Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T19:50:58.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in Native Speaker Speech Modification to Non-Native Speakers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

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

Abstract

This study builds upon prior research dealing with the nature of discourse involving non-native speakers. In particular, we examine variables influencing native speaker foreigner talk and the form that speech modification takes. The data bases are (1) 80 taped telephone interviews between NNSs at two distinct proficiency levels, (interviewer) and NSs (interviewee), and (2) 20 NS-NS interviews. We consider five variables: 1) negotiation of meaning, 2) quantity of speech, 3) amount of repair (following a specific NNS request for repair), 4) elaborated responses, and 5) transparent responses. We find that the speech of NSs changes as a function of an NNS's ability to understand and be understood. We further suggest a general cognitive principle—transparency—underlying aspects of both foreigner talk and second language acquisition.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 37 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

REFERENCES

Abunahleh, L., Allen, S., Arthur, B., Beals, S., Butler, M., Drezner, B., Frydenberg, G., Galal, M., Gass, S., Hildebrandt, K., Marlos, L. & Ostrander, T.. 1982. The scope and function of language repair in foreigner discourse. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 1; 12–120.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Brock, C., Crookes, G., Day, R., & Long, M.. 1983. Differential effects of corrective feedback in Native Speaker/Non-native Speaker conversation. Paper presented at SLRF, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Day, R., Chenoweth, N.A., Chun, A., & Luppescu, S.. 1984. Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse. Language Learning 34(2); 19–45.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. 1971. Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, pp. 141–150. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. 1979. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning 29(2); 327–44.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. Marlos. 1984. The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of non-native speech. Language Learning 34(11); 65–89.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. Marlos. 1985. Negotiation of meaning in NNS/NNS interactions. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hawkins, B. 1985. Is an ‘appropriate response’ always so appropriate? In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hirvonen, B. 1985. Children's foreigner talk: Peer talk in play context. In Gass, S. & Madden, C., (eds.), Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. 1979. Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2(1); 37–57.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. 1983. Now you see it, now you don't. Language transfer in language learning. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (eds.), Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Linell, P. 1979. Psychological reality in phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linell, P. 1982. The concept of phonological form and the activities of speech production and speech perception. Journal of Phonetics 10; 37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1983. Linguistic and conversational adjustment to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5(2); 177–93.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. 1980. Linguistic simplification. Second language development: Trends and issues. In Felix, S., (ed.), Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Ramamurti, R. 1980. Strategies involved in talking to a foreigner. Penn Review of Linguistics 4; 84–92.Google Scholar
Stevick, E. 1972. Evaluating and adapting language materials. In Allen, H. & Campbell, R. (eds.), Teaching English as a second language: A book of readings. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. Marlos, & Gass, S.. 1982. The comprehensibility of non-native speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4(2); 114–36.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. Marlos. In press. Miscommunication in Native speaker/Non-native speaker conversation. Language in Society 14(2).Google Scholar
Varonis, E. Marlos. Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 6(1); 71–90.Google Scholar
Whinnom, K. 1971. Linguistic hybridization and the ‘special case’ of pidgins and creoles. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, pp. 91–115. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar