention to phonological form on targeted L2 pronunciation tasks (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365–398.Google Scholar
Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D. M. (2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55, 661–699.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (1994). Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 44, 307–336.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, 303–346.Google Scholar
Winke, P., Gass, S., & Myford, C. (2013). Raters’ L2 background as a potential source of bias in rating oral performance. Language Testing, 30, 231–252.Google Scholar
Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14, 72–93.Google Scholar
Zhao, S. Y., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. System, 35, 431–447.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016a). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553–586. doi: 10.1017/S027226311500025X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016b). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–163.Google Scholar
Zielinski, B. (2015). The segmental/suprasegmental debate. In Reed, M. & Levis, J. M. (Eds.), The handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 397–410). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar