Variation in Phonological Error in Interlanguage Talk

I Variation in Phonological Error in Interlanguage Talk Jennifer Jenkins A thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Submitted to the Institute of Education of the University of London October 1995 © 2 Abstract The research begins with an examination of the problems attending the growth in the use of English as a lingua franc&between non-native speakers. It is argued that vanable first-language specific phonological 'errors' generate much of the miscommunication that is a characteristic of such interlanguage talk (ILT), original support for this claim being provided by a pilot study involving non-native speaker postgraduate students. Following a brief reappraisal of the place of language transfer in second language acquisition, its role in interlanguage (IL) phonology is examined in detail. Phonological transfer is revealed as a central and complex feature of the developing IL The theoretical position is exemplified by a selection of phonological transfer errors drawn from ILT classroom observation, such errors being redefmed in seriousness according to a taxonomy of new criteria based essentially on their effects on ILT communication. The extensive variation to which these taxonomic errorS are subject is discussed in the light of current theories of IL variation, and Accommodation Theory is concluded to have the greatest potential to account for phonological transfer or variation in ILT. The motivations underlying the accommodative processes of convergence and divergence are discussed and the framework is then extended to a motivation considered more salient in ILT: that of interlocutor comprehensibility. Two empirical studies investigate phonological variation in ILT from an accommodation perspective, the findings leading to the conclusion that while accommodation has an essential role in determining phonological error in ILT, its linguistic manifestation is usually one of suppression and non-suppression rather than of traditional convergence and divergence. Pedagogical implications of the research include the benefits of pair and small- group work, thus supporting previous research, and the need for classroom exposure to IL varieties of English. 3 Contents Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 5 Chapter One Introduction: Interlanguage talk and problems 6 of mutual intelligibility 1.1 The role of pronunciation in intelligibility in ILT: a pilot study 7 1.2 Recent developments in international English and their repercussions 9 13 Organisation of the thesis 13 Chapter Two The role of language transfer in second language 15 acquisition: an overview 2.1 The historical perspective 15 2.2 Language transfer reappraised 21 2.2.1 Constraints on transfer 22 2.2.2 Transfer and avoidance/over-use 25 2.2.3 The role of similarity in transfer 26 Chapter Three Language transfer in interlanguage phonology: 31 theoretical positions 3.1 The differential effects of transfer on interlanguage syntax and phonology 32 3.2 Phonological transfer plus 34 3.2.1 Transfer plus universal factors 35 3.2.2 Transfer plus developmental factors 39 3.2.3 Transfer plus other factors 44 3.3 Motivations for phonological transfer 48 3.3.1 Notions of ambiguity 48 33.1 Habit formation and automaticity 52 3.4 Further considerations in IL phonological transfer 54 Chapter Four Phonological transfer: types of error and their 58 effects on communication in interlanl!ual!e talk 4.1 Criteria for the identification of phonological error 58 4.2 A taxonomy of NNS phonological, phonetic and prosodic errors 66 4.2.1 Segmental transfer errors and their effects 66 4.2.2 Suprasegmental transfer errors and their effects 77 4.2.3 A study in contrastive stress 89 43 Articulatory settings and voice quality 93 4.4 Summary and conclusion 95 Chapter Five Variation in interlanguage phonology 97 5.1 An essential distinction between IL and LI variation 97 5.2 Theories and models of IL variation 99 53 The primacy of accommodation theory as an account of phonological 107 IL variation 4 Chapter Six Accommodation theory: a framework for 112 investigating phonological IL variation 6.1 The theoretical framework 112 6.2 Non-native speakers and the accommodation framework 118 6.2.1 Research on interlanguage variation conducted within the 119 accommodation framework 6.2.2 Accommodation theory and foreigner talk 128 6.3 Conclusions 132 6.3 1 Judgements of CAT's ability to account for IL variation 132 63.2 The application of CAT to variation in ILT: two central issues 134 Chapter Seven Evidence of phonological convergence in ILT: 138 two studies 7.1 Main study 139 7.1.1 Methodology 142 7.1.2 Results and discussion 146 7.13 Phonological transfer and miscommunication in ILT 165 7.1.4 The effects of time on convergence in ILT 170 7.2 Replication 172 7.2.1 Methodology 172 7.2.2 Results and discussion 174 7.3 Summary and conclusion 184 Chapter Eight Looking ahead: pedagogical implications and 187 directions for future research 8.1 Implications for the English as a Foreign Language classroom 188 8.2 Some directions for future research 196 Key to abbreviations 200 Tables Table 1: ANOVA for EFL students' assessments of understanding difficulties 8 of four varieties of English Table 2: Identification of nuclear stress by NNS and NS listeTlers 90 Table 3: Transfer and non-transfer in same and different-LI dyads 155 Table 4: Frequency of transfer and non-transfer in two task types (1) 164 Table 5: Causes of miscommunication in the data 165 Table 6: Frequency of transfer and non-transfer in two task types (2) 183 Appendices Appendix A: Pilot study questionnaire 201 Appendix B: Intonation study prompts 204 Appendix C: Full transcript of main study 209 Appendix D: Full transcript of replication 240 Appendix E: Questionnaires for main study and replication 252 Bibliography 256 Acknowledgements I am especially grateful to my supervisor, John Norrish, who has been a constant support and whose skilful, balanced guidance enabled me to reorganise and develop the mixed ideas and diverse material that I first brought to him. Contributions have been made over the years by a number of other people. In particular, Barbara Bradford, Joanne Kenworthy, Amos Paran, Barbara Seidihofer and Jane Zuengler all offered useful information and made helpful suggestions; John Shepheard provided both inspiration and practical help with data collection; Diane Wallis at UCLES supplied CAE oral examination materials for use in the studie& I would also like to thank Henry Widdowson, Guy Cook and the student members of the Ph.D. seminar group in the ESOL Department at the Institute of Education for providing so much stimulating food for thought over the past two years, Michael Gammidge and Alison Sharpe for their kindness and good advice, and Tony Thorne, Susanne Effiott and other colleagues at King's College London, for their moral support. It goes without saying that this project could not have existed without my students, particularly those at Angloschool, King's College London, and Imperial College. They have all provided me with a wealth of material both directly as subjects in the various studies and indirectly as my classroom students, the latter tolerating with good humour the fact that I tended to put pencil to paper every time they spoke. I should also thank Peter Kok, a Dutch computer scientist, who several years ago asked me a question that intrigued me so much that it subsequently developed into this research. My husband, John, has provided both immense moral support and the benefit of his own academic expertise, albeit in a different field, as well as doing far more than his fair share of the child-minding over the past few years. Finally, I would like to thank my children, Nicholas and Haniet - who have forgotten what it is like to have a mother who is not writing a Ph.D. thesis - for allowing me (most days) to get on with my work. 6 Chapter One Introduction: Interlanguage talk and problems of mutual intelligibility Interlanguage talk is a term that has not been much used in ELT and applied linguistics writings. Krashen (1981, 1982) employs it to refer to the simplified linguistic code in which acquirers of second languages speak to one another, similar in a number of ways to both 'foreigner talk' (see pp.128-132 below) and 'teacher talk'. Both Long and Porter (1985) and Ellis (1994) use the term in their discussion of research into small-group work in the language classroom, involving both monolingual and multilingual groups of learners (for example, the studies of Porter 1986 and Gass and Varonis 1985b respectively). Thus, interlanguage talk has been used in the main to refer to second language learners particularly in classroom settings. The present research interprets interlanguage talk (henceforth ILT) both more widely and more narrowly: ILT here refers to any interaction between speakers of English as a foreign language, that is, for mternational purposes, whether inside or outside the classroom, learner or non-learner, provided the speakers have different first languages.' ILT is seen as problematic both inside and outside classroom settings because of the amount of miscommunication it generates. Schwartz argues that while breakdowns in communication are not uncommon between native speakers of English, "second language learners are faced with an additional burden to interaction - the imperfect command of the language of communication", as a result of which their conversations are "often characterized by iurs and problems of understanding" (1980138-39). Varonis and (3aM likewise point out that ILT differs from NS-NS and even NNS-NS interaction not only in that NNS-NNS pairs "spend more time negotiating than the other pairs", but also because "their non-understandings involve more work in the resolution" (1985a83). More recently, (3ass and Varonis have argued that "NNS discourse is a fertile area for t1 I Though ILT also he inclnd 'inixed groups, i.e.

Load more