Does Pronunciation Instruction Promote Intelligibility and Comprehensibility?<br />ÖZGÜR PARLAK<br />NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIV...
Outline<br /><ul><li>Background (Literature Review, Constructs & Terms)
Rationale for the study / Research Questions
Participants
Research Design
Materials
Procedure
Scoring
Results
Discussions & Implications
Limitations</li></li></ul><li>Background<br />COMPREHENSIBILITY The listener’s ability to understand the meaning of an utt...
Background<br />Debate about the value of teaching pronunciation:<br /><ul><li>not a productive use of time
fossilization </li></ul>	(Selinker, 1972; Acton, 1984) <br /><ul><li>critical period </li></ul>	(Lenneberg, 1967; Scovel, ...
Background<br />Benefits of teaching pronunciation:<br /><ul><li>A significant number of learners believe that pronunciati...
Background<br />Benefits of teaching pronunciation:<br /><ul><li>valuable when used for the right purpose
a useful and realistic goal: intelligibility and comprehensibility, not native-like speech</li></ul>(Derwing & Munro, 2005...
Background<br />Focus of instruction:<br /><ul><li>Suprasegmentals should be given priority. </li></ul>    (Anderson-Hsieh...
Rationale<br /><ul><li>There is still not enough empirical data to support </li></ul>the need for pronunciation instructio...
Research Questions<br /><ul><li>Do ESL learners who receive pronunciation instruction improve in terms of intelligibility?
Do ESL learners who receive pronunciation instruction improve in terms of comprehensibility?</li></li></ul><li>Participant...
Age: 18-21 (m=19.96)
Proficiency
32-44 iBT: 2  /  45-57 iBT: 7 / 57-69 iBT: 16
L1: Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean
PPI: 10
Motivation: 3.76</li></li></ul><li>Raters<br /><ul><li>Number	: 18 (F=12, M=6)
Age		: 18-19 (m= 18.17)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Does Pronunciation Instruction Promote Intelligibility and Comprehensibility?

6,138

Published on

This Powerpoint describes a study conducted with ESL speakers enrolled in a U.S. university to determine the impact of teaching segmentals and suprasegmentals on intelligibility and comprehensibility.

Published in: Education

Does Pronunciation Instruction Promote Intelligibility and Comprehensibility?

  1. 1. Does Pronunciation Instruction Promote Intelligibility and Comprehensibility?<br />ÖZGÜR PARLAK<br />NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY<br />
  2. 2. Outline<br /><ul><li>Background (Literature Review, Constructs & Terms)
  3. 3. Rationale for the study / Research Questions
  4. 4. Participants
  5. 5. Research Design
  6. 6. Materials
  7. 7. Procedure
  8. 8. Scoring
  9. 9. Results
  10. 10. Discussions & Implications
  11. 11. Limitations</li></li></ul><li>Background<br />COMPREHENSIBILITY The listener’s ability to understand the meaning of an utterance in its context (Smith & Nelson, 1985; Jenkins, 2002). Measurement relies on ratings of expert native speaker listener (Piske, MacKay, & Flege, 2001).<br />INTELLIGIBILITY<br />The amount of utterance that the listener understands (Derwing & Munro,1997). <br />It is measured by the listener’s ability to accurately transcribe the speaker’s utterance.<br />
  12. 12. Background<br />Debate about the value of teaching pronunciation:<br /><ul><li>not a productive use of time
  13. 13. fossilization </li></ul> (Selinker, 1972; Acton, 1984) <br /><ul><li>critical period </li></ul> (Lenneberg, 1967; Scovel, 2000)<br />
  14. 14. Background<br />Benefits of teaching pronunciation:<br /><ul><li>A significant number of learners believe that pronunciation is an important contributing factor in communication difficulties.</li></ul> (Derwing, 2003; Derwing & Rossiter, 2002)<br /><ul><li>Pronunciation instruction can help learners improve their intelligibility and comprehensibility. </li></ul> (Derwing, Munro, & Wiebe, 1998; Field, 2005; Hanh, 2004; Jenkins, 2004; Munro & Derwing, 1995; Perlmutter, 1989) <br />
  15. 15. Background<br />Benefits of teaching pronunciation:<br /><ul><li>valuable when used for the right purpose
  16. 16. a useful and realistic goal: intelligibility and comprehensibility, not native-like speech</li></ul>(Derwing & Munro, 2005; Scales, Wennerstrom,<br />Richard, & Wu, 2006)<br />
  17. 17. Background<br />Focus of instruction:<br /><ul><li>Suprasegmentals should be given priority. </li></ul> (Anderson-Hsieh, Johnson, & Koehler, 1992)<br /><ul><li>Teaching of suprasegmentals is likely to bear positive results. </li></ul>(Derwing & Rossiter, 2002; Hahn, 2004)<br /><ul><li>Both segmentals and suprasegmentals benefit L2 speakers. </li></ul> (Couper, 2003; Derwing & Munro, 2005)<br />
  18. 18. Rationale<br /><ul><li>There is still not enough empirical data to support </li></ul>the need for pronunciation instruction.<br />(Hahn, 2004)<br /><ul><li>Few studies investigated the efficacy of pronunciation teaching.</li></ul> (Derwing & Munro, 2005)<br />
  19. 19. Research Questions<br /><ul><li>Do ESL learners who receive pronunciation instruction improve in terms of intelligibility?
  20. 20. Do ESL learners who receive pronunciation instruction improve in terms of comprehensibility?</li></li></ul><li>Participants<br /><ul><li>Number: 25 (15 female, 10 male)
  21. 21. Age: 18-21 (m=19.96)
  22. 22. Proficiency
  23. 23. 32-44 iBT: 2 / 45-57 iBT: 7 / 57-69 iBT: 16
  24. 24. L1: Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean
  25. 25. PPI: 10
  26. 26. Motivation: 3.76</li></li></ul><li>Raters<br /><ul><li>Number : 18 (F=12, M=6)
  27. 27. Age : 18-19 (m= 18.17)
  28. 28. L1 : English=17, English-Spanish Bilingual=1
  29. 29. L2 : Spanish= 10</li></ul> German=1<br /> Navajo= 1<br /> Italian=2<br /> French=1<br /> No L2=5<br />
  30. 30. Research Design<br /><ul><li>within groups, pretest-posttest
  31. 31. dependent variable: intelligibility, comprehensibility
  32. 32. independent variable: instruction/no instruction</li></li></ul><li>Materials: Pretest and Posttest<br /><ul><li>picture description</li></ul> task<br />Stephens, M. (1995). Pictures for writing. Harlow: Longman. <br />
  33. 33. Materials: Intervention<br /><ul><li>segmentals (about 30%) and suprasegmentals (about 70%)
  34. 34. aspiration
  35. 35. voicing
  36. 36. vowel length
  37. 37. word stress
  38. 38. vowel reduction
  39. 39. tonic (nuclear) stress
  40. 40. major sentence stress
  41. 41. rhythm
  42. 42. intonation
  43. 43. perception and production</li></li></ul><li>Procedure<br />
  44. 44. Scoring: Intelligibility<br /><ul><li>transcription scores
  45. 45. recording length: 8-12 sec (m=9.52, SD=1.01)
  46. 46. 11,733 orthographic transcriptions were coded for exact word match against a transcription of the recorded speech samples prepared by the researcher (as done in Derwing & Munro, 1997).</li></li></ul><li>Scoring: Intelligibility<br />Non-critical Transcription Errors<br /><ul><li>minor orthographic errors: </li></ul>sudenlyinstead of suddenly<br /><ul><li>different spelling for the same word: </li></ul>dainstead of the<br /><ul><li>omission of a filled pause: </li></ul> um… uh…<br />
  47. 47. Scoring: Comprehensibility <br /><ul><li>Likert scale ratings (following the transcription tasks)
  48. 48. five-item, seven-point Likert scale </li></ul>(Kang, Rubin, & Pickering; in press)<br /><ul><li>the internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for the perceived comprehensibility scale: .98</li></li></ul><li>Scoring<br />
  49. 49. Results: Intelligibility Scores<br />interrater reliability : r= .76<br />with Fisher Z transformation<br />(as recommended in Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991) <br />Treatment group t(12)= -3.54, p<.05<br />Control group t(11)= 1.02, p>.05<br />
  50. 50. Results: Intelligibility Scores<br />
  51. 51. Results: Comprehensibility Ratings<br />interrater reliability : r= .76<br />with Fisher Z transformation<br />(as recommended in Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991) <br />Treatment group t(12)= -4.30, p<.05<br />Control group t(11)= .45, p>.05<br />
  52. 52. Results: Comprehensibility Ratings<br />
  53. 53. Discussions & Implications<br />pronunciation instruction increased intelligibility and <br /> comprehensibility<br />(Derwing, Munro & Wiebe, 1998; Field, 2005; Hanh, 2004; Jenkins, 2004; Munro & Derwing, 1995; Perlmutter, 1989) <br />explicit attention on both effective and beneficial <br />segmentals and for learners <br />suprasegmentals <br />(Couper, 2003; Derwing, Munro & Wiebe, 1998)<br />
  54. 54. Discussions & Implications<br />Methodological implications:<br /><ul><li>using untrained raters to judge the degree of progress in intelligibility and comprehensibility</li></ul>(Piske, MacKay & Flege, 2001)<br />Pedagogical implications:<br /><ul><li>teach pronunciation
  55. 55. integrate or separate?</li></ul> (Levis & Grant, 2003)<br /><ul><li>focus on suprasegmentals but do not ignore segmentals</li></li></ul><li>Limitations<br /><ul><li>sample size
  56. 56. proficiency level
  57. 57. testing environment
  58. 58. communicative effect
  59. 59. longitudinal effect</li></li></ul><li>Thank you!<br />E-mail: ozgurparlak@gmail.com <br />

×