Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-f9nfp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T23:28:27.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LINGUISTIC DIMENSIONS OF L2 ACCENTEDNESS AND COMPREHENSIBILITY VARY ACROSS SPEAKING TASKS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2017

Dustin Crowther ,
Pavel Trofimovich ,
Kazuya Saito  and
Talia Isaacs
Dustin Crowther*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Pavel Trofimovich
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Kazuya Saito
Affiliation:
Birkbeck, University of London
Talia Isaacs
Affiliation:
University College London
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dustin Crowther, Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages, B-331 Wells Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. E-mail: Crowth14@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study critically examined the previously reported partial independence between second language (L2) accentedness (degree to which L2 speech differs from the target variety) and comprehensibility (ease of understanding). In prior work, comprehensibility was linked to multiple linguistic dimensions of L2 speech (phonology, fluency, lexis, grammar) whereas accentedness was narrowly associated with L2 phonology. However, these findings stemmed from a single task (picture narrative), suggesting that task type could affect the particular linguistic measures distinguishing comprehensibility from accentedness. To address this limitation, speech ratings of 10 native listeners assessing 60 speakers of L2 English in three tasks (picture narrative, IELTS, TOEFL) were analyzed, targeting two global ratings (accentedness, comprehensibility) and 10 linguistic measures (segmental and word stress accuracy, intonation, rhythm, speech rate, grammatical accuracy and complexity, lexical richness and complexity, discourse richness). Linguistic distinctions between accentedness and comprehensibility were less pronounced in the cognitively complex task (TOEFL), with overlapping sets of phonology, lexis, and grammar variables contributing to listener ratings of accentedness and comprehensibility. This finding points to multifaceted, task-specific relationships between these two constructs.

Type
Research Report
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 443 - 457
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249–306.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00507.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2015). Assessing lexical proficiency using analytic ratings: A case for collocation accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 36, 570–590.Google Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Linguistic dimensions of second language accent and comprehensibility: Nonnative listeners’ perspectives. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 2, 160–182.10.1075/jslp.2.2.02croCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Saito, K. (2015a). Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility? The Modern Language Journal, 99, 80–95.10.1111/modl.12185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Saito, K., & Isaacs, T. (2015b). Second language comprehensibility revisited: Investing the effects of learner background. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 814–837.10.1002/tesq.203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter, M. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 553–557.10.1017/S0272263109990015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54, 655–679.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00282.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Educational Testing Service. (2006). The official guide to the new TOEFL iBT. Princeton, NJ: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.10.1017/S0272263100015047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, L. (2017). What do raters need in a pronunciation scale? The users’ view. In Isaacs, T. & Trofimovich, P. (Eds.), Second language pronunciation assessment. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hilton, H. (2008). The link between vocabulary knowledge and spoken L2 fluency. The Language Learning Journal, 36, 153–166.10.1080/09571730802389983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IELTS. (2009). Official IELTS practice materials. Los Angeles: IELTS International.Google Scholar
Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 475–505.10.1017/S0272263112000150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson-Hall, J. (2009). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 369–377.10.2307/3588485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, M. G. (2016). Methodological choices in rating speech samples. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 587–605.10.1017/S0272263115000418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 237–241.10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “Big”? Interpreting effect size in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.10.1111/lang.12079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rau, D. V., Chang, H.-H. A., & Tarone, E. (2009). Think or sink: Chinese learners’ acquisition of the English voiceless interdental fricative. Language Learning, 59, 581–621.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00518.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R. (2015). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 703–737.10.1017/S0272263115000339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32.10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1CrossRefGoogle 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 amv047. doi: 10.1093/applin/amv047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Webb, S., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Lexical profiles of comprehensible second language speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 677–701.10.1017/S0272263115000297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.10.1093/applin/amp047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics, 4, 142–164.10.1093/applin/4.2.142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 905–916.10.1017/S1366728912000168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1982). The comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 114–136.10.1017/S027226310000437XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yao, Z., Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2013). Z-Lab [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://github.com/ZeshanYao/Z-Lab.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.10.1093/applin/24.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar