Phonological "know that" or "know how"?
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 20

Magdalena Wrembel Teacher Training College, UAM, Poznań PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 127 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Phonological "know that" or "know how"? - in pursuit of determinants of second language pronunciation attainments. Magdalena Wrembel Teacher Training College, UAM, Poznań. Introduction. The paper reports on the results of a specially designed training programme;

Download Presentation

Magdalena Wrembel Teacher Training College, UAM, Poznań

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Magdalena wrembel teacher training college uam pozna

Phonological "know that" or "know how"? - in pursuit of determinants of second language pronunciation attainments

Magdalena Wrembel

Teacher Training College, UAM, Poznań


Introduction

Introduction

  • The paper reports on the results of a specially designed training programme;

  • aims at investigating the effectiveness of explicit instruction and the role of theoretical training;

  • expects to demonstrate patterns of change in pronunciation performance on pre-test / post-test measures;

  • seeks to verify the hypothesis that conscious knowledge leads to the formation of mental representations;

  • attempts to account for other variables related to L2 pronunciation acquisition.


Outline of the presentation

Outline of the presentation

  • Background studies

  • Theoretical framework

  • Rationale and goals

  • Experimental design

  • Results of the study

  • Conclusions  implications for pronunciation pedagogy


Studies on predictors of success

Studies on predictors of success

  • Purcell & Suter 1980 - futility of instruction

  • Dickerson 1983 - effectiveness of phonological rules

  • Champagne et al. 1988 - perceptual training

  • Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 1990 -formal > natural setting

  • Elliott 1995 - formal instruction

  • Gayoso et al. 1999 - meta & phonological training

  • Stasiak & Szpyra-Kozłowska 2003 - aural exposure & drilling vs. phonetic instruction

  • Waniek-Klimczak 2004 - phonetic universals

  • Baran 2004 - field independence


Know how or know that

"Know how" or "know that" ?

  • RATIONALE: need for investigations into the effectiveness of pronunciation instruction

  • ASSUMPTION: pronunciation improves through gradual monitoring of an acquired system based on metacompetence

  • METACOMPETENCE: conscious knowledge of the grammar of a language (e.g. phon. & phon. - metaphonological competence)

  • FRAMEWORK: NATURAL PHONOLOGY

    • (D. Stampe & P. Donegan,W. U. Dressler)


Model of acquisition of l2 phonology acc to nat phon

Model of acquisition of L2 phonology acc. to Nat. Phon.

  • L2 learner - reduced phonological system

  • only selected processes available

  • confronted with L2 subconsciously applies L1 processes

  • IF processes L1 = L2 positive transfer

  • IF L1  L2  L1 interference

  • (lacking L2 processes have to be learnt consciously as rules)  explicit instruction, metacompetence !

  • Successful access to phonological processes conditioned by sociological, psychological & linguistic factors


Goals of the study

Goals of the study

  • To find correlation between L2 pronunciation attainment & theoretical training

    • "know that" > "know how"

  • To investigate other potential determinants of pronunciation success


Experimental design

Experimental design

  • Participants: 33 first year students

  • Timing: Oct 2002 - Feb 2003

  • Course: 50 hours, 15 weeks

  • Groups:

    • control  practical training

    • experimental  practical + theoretical instruction

  • Hypothesis: Metacompetence as a determinant of L2 pronunciation success


Participants control factors analysis

Participants - control factors analysis

  • Age: 19 - 25 (M: 20;6)

  • Length of formal exposure: 5 - 13 (M: 9)

  • First contact with English: 5 - 16 (M: 10;6)

  • Stay in UK / US - 35%

  • Lack of previous phonetic training

  • Formal setting of instruction

  • Comparable language proficiency

  • Positive attitude and high motivation (PAI)


Instruments and test administration

Instruments and test administration

  • Perception tests:

    • Oxford Placement Listening Test (Allan 1992)

    • Vowel Recognition Test (VRT)

  • Production tests:

    • LIST - reading a list of 50 words or phrases

    • DIAL - reading a dialogue in pairs

    • SPEECH - extemporaneously produced narrative


Instruments and test administration 2

Instruments and test administration (2)

  • Task-related variability

  • Digitally recorded speech samples

    • CoolEdit96 (22kHz, 16-bit resolution)

  • 3 judge listeners

    • interrater reliability (.93 - .67)


Treatment course content procedures

Treatment - course content & procedures

  • Practical training - exposure & imitation:

    • auditory sensitisation and discrimination

    • articulatory warm-up

    • phonetic drills

    • dialogue reading and performing

    • speeches and presentations

    • teacher correction (audio, visual & kinaesthetic feedback)


Treatment course content procedures 2

Treatment - course content & procedures (2)

  • Theoretical training:

    • articulatory descriptions

    • C & V systems classification

    • contrastive analysis

    • theoretical readings and discussions

    • visual aids reinforcement

    • meta-awareness raising


Cycles of practice modes cf morley 1991

Cycles of practice modes (cf. Morley 1991)

  • Imitative (dependent) speech practice

    • pronunciation drills with a model

  • Rehearsed (guided) speech practice

    • oral script reading & pre-prepared presentations

  • Independent practice

    • spontaneous presentations, self-generated content


Pronunciation performance experimental group

PRONUNCIATION PERFORMANCE - experimental group

  • TOTAL improvement by 18 %

  • LIST by 42 %

  • DIALby 20 %

  • SPEECHby 8 %

  • PERCby 3 %


Pronunciation performance control group

PRONUNCIATION PERFORMANCE- control group

  • TOTAL improvement by 13 %

  • LIST by 26 %

  • DIALby 16 %

  • SPEECHby 6 %

  • PERCby 4.4 %


Pretest posttest change experimental vs control

PRETEST / POSTTEST CHANGE - EXPERIMENTAL VS. CONTROL


Correlational analysis of variables

Correlational analysis of variables


Implications for further research

Implications for further research

  • To replicate the experiment on:

    • a larger sample

    • a more heterogeneous sample

  • To measure the effectiveness of innovative techniques

  • To enhance instruments for measuring perception


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • Explicit pronunciation training:

    • improvement in overall phonetic accuracy

    • phonological metacompetence - determinant of success

  • Conscious knowledge of phonological processes facilitates:

    • formation of mental representations

    • self-organisation of the new phonological system

  • Implications for foreign language learning:

    • metalinguistic awareness raising

    • supplementing practical phonetic training with theoretical instruction in phonetics and phonology


  • Login