Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation
Vol. 5:3 (2019) ► pp.347–373

Second language speakers’ awareness of their own comprehensibility

Examining task repetition and self-assessment

ORCID logo | Concordia University
| Concordia University
| Concordia University

This study investigated whether second language (L2) speakers are aware of and can manipulate aspects of their speech contributing to comprehensibility. Forty Mandarin speakers of L2 English performed two versions of the same oral task. Before the second task, half of the speakers were asked to make their speech as easy for the interlocutor to understand as possible, while the other half received no additional prompt. Speakers self-assessed comprehensibility after each task and were interviewed about how they improved their comprehensibility. Native-speaking listeners evaluated speaker performances for five dimensions, rating speech similarly across groups and tasks. Overall, participants did not become more comprehensible from task 1 to task 2, whether prompted or not, nor did speakers’ self-assessments become more in line with raters’, indicating speakers may not be aware of their own comprehensibility. However, speakers who did demonstrate greater improvement in comprehensibility received higher ratings of flow, and speakers’ self-ratings of comprehensibility were aligned with listeners’ assessments only in the second task. When discussing comprehensibility, speakers commented more on task content than linguistic dimensions. Results highlight the roles of task repetition and self-assessment in speakers’ awareness of comprehensibility.

Keywords: comprehensibility, second language, awareness, pronunciation, task repetition, self-assessment
Article outline
  • 1.Linguistic dimensions of comprehensibility
  • 2.What do speakers know about comprehensibility?
  • 3.Comprehensibility and speakers’ self-assessments
  • 4.Comprehensibility and task repetition
  • 5.The current study
    • 5.1Method
      • 5.1.1L2 speakers
      • 5.1.2Tasks and procedure
      • 5.1.3Listeners and listening procedure
      • 5.1.4Data analysis
  • 6.Results
    • 6.1Comprehensibility across repeated tasks
    • 6.2Comprehensibility and linguistic dimensions
    • 6.3Self- and listener-rated comprehensibility
    • 6.4Speakers’ awareness of L2 comprehensibility
  • 7.Discussion
    • 7.1Task repetition and comprehensibility
    • 7.2Self-assessment and comprehensibility
    • 7.3Speakers’ awareness of comprehensibility
    • 7.4Pedagogical implications
    • 7.5Limitations and future directions
  • 8.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 14 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.18008.str
References
Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M.
(2011) The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 111, 35–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Association for Language Awareness
(2017) Retrieved 15 September 2017 from [URL]
Babaii, E., Taghaddomi, S., & Pashmforoosh, R.
(2016) Speaking self-assessment: Mismatches between learners’ and teachers’ criteria. Language Testing, 111, 1–27.Google Scholar
Bergeron, A., & Trofimovich, P.
(2017) Linguistic dimensions of accentedness and comprehensibility: Exploring task and listener effects in second language French. Foreign Language Annals, 50(3), 547–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M.
(2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Castañeda, M., & Rodríguez-González, E.
(2011) L2 speaking self-ability perceptions through multiple video speech drafts. Hispania, 111, 483–501.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. M.
(2008) Learning to self-assess oral performance in English: A longitudinal case study. Language Teaching Research, 111, 235–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T.
(2016) Linguistic dimensions of second language accent and comprehensibility. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 111, 160–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Saito, K.
(2015a) Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility? The Modern Language Journal, 111, 80–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Saito, K., & Isaacs, T.
(2015b) Second language comprehensibility revisited: Investigating the effects of learner background. TESOL Quarterly, 111, 814–837. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Saint Léger, D.
(2009) Self-assessment of speaking skills and participation in a foreign language class. Foreign Language Annals, 111, 158–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T.
(2003) What do ESL students say about their accents? Canadian Modern Language Review, 111, 547–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter, M. J.
(2002) ESL learners’ perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies. System, 111, 155–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I.
(2004) Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 111, 655–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dlaska, A., & Krekeler, C.
(2008) Self-assessment of pronunciation. System, 111, 506–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J.
(2003) Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 111, 83–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2005) Principles of instructed language learning. System, 111, 209–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ETS
(2011) TOEFL iBT® research insight: TOEFL® program history. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Gibson, W., & Brown, A.
(2009) Working with qualitative data. London, UK: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P.
(2012) Deconstructing comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 111, 475–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jułkowska, I. A., & Cebrian, J.
(2015) Effects of listener factors and stimulus properties on the intelligibility, comprehensibility and accentedness of L2 speech. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 111, 211–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jung, Y., Kim, Y., & Murphy, J.
(2017) The role of task repetition in learning word-stress patterns through auditory priming tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 111, 319–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich, P.
(2010) Language awareness and second language pronunciation: A classroom study. Language Awareness, 111, 171–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N.
(2013) The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 111, 829–840. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kissling, E. M., & O’Donnell, M. E.
(2015) Increasing language awareness and self-efficacy of FL students using self-assessment and the ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Language Awareness, 111, 283–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson-Hall, J.
(2009) A Guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lappin-Fortin, K., & Rye, B. J.
(2014) The use of pre-/posttest and self-assessment tools in a French pronunciation course. Foreign Language Annals, 111, 300–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, S., & Chang, S.
(2005) Learner involvement in self-and peer-assessment of task-based oral performance. Language Research, 111, 711–735.Google Scholar
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J.
(2000) Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 111, 221–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, M. G.
(2014) L2 learners’ assessments of accentedness, fluency, and comprehensibility of native and nonnative German speech. Language Learning, 111, 715–748. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papajohn, D.
(2005) Toward Speaking Excellence: The Michigan Guide to maximizing your performance in the TSE ® test and other speaking tests. Ann Arbour, MI: University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patri, M.
(2002) The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 111, 109–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L.
(1989) Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 111, 63–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
(2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rajadurai, J.
(2006) Pronunciation issues in non-native contexts: A Malaysian case study. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 111, 43–59.Google Scholar
Ranta, E.
(2010) English in the real world vs. English at school: Finnish English teachers’ and students’ views. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 111, 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2011) Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 111, 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossiter, M. J.
(2009) Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 111, 395–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Akiyama, Y.
(2017) Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 111, 43–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Shintani, N.
(2016) Do native speakers of North American and Singapore English differentially perceive comprehensibility in second language speech? TESOL Quarterly, 111, 421–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T.
(2016) Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 111, 217–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(2015) Foreign language aptitude and its relationship with grammar: A critical review. Applied Linguistics, 111, 367–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S.
(1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 111, 371–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., Kennedy, S., Saito, K., & Crowther, D.
(2016) Flawed self- assessment: Investigating self-and other-perception of second language speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 111, 122–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van den Branden, K.
(1997) Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language Learning, 111, 589–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venkatagiri, H. S., & Levis, J. M.
(2007) Phonological awareness and speech comprehensibility: An exploratory study. Language Awareness, 111, 263–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zoss, J. M.
(2015) Adult English learners’ perceptions of their pronunciation and linguistic self-confidence. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Hamline University, Saint Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

Inceoglu, Solène, Wen-Hsin Chen & Hyojung Lim
2023. Assessment of L2 intelligibility: Comparing L1 listeners and automatic speech recognition. ReCALL 35:1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Isbell, Daniel R. & Junkyu Lee
2022. Self‐Assessment of Comprehensibility and Accentedness in Second Language Korean. Language Learning 72:3 ► pp. 806 ff. DOI logo
Kartushina, Natalia, David Soto & Clara Martin
2023. Metacognition in Second Language Speech Perception and Production. Language Learning 73:2 ► pp. 508 ff. DOI logo
Mora, Joan C. & Ingrid Mora-Plaza
2023. From Research in the Lab to Pedagogical Practices in the EFL Classroom: The Case of Task-Based Pronunciation Teaching. Education Sciences 13:10 ► pp. 1042 ff. DOI logo
Nagle, Charlie, Pavel Trofimovich, Oguzhan Tekin & Kim McDonough
2023. Framing second language comprehensibility: Do interlocutors’ ratings predict their perceived communicative experience?. Applied Psycholinguistics 44:1 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
NAGLE, CHARLIE L., PAVEL TROFIMOVICH, MARY GRANTHAM O'BRIEN & SARA KENNEDY
2022. Comprehensible to Whom? Examining Rater, Speaker, and Interlocutor Perspectives on Comprehensibility in an Interactive Context. The Modern Language Journal 106:4 ► pp. 675 ff. DOI logo
Suzukida, Yui
2024. Delving into L2 Learners’ Perspective: Exploring the Role of Individual Differences in Self-Evaluation of L2 Speech Learning. Languages 9:3 ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Tsunemoto, Aki, Pavel Trofimovich, Josée Blanchet, Juliane Bertrand & Sara Kennedy
2022. Effects of benchmarking and peer‐assessment on French learners' self‐assessments of accentedness, comprehensibility, and fluency. Foreign Language Annals 55:1 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.