Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-5vsr4 Total loading time: 0.211 Render date: 2021-05-17T01:37:32.987Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Lexical correlates of comprehensibility versus accentedness in second language speech*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2015

KAZUYA SAITO
Affiliation:
Birkbeck, University of London
STUART WEBB
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
PAVEL TROFIMOVICH
Affiliation:
Concordia University
TALIA ISAACS
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

The current project investigated the extent to which several lexical aspects of second language (L2) speech – appropriateness, fluency, variation, sophistication, abstractness, sense relations – interact to influence native speakers’ judgements of comprehensibility (ease of understanding) and accentedness (linguistic nativelikeness). Extemporaneous speech elicited from 40 French speakers of English with varied L2 proficiency levels was first evaluated by 10 native-speaking raters for comprehensibility and accentedness. Subsequently, the dataset was transcribed and analyzed for 12 lexical factors. Various lexical properties of L2 speech were found to be associated with L2 comprehensibility, and especially lexical accuracy (lemma appropriateness) and complexity (polysemy), indicating that these lexical variables are associated with successful L2 communication. In contrast, native speakers’ accent judgements seemed to be linked to surface-level details of lexical content (abstractness) and form (variation, morphological accuracy) rather than to its conceptual and contextual details (e.g., lemma appropriateness, polysemy).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

We are grateful to BLC reviewers for their constructive feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript, and to George Smith and Ze Shen Yao for their help for data collection and analyses. The project was funded by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research in Japan (No. 26770202).

References

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of acquisition and nativelikeness in a second language – listener perception vs. linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adolphs, S., & Schmitt, N. (2003). Lexical coverage of spoken discourse. Applied Linguistics, 24, 425438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer.Google Scholar
Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 6385.Google Scholar
Brown, A., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. F. (2005). An examination of rater orientations and test-taker performance on English for academic purposes speaking tasks. Monograph Series MS-29. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2009) Measuring L2 lexical growth using hypernymic relationships. Language Learning, 59, 307334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60, 573605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Assessing lexical proficiency using analytic ratings: A case for collocation accuracy. Applied Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011). What is lexical proficiency? Some answers from computational models of speech data. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 182193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Saito, K., & Isaacs, T. (2014). Second language comprehensibility revisited: Investigating the effects of learner background. TESOL Quarterly. Published online 28 October 2014. doi:10.1002/tesq.203 Google Scholar
Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2002). Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency: Comparisons between read and spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 28622873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the Output Hypothesis. Language learning, 46, 529555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42, 476490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M. (2003). What do ESL students say about their accents? Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 545564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M. (2007). Curriculum issues in teaching pronunciation to second language learners. In Edwards, J. Hansen & Zampini, M. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 347369). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2013). The development of L2 oral language skills in two L1 groups: A seven-year study. Language Learning, 63, 163185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 116.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J. & Thomson, R. I. (2004). L2 fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54, 655679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., & Beaton, A. (1993) Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 43, 559617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 139155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ETS. (2005). TOEFL iBT tips: How to prepare for the next generation TOEFL test and communicate with confidence. Princeton, NJ: Author.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J., Munro, M, & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995). Factors affecting degree of perceived foreign accent in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 31253134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, J., Holtby, A., & Derwing, T. (2011). Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29, 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA review, 19, 317.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2014). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (1993). Cognates: an aid or a barrier to successful L2 vocabulary development?. ITL. Institut voor Togepaste Linguistik, (99–100), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, L. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 201223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H., & Schmid, M. (2013). Perceived foreign accent in first language attrition and second language acquisition: The impact of age of acquisition and bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 361394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J.H., Schoonen, R., De Jong, N.H., Steinel, M.P, & Florijn, A. (2012). Linguistic competences of learners of Dutch as a second language at the B1 and B2 levels of speaking proficiency of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Language Testing, 29, 203221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, T., & Thomson, R. I. (2013). Rater experience, rating scale length, and judgements of L2 pronunciation: Revisiting research conventions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 135159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29, 2949.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 264282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, O., Rubin, D., & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgements of English language learner proficiency in oral English. Modern Language Journal, 94, 554566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koizumi, R. (2012). Vocabulary and speaking. In Chapelle, C. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 17). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Koizumi, R., & In’nami, Y. (2012). Effects of text length on lexical diversity measures: Using short texts with less than 200 tokens. System, 40, 554564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levis, J. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 367377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Second language acquisition (pp. 413468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. Modern Language Journal, 96, 190208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, P.M., & Jarvis, S. (2007). vocd: a theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24, 459488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M., & Burgess, C. (2010). Detection of nonnative speaker status from content-masked speech. Speech Communication, 52, 626637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1995). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38, 289306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (2006). The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34, 520531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M., & Mann, V. (2005). Age of Immersion as a predictor of foreign accent. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 311341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nation, I.S.P., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piercey, C. D., & Joordens, S. (2000). Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks. Memory & Cognition, 28, 657666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K. (2015). Experience effects on the development of late second language learners’ oral proficiency. Language Learning. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/lang.12120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2015). Developing a process-oriented model for linguistic influences on comprehensibility and accentedness in second language speech production. Applied Psycholinguistics. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1017/S0142716414000502 Google Scholar
Salsbury, T., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Psycholinguistic word information in second language oral discourse. Second Language Research, 27, 343360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of a second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48, 281317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2008). State of the art: Instructed second language vocabulary acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework: Word associations and verbal suffixes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokumoto, M., & Shibata, M. (2011). Asian varieties of English: Attitudes towards pronunciation. World Englishes, 30, 392408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 905916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension? Applied Linguistics, 34, 457479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53, 547586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, S., & Rodgers, M. P. H. (2009a). The vocabulary demands of television programs. Language Learning, 59, 335366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, S., & Rodgers, M. P. H. (2009b). The lexical coverage of movies. Applied Linguistics, 30, 407427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. D. (1988). The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 20, 611.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
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, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zareva, A. (2007). Structure of the second language mental lexicon: How does it compare to native speakers’ lexical organization? Second Language Research, 23, 123153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.

Lexical correlates of comprehensibility versus accentedness in second language speech*
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.

Lexical correlates of comprehensibility versus accentedness in second language speech*
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.

Lexical correlates of comprehensibility versus accentedness in second language speech*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *