• Save
Does Pronunciation Instruction Promote Intelligibility and Comprehensibility?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Does Pronunciation Instruction Promote Intelligibility and Comprehensibility?

on

  • 7,031 views

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.

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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
7,031
Views on SlideShare
7,013
Embed Views
18

Actions

Likes
11
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 18

http://www.slideshare.net 18

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Does Pronunciation Instruction Promote Intelligibility and Comprehensibility? Presentation Transcript

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