This document summarizes a study that compared the effects of two techniques for teaching casual speech patterns such as elision, assimilation, and weak forms to Polish learners of English. The study aimed to determine whether the learners could identify and produce these patterns and to compare the immediate and long-term impact of form-focused instruction (NoF) versus traditional explicit instruction. Fifty Polish undergraduate students participated in pre-tests and post-tests of perception and production. The results showed that both techniques improved the learners' ability to perceive and produce casual speech patterns over time, but that NoF instruction led to significantly greater gains, especially for weak forms.

1. Acquisition of elision, assimilation and weak forms by Polish learner of English:
the comparison of two instruction techniques
Małgorzata Kul, School of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
2. intro: scope Perception (pretest) Perception: identification (posttests)
production and 1. intro
perception of 18. conclusions:
3. intro: aims casual speech
a study in 100%
Conclusion Three
aim one: to verify pronunciation 100%
elision (/h,t,d/) 80% Disadvantages of NoF (i.e.
whether non-native rhythm (weak forms)
pedagogy;
catering to a selected type of
speakers of English assimilation (Yod
Polish learners 50% 60%
learners) make a third type of
apply/identify rhythm, coalescence)
of English 40% instruction, combining the two
assimilation and elision 0% types worthy of investigation
20%
aim two: to compare the and prompt the comparison of
immediate and the long- perception 0%
NoF with the combined
term effects of two pretest posttest 1 posttest 2 approach in acquisition of
instruction techniques of casual speech
teaching casual speech assimilation elision weak form NoF nonNoF
6. intro: form focus instruction
4. intro: two deliberately employs linguistic
instruction techniques error; the learners are encouraged 17. conclusions:
traditional, formal to identify the error and negotiate conclusion two
instruction (explicit) a correct phonetic form (Long Perception: naming (posttests) In comparison with the
vs. form focus 5. intro: traditional, Production (pretest) explicit instruction, not only
formal instruction 1991), NoF
instruction (implicit) “a linguistic error is made explicit 80% did NoF improve perception
an explicit explanation to activate learners’ cognition […] 80%
70% and production, but also
(definitions, rules, and restructure their interlanguage 60%
60%
raised metaphonological
50%
examples) phonology” (Abe 2010: 1) 40% competence; its effects were
40%
followed by the 30% lasting
traditional listen-and-
20% 20% 16. conclusion:
repeat procedure 0% 10% conclusion one
0%
production
pretest posttest 1 posttest 2
poor production and
9. method: groups perception of weak forms,
NoF group compared assimilation elision weak form NoF nonNoF elision and assimilation
two versions of a necessitate stronger
recording in pairs (one emphasis on casual speech
had an error, the other 7. intro: research questions in pronunciation pedagogy
8. method: subjects research question one: do
did not) 50 Polish learners of
nonNoF group was Polish speakers of English Production (posttests)
English apply/identify rhythm, Production vs. perception (pretest) 15. discussion: posttests
subject to a powerpoint Effectiveness of NoF
presentation 2nd year students of assimilation and elision?
undergraduate studies 47%
100% the 70/20/10 principle (a model
School of English, AMU research question two: 46% 80%
in learning and development,
which instruction technique Lombardo and Eichinger
45%
is more effective in teaching 60% 1996): 70 experience
44%
casual speech? 40% 20 involvement
11. method: tests 43%
10 exercise
the production part: the 42% 20%
10. method: procedure
prestest-posttest design subjects were recorded 41% 0% Disadvantages of NoF:
a pretest (before reading a list of 15 sentences assimilation elision weak forms
pretest posttest 1 posttest 2 caters to hearing-oriented,
treatment/observation) the perception part: the independent
a posttest 1 immediately subjects listened to 20 production perception NoF non NoF learners
followed the sentences and had to mark
treatment/observation period the affected sounds
a delayed posttest 2, performed (identification) as well as
six weeks after posttest 1 to provide the name of the
verify the effects of the two aspect of casual speech
types of instruction over time (naming)
14. discussion: pretest
Non-native speakers of English apply and
12. results: pretest 13. results: posttests
identify rhythm, assimilation, elision below 50
research question one: do Polish research question two: which instruction
%
speakers of English technique is more effective in teaching
apply/identify rhythm, casual speech? Good production of assimilation in comparison
assimilation and elision? with elision and weak forms
Production: NoF outperforms the nonNoF Mother tongue?
Production 46 % group by 8 % (post1) and 20 % (post 2) assimilation exists in Polish
Perception 43 % Perception: NoF outperforms the nonNoF pan Bóg → pam Bóg; wiesz gdzie
group by 13/15 % (post1) and 10 % (post → wież dzie
Both poor 2) so does elision
NoF more effective in the long term jest super → jes super; pierwszego
Production: assimilation 62 %, NoF improved production and perception → pierszego
elision and weak forms 41 % more significantly than the explicit type of
Perception: assimilation 65 %, instruction, attesting the strongest effects Instead: Frequency of phrases ”would
elision 53, weak forms 28 % for weak forms, with slightly lower results you/don’t you
Assimilation the easiest to apply for assimilation and elision And/or
and identify perceptual salience
of
fricatives/affricates
(Yod coalescence)