Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-9mfzn Total loading time: 0.75 Render date: 2021-04-17T23:21:24.625Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2017

Shawn Loewen
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Daniel R. Isbell
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Corresponding
E-mail address:

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
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.

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

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 3051). 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, 243272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. J. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on Spanish L2 interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120136.Google Scholar
Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 1935.CrossRefGoogle 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, 497517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2010). Synchronous-voice computer-mediated communication: Effects on pronunciation. CALICO Journal, 28, 120.CrossRefGoogle 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, 419432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2013). Interactional feedback in synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication: Effect of dyad. System, 41, 543559.CrossRefGoogle 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. 2544). 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, 814837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Diepenbrooke, L. G., & Foote, J. A. (2012). How well do general-skills ESL textbooks address pronunciation? TESL Canada Journal, 30, 2344.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 379397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Weibe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393410.CrossRefGoogle 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. 95115). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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, 281318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 399423.CrossRefGoogle 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. 233277). 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, 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of non-native speech. Language Learning, 34, 6589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory setting. Language Learning, 55, 575611.CrossRefGoogle 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. 180206). 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, 137.CrossRefGoogle 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), 213283.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, 145161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, T., & Thomson, R. (2012). Rater experience, rating scale length, and judgments of L2 pronunciation: Revisiting research conventions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 135159. doi: 10.1080/15434303.2013.769545 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—and negotiated interaction—in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 7998.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, 554566.CrossRefGoogle 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. 91131). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2014). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 123.Google Scholar
Levis, J. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 369377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levis, J. (2016). Research into practice: How research appears in pronunciation teaching materials. Language Teaching, 49, 423437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, H. (2015). Computer-mediated communication (CMC) in L2 oral proficiency development: A meta-analysis. ReCALL, 27, 261287. doi: 10.1017/S095834401400041X CrossRefGoogle 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. 5373). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle 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. 162184). 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, 126141.CrossRefGoogle 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. 413468). 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, 557587.CrossRefGoogle 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. 407449). 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, 97114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 4352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45, 7397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2006). The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34, 520531.CrossRefGoogle 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, 1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M., & Morton, S. L. (2006). The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 111131.CrossRefGoogle 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, 377405.CrossRefGoogle 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), 97126.CrossRefGoogle 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, 331353.CrossRefGoogle 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, 321.CrossRefGoogle 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. 934). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pickering, L. (2009). Intonation as a pragmatic resource in ELF interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 235255.CrossRefGoogle 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. 2345). 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, 377409. doi: 10.1017/S0142716413000271 CrossRefGoogle 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, 595633.CrossRefGoogle 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, 421446. doi: 10.1002/tesq.234
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
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, 217240. doi: 10.1017/S0142716414000502 CrossRefGoogle 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. 130). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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, 369391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31, 554577.CrossRefGoogle 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, 365398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D. M. (2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55, 661699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. (1994). Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 44, 307336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, 303346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winke, P., Gass, S., & Myford, C. (2013). Raters’ L2 background as a potential source of bias in rating oral performance. Language Testing, 30, 231252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14, 7293.Google Scholar
Zhao, S. Y., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. System, 35, 431447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016a). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553586. 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, 136163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zielinski, B. (2015). The segmental/suprasegmental debate. In Reed, M. & Levis, J. M. (Eds.), The handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 397410). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 71
Total number of PDF views: 1007 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 10th February 2017 - 17th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *