Best Doctoral Student Paper Award
Rating L2 speaker comprehensibility on monologic vs. interactive tasks
What is the effect of speaking task type? [*] *
Dustin Crowther | University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
Second language (L2) scholars generally agree that pronunciation development should prioritize understandable over
nativelike speech. However, which linguistic features enable understanding lacks clarity. While monologic research indicates a
combined effect of segmental and suprasegmental measures, interactive research has emphasized a segmental focus. The current study
takes a step in addressing this divide by applying a monologic methodology to interactive speech. 20 L2 English learners completed
one interactive and three monologic tasks. 36 native listeners rated each speaker per task for comprehensibility. I additionally
coded all utterances for a series of phonological and fluency measures. Surprisingly, segmental and suprasegmental measures had
minimal impact on listerners’ ratings. Instead, ratings for the two more linguistically-constrained monologic tasks demonstrated
stronger associations with fluency measures than the less-constrained monologic and interactive tasks. This finding is likely an
effect of (a) increased cognitive task demands placed on speakers, and (b) listener familiarity with L2 English speech.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Global perception of second language speech
- 1.2From monologues to interaction
- 1.3Phonological sources of communicative breakdowns
- 1.4Methodological concerns
- 1.5The current study
- 2.Methodology
- 2.1Participants
- 2.1.1Speakers
- 2.1.2Listeners
- 2.2Speaking tasks
- 2.2.1Task comparisons
- 2.3Procedure – Speech elicitation
- 2.3.1Monologic session
- 2.3.2Interactive session
- 2.4Procedure – Speech rating
- 2.4.1Monologic
- 2.4.2Interactive
- 2.4.3Speech rating
- 2.4.4Linguistic coding
- 2.5Data analysis
- 2.5.1Reliability
- 2.5.2Linguistic coding
- 2.1Participants
- 3.Results
- 3.1Comprehensibility between task comparisons
- 3.2Spearman correlations
- 4.Discussion
- 4.1Exploring task differences
- 4.1.1Task complexity
- 4.2Variation in linguistic associations
- 4.2.1Proficiency
- 4.2.2Listeners
- Limitations and future directions
- 4.2.3Monologic bias
- 4.2.4Interactive task complexity and interlocutor relationships
- 4.2.5Linguistic coding
- 4.1Exploring task differences
- 5.Conclusion & implications
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
Published online: 13 February 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.19019.cro
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.19019.cro
References
Bergeron, A., & Trofimovich, P.
Bowles, M. A., Toth, P. D., & Adams, R. J.
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T.
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Saito, K.
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Saito, K., & Isaacs, T.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter, M. J.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G.
Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I.
Educational Testing Service
Ejzenberg, R.
Field, J.
Galaczi, E. D.
Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M.
Hilton, H.
International English Language Testing System
Isaacs, T., & Thomson, R. I.
Issacs, T., & Trofimovich, P.
Isbell, D., Park, O.–S., & Lee, K.
Jenkins, J.
Kang, O.
Kang, O., Rubin, D. L., & Pickering, L.
Kang, O., Thomson, R. I., & Moran, M.
Kennedy, S., Guénette, D., Murphy, J., & Allard, S.
Lazarton, A., & Davis, L.
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L.
Levis, J. M.
Loewen, S., & Isbell, D.
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M.
Munro, M. J. & Derwing, T. M.
Nagle, C.
Ockey, G. J.
Ockey, G. J., Koyama, D., & Setoguchi, E.
Pickering, L.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
Robinson, P.
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T.
Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H.
Sewell, A.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W.
Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T.
Cited by
Cited by 4 other publications
Deygers, Bart & Carolien Frijns
French, Leif M., Nancy Gagné & Laura Collins
Munro, Murray J. & Tracey M. Derwing
Zielinski, Beth & Elizabeth Pryor
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2022. 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.