Chapter published in:
English Pronunciation Instruction: Research-based insights
Edited by Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova, Alice Henderson and Jonás Fouz-González
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 19] 2021
► pp. 224–251

Corrective feedback and unintelligibility

Do they work in tandem during tandem interactions?

| University of Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3
| University of Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3
This chapter addresses the relative salience of L2 English pronunciation errors, which may inform teaching priorities in contexts where learners are consciously oriented towards a native speaker model. Error salience is considered from two interrelated viewpoints: errors’ potential for leading to miscommunication (unintelligibility), and their capacity for eliciting remedial response from interlocutors (corrective feedback). Our study, which builds on our previous research into the two domains, uses the bilingual French-English SITAF tandem corpus. The analysis of the English conversational data reveals that L2 mispronunciation was the single most important factor leading to communication breakdowns, whereas vocabulary was most likely to generate corrective feedback (CF) from native English interlocutors. Pronunciation-induced miscommunication was principally linked to suprasegmental features, especially erroneous word stress.
Keywords: L2 pronunciation, teaching priorities, tandem learning, corrective feedback, intelligibility, communication breakdowns, French learners of English
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.19.10sch
References

References

Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K.
(1992) The relationship between native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42(4), 529–555. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ballinger, S.
(2015) Linking content, linking students: A cross-linguistic pedagogical intervention. In J. Cenoz & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education. Between language learning and translanguaging (pp. 35–60). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bamgbose, A.
(1998) Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World Englishes, 17(1), 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J.
(2003) Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68–117. 10125/25201Google Scholar
Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S.
(2011) Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English etandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 41–71. https://​www​.lltjournal​.org​/item​/2723
Brammerts, H.
(2003) Autonomous language learning in tandem: The development of a concept. In T. Lewis & L. Walker (Eds.), Autonomous language learning in tandem (pp. 27–37). Academy Electronic Press.Google Scholar
Brammerts, H., & Calvert, M.
(2003) Learning by communicating in tandem. In T. Lewis & L. Walker (Eds.), Autonomous language learning in tandem (pp. 45–59). Academy Electronic Press.Google Scholar
Brown, D.
(2016) The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cappellini, M., & Zhang, M.
(2013) Étude des négociations du sens dans un tandem par visioconférence [A study of meaning negotiation in a video-conferencing tandem]. Recherches en Didactique des Langues et des Cultures, 10(2). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, A.
(2001) Gimson’s pronunciation of English (6th ed.). Arnold.Google Scholar
Darcy, I.
(2018) Powerful and effective pronunciation instruction: How can we achieve it. CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 13–45. http://​www​.catesoljournal​.org​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2018​/03​/CJ30​.1​_darcy​.pdf
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G.
(1997) Pronunciation instruction for fossilized learners. Can it help? Applied Language Learning, 8(2), 217–235.Google Scholar
(1998) Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deterding, D.
(2013) Misunderstandings in English as a lingua franca: An analysis of ELF interactions in South-East Asia. De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K., & Przedlacka, J.
(Eds.) (2005) Pronunciation models – A changing scene? Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2017) Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. What we know so far. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3–18). Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R., & Loewen, S.
(2010) Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 877–905. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A.
(2002) Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 279–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Field, J.
(2005) Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 399–423. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fouz-González, J.
(2015) Trends and directions in computer-assisted pronunciation training. In J. A. Mompeán & J. Fouz-González (Eds.), Investigating English pronunciation: Trends and directions (pp. 314–342). Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M.
(2003) Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gynan, S. N.
(1985) Comprehension, irritation, and error hierarchies. Modern & Classical Languages, 58, 160–165. https://​cedar​.wwu​.edu​/mcl​_facpubs​/58. Crossref
Henderson, A., Curnick, L., Frost, D., Kautzsch, A., Kirkova-Naskova, A., Levey, D., Tergujeff, E., & Waniek-Klimczak, E.
(2015) The English Pronunciation Teaching in Europe Survey: Factors inside and outside the classroom. In J. A. Mompeán & J. Fouz-González (Eds.), Investigating English pronunciation: Trends and directions (pp. 260–291). Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horgues, C., & Scheuer, S.
(2014) “I understood you, but there was this pronunciation thing…”: L2 pronunciation feedback in English/French tandem interactions. Research in Language, 12(2), 145–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Why some things are better done in tandem. In J. A. Mompeán & J. Fouz-González (Eds.), Investigating English pronunciation: Trends and directions (pp. 47–82). Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018a) L2 pronunciation feedback in English-French tandem conversations. In J. Volin & R. Skarnitzl (Eds.), Pronunciation of English by speakers of other languages (pp. 260–286). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2018b) ‘What are you not understanding?’ Managing communication breakdowns in native/non-native English/French tandem interactions. In E. Babatsouli (Ed.), Crosslinguistic research in monolingual and bilingual speech (pp. 129–146). Chania Institute of Monolingual and Bilingual Speech.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J.
(2000) The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2007) English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kang, O.
(2010) Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38(2), 301–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kartchava, E.
(2019) Noticing oral corrective feedback in the second language classroom. Background and evidence. Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Kötter, M.
(2003) Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 145–172. https://​www​.mediensprache​.net​/archiv​/pubs​/2918​.pdf
Levis, J.
(2018) Intelligibility, oral communication, and the teaching of pronunciation. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levis, J., & Muller Levis, G.
(2018) Teaching high-value pronunciation features: Contrastive stress for intermediate learners. CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 139–160. http://​www​.catesoljournal​.org​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2018​/03​/CJ30​.1​_levis2​.pdf
Lewis, C., & Deterding, D.
(2018) Word stress and pronunciation teaching in English as a lingua franca contexts. CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 161–176. http://​www​.catesoljournal​.org​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2018​/03​/CJ30​.1​_lewis​.pdf
Li, S.
(2014) The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 373–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L.
(1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M.
(2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K.
(2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A.
(2006) Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as a lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2006(177), 123–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McKay, S. L.
(2002) Teaching English as an international language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J.
(2011) Intelligibility: Buzzword or buzzworthy? In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp.7–16). Iowa State University. https://​apling​.engl​.iastate​.edu​/conferences​/pronunciation​-in​-second​-language​-learning​-and​-teaching​-conference​/psllt​-archive/
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M.
(1995) Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73–97. https://​onlinelibrary​.wiley​.com​/doi​/abs​/10​.1111​/j​.1467​-1770​.1995​.tb00963​.x
(2006) The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34(4), 520–531. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Intelligibility in research and practice: Teaching priorities. In M. Reed & J. Levis (Eds.), The handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 375–396). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E.
(Eds.) (2017) Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Research, theory, applications, implications. Routledge.Google Scholar
(Eds.) (2021) The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaev, V.
(2010) Les négociations de sens dans un dispositif d’apprentissage des langues en ligne synchrone par visioconférence [Negotiation of meaning in an online synchronous video-conferencing language learning format]. Recherches en Didactique des Langues et des Cultures, 7(2). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Dowd, R.
(2006) Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Langenscheidt.Google Scholar
O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T.
(Eds.) (2016) Online intercultural exchange. Policy, pedagogy, practice. Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, B.
(2005) Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 433–466. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, S., & Dupoux, E.
(2002) A typological study of stress ‘deafness’. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 203–240). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, M. G.
(2016) Not all word stress errors are created equal: Validating an English word stress error gravity hierarchy (Publication No. 16001) (Doctoral dissertation. Iowa State University). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K.
2021). Effects of corrective feedback on second language pronunciation development. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava Eds. The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching pp. 407 428 Cambridge University Press
Saito, K., & Lyster, R.
(2012) Investigating the pedagogical potential of recasts for L2 vowel acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 387–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Suzuki, S., Oyama, T., & Akiyama, Y.
(2019) How does longitudinal interaction promote second language speech learning? Roles of learner experience and proficiency levels. Second Language Research. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sarré, C.
(2011) Computer-mediated negotiated interactions: How is meaning negotiated in discussion boards, text chat and videoconferencing? In S. Thouësny & L. Bradley (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning with technology (pp. 189–210). Research-publishing.net. https://​research​-publishing​.net​/manuscript​?10​.14705​/rpnet​.2011​.000012. Crossref
Sato, M.
(2017) Oral peer corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–34). Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheuer, S.
(2005) Why native speakers are (still) relevant? In K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & J. Przedlacka (Eds.), Pronunciation models – A changing scene? (pp. 111–130). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2015) What to teach and what not to teach, yet again: On the elusive priorities for L2 English phonetics. In E. Waniek-Klimczak & M. Pawlak (Eds.), Teaching and researching the pronunciation of English (pp. 139–151). Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheuer, S. & Horgues, C.
(2020) Corrective feedback in English/French spoken tandem interactions. In C. Tardieu & C. Horgues (Eds.), Redefining tandem language and culture learning in higher education (pp. 147–160). Routledge.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y.
(2006) Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R.
(2011) Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593–610). Routledge.Google Scholar
Skoruppa, K., Pons, F., Christophe, A., Bosch, L., Dupoux, E., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Alves Limissuri, R., & Peperkamp, S.
(2009) Language-specific stress perception by 9-month-old French and Spanish infants. Developmental Science, 12(6), 914–919. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. E., & Nelson, C.
(1985) International intelligibility of English: Directions and resources. World Englishes, 4(3), 333–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. I., & Derwing, T. M.
(2015) The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 326–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S.
(1985) Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vassallo, M. L., & Telles, J. A.
(2006) Foreign language learning in-tandem: Theoretical principles and research perspectives. The ESPecialist, 27(1), 83–118. https://​citeseerx​.ist​.psu​.edu​/viewdoc​/download​?doi​=10​.1​.1​.845​.2443​&rep​=rep1​&type​=pdf
Vinagre Laranjeira, M., & Maillo Belda, C.
(2007) Focus on form in on-line projects: Linguistic development in e-mail tandem exchanges. In C. Periñán Pascual (Ed.), Revisiting tandem learning resources (pp. 91–112). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Wang, Y.
(2006) Negotiation of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. ReCALL, 18(1), 122–146. https://​core​.ac​.uk​/reader​/143869294. Crossref
Ware, P., & O’Dowd, R.
(2008) Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43–63. https://​core​.ac​.uk​/download​/pdf​/25978775​.pdf
Waniek-Klimczak, E.
(2018) English pronunciation instruction through the accent lens. In J. Volin & R. Skarnitzl (Eds.), Pronunciation of English by speakers of other languages (pp. 19–45). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Zourou, K.
(2009) Corrective feedback in telecollaborative L2 learning settings: Reflections on symmetry and interaction. The JALT CALL Journal, 5(1), 3–20. https://​journal​.jaltcall​.org​/storage​/articles​/JALTCALL%205​-1​-3​.pdf