Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:19:58.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A quantitative and qualitative analysis of speech markers in the native and second language speech of bilinguals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Marian Olynyk ,
Alison D'Anglejan  and
David Sankoff
Marian Olynyk*
Affiliation:
Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean
Alison D'Anglejan
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
David Sankoff
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
*
Marian Olynyk, Department of Second Languages, Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, Richelair, Quebec J0J 1R0Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigated the use of five speech markers in the native and second language production of French-English bilinguals in a military setting. We propose that these speech markers, mechanisms for self-repair and turn-taking in conversations, are a major component of fluency. The ten participants, five high fluency speakers and five low fluency speakers, were tape-recorded with their peers in three different situations in their native and second languages, and the frequency of occurrence of speech markers was tabulated for a 5-minute segment for each situation.

It was hypothesized that speakers who used differentially more prepositioned repairs (progressives) or markers placed before the repair that do not require a reorganization of the expectation of what is to follow based on what has been produced in the turn so far, would be judged more favourably than those who used more postpositioned repairs (regressives). There was no quantitative difference in the frequency of occurrence of speech markers between the high and low fluency speakers, but the high fluency speakers used more progressive than regressive types of marker. Progressive markers place fewer demands on the interlocutor than regressive markers, which require constant readjustments on the part of the listener. The profiles were similar for each individual in the native and second language but in every case there were fewer markers in the native than in the second language. Furthermore, there were fewer markers in the planned (teaching) than in the unplanned (interview) situation. The findings have important implications for the evaluation of second language fluency.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1987 , pp. 121 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Albrechtsen, D., Henriksen, B., & Faerch, C. (1980). Native speaker reactions to learner's spoken interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 365–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, G. W. (1980). Encoding units in spontaneous speech. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 131–143). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P., & Boltanski, L. (1975). Le fétichisme de la langue. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 4, 2–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1980). Some reasons for hesitating. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 169–180). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
d'Anglejan, A. (1978). Language learning in and out of classrooms. In Richards, J. C. (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning (pp. 218–237). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Dechert, H. W., & Raupach, M. (Eds.). (1980). Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deschamps, A. (1980). The syntactical distribution of pauses in English spoken by French students. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 255–262). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Pietro, R. J. (1980). Verbal strategies: A neglected dimension in language acquisition studies. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 313–321). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. W. (1979). On fluency. In Fillmore, C. W., Kempler, D., & Wang, W. S. Y. (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 85–101). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. W., Kempler, D., & Wang, W. S. Y. (Eds.). (1979). Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, L. W. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In Fillmore, C. W., Kempler, D., & Wang, W. S. Y. (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 203–228). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1951). The measurement of time sequences in conversational behavior. British Journal of Psychology, Gen. Sec., 42, 355–362.Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1958). Speech production and the predictability of words in context. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 96–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1980). Comparative studies of temporal variables in spoken and sign languages: A short review. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 307–312). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Deschamps, A. (1975). Analyse contrastive des variables temporelles de l'anglais et du français: Vitesse de parole et variables composantes, phénomènes d'hésitation. Phonetica, 31. 144–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, A., Goldman-Eisler, F., & Skarbeck, A. (1965). Sequential temporal patterns in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 8, 236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Concluding statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 305–377). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (1977). Language evolution and speech style. In Blount, B. G. & Sanches, M. (Eds.), Sociocultural dimensions of language change (pp. 21–33). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W., & Dittmar, N. (1979). Developing grammars. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowal, S., & O'Connell, D. (1980). Pausological research at Saint Louis University. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 61–66). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1978). Individual variation in the use of the monitor. In Ritchie, W. C. (Ed.), Second language acquisition research (pp. 175–183). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lepicq, D. (1980). Aspects théoriques et empiriques de l'acceptabilité linguistique: Le cas de français des élèves des classes d'immersion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Department of Educational Theory.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclay, , & Osgood, C. E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 15, 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1935). Coral gardens and their magic (Vol. 2). London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Martirena, A. M. (1968). A study of interaction markers in conversational Spanish. Unpublished master's thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In Givon, T. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax (pp. 51–80). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olynyk, M. (1983). Second language fluency and the evaluation of professional competence in a military setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Olynyk, M., Sankoff, D., & d'Anglejan, A. (1983). Second language fluency and the subjective evaluation of officer cadets in a military college. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, R. W. (1968). Speech patterns and personality. Language and Speech, 11, 54–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raupach, M. (1980). Temporal variables in first and second language speech production. In Dechert, D. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 263–270). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, W. C. (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition research. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D., & Laberge, S. (1978). The linguistic marker and variability. In Sankoff, D. (Ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods (pp. 119–126). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax for conversation. In Givon, T. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261–286). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, K. R. (1979). Personality markers in speech. In Scherer, K. R. & Giles, H. (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 147–209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Seliger, H. W. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A study for interaction patterns and L2 competence. Paper presented at the First Annual Second Language Research Forum. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Shimanoff, S. B., & Brunak, J. C. (1977). Repairs in planned and unplanned discourse. In Keenan, E. O. and Bennett, T. L. (Eds.), Discourse across time (pp. 123–167). Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Smith, P. M. (1979). Sex markers in speech. In Scherer, K. R. & Giles, H. (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 109–146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vincent, D. (1980). A quoi servent les mots qui servent à rien? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Vincent, D. (1981). C'est ici ou là? C'est ici, là. In Sankoff, D. & Cedergren, H. (Eds.), Variation omnibus (pp. 437–444). Alberta, Canada: Linguistic Research Inc.Google Scholar