Article published in:
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation
Vol. 6:1 (2020) ► pp. 96–121
Best Doctoral Student Paper Award

Rating L2 speaker comprehensibility on monologic vs. interactive tasks

What is the effect of speaking task type? [*] *

| 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.
Keywords: comprehensibility, interaction, second language pronunciation, task effect
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
  • 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
  • 5.Conclusion & implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 February 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.19019.cro
References
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. A., Toth, P. D., & Adams, R. J.
(2014) A comparison of L2-L2 and L2-heritage learner interactions in Spanish language classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 497–517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T.
(2016) Linguistic dimensions of second language accent and comprehensibility: Nonnative listeners’ perspectives. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 2(2), 160–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Saito, K.
(2015a) Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility? The Modern Language Journal, 991, 80–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Linguistic dimensions of L2 accentedness and comprehensibility vary across speaking tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 443–457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Saito, K., & Isaacs, T.
(2015b) Second language comprehensibility revisited: Investing the effects of learner background. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 814–837. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J.
(2015) Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I.
(2008) A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 359–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter, M. J.
(2009) The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 553–557. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G.
(1998) Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I.
(2004) Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54(4), 655–679. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Educational Testing Service
(2012) The official guide to the TOEFL test (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Ejzenberg, R.
(2000) The juggling act of oral fluency: A psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor. In H. Riggenbach (ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 287–313). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Field, J.
(2005) Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 399–423. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Galaczi, E. D.
(2008) Peer–peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 89–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H.
(2005) Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M.
(1984) The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 341, 65–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M.
(2014) Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 361, 1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilton, H.
(2008) The link between vocabulary knowledge and spoken L2 fluency. The Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 153–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
International English Language Testing System
(2009) Cambridge IELTS 7: Examination papers from University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations: English for speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Cambridge IELTS 8: Examination papers from University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations: English for speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Isaacs, T., & Thomson, R. I.
(2013) Rater experience, rating scale length, and judgments of L2 pronunciation: Revisiting research conventions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(2), 135–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Issacs, T., & Trofimovich, P.
(2012) Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 475–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Isbell, D., Park, O.–S., & Lee, K.
(2019) Learning Korean pronunciation: Effects of instruction, proficiency, and L1. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 51, 13–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, J.
(2000) The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford, UK: 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
Kang, O., Rubin, D. L., & Pickering, L.
(2010) Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 554–566. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kang, O., Thomson, R. I., & Moran, M.
(2018) Empirical approaches to measuring the intelligibility of different varieties of English in predicting listener comprehension. Language Learning, 681, 115–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, S., Guénette, D., Murphy, J., & Allard, S.
(2015) Le rôle de la prononciation dans l’intercompréhension entre locuteurs de français lingua franca [The role of pronunciation in comprehension between speakers of French as a lingua franca]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 711, 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lazarton, A., & Davis, L.
(2008) A microanalytic perspective on discourse, proficiency, and identity in paired oral assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(4), 313–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L.
(2015) The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 345–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levis, J. M.
(2005) Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 369–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Isbell, D.
(2017) Pronunciation in face-to-face and audio-only synchronous computer-mediated learner interactions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 225–256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(2007) The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 241–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M.
(1995) Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 451, 73–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Modeling perceptions of the accentedness and comprehensibility of L2 speech: The role of speaking rate. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(4), 451–468. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34(4), 520–531. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J. & Derwing, T. M.
(2015) A prospective for pronunciation research in the 21st century: A point of view. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 11, 11–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nagle, C.
(2018) Motivation, comprehensibility, and accentedness in L2 Spanish: Investigating motivation as a time-varying predictor of pronunciation development. Modern Language Journal, 1021, 199–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ockey, G. J.
(2009) The effects of group members/ personalities on a test taker’s L2 group oral discussion test scores. Language Testing, 26(2), 161–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ockey, G. J., Koyama, D., & Setoguchi, E.
(2013) Stakeholder input and test design: A case study on changing the interlocutor familiarity facet of the group oral discussion test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(3), 292–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheimer, D. M.
(2008) The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12(6), 237–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, L.
(2009) Intonation as a pragmatic resource in ELF interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 235–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
(2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2005) Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 431, 1–32. CrossrefGoogle 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 37(2), 217–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H.
(2012) Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N.
(2010) Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sewell, A.
(2017) Functional load revisited: Reinterpreting the findings of ‘lingua franca’ intelligibility studies. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 31, 57–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
(1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W.
(2006) Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effects of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 281, 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T.
(2012) Disentangling accent from comprehensibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 905–916. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winke, P., Gass, S., & Myford, C.
(2013) Raters’ L2 background as a potential source of bias in rating oral performance. Language Testing, 30(2), 231–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Deygers, Bart & Carolien Frijns
2021. Begrijpelijkheid en accent bij beginnende NT2-leerders. Nederlandse Taalkunde 26:2 ► pp. 195 ff. Crossref logo
French, Leif M., Nancy Gagné & Laura Collins
2020. Long-term effects of intensive instruction on fluency, comprehensibility and accentedness. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 6:3 ► pp. 380 ff. Crossref logo
Munro, Murray J. & Tracey M. Derwing
2020. Foreign accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility, redux. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 6:3 ► pp. 283 ff. Crossref logo
Zielinski, Beth & Elizabeth Pryor
2020. Comprehensibility andeveryday English use. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 6:3 ► pp. 352 ff. Crossref logo

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.