Do Language Attitudes Determine Accent? A Study of Bilinguals in the USA

17 Pages·2016·0.45 MB·English

by  Moyer Alene.

Do Language Attitudes Determine
Accent? A Study of Bilinguals in the USA
Alene Moyer
SchoolofLanguages,LiteraturesandCultures,UniversityofMaryland,
CollegePark,MD,USA
This study presents new data on the degree of ‘foreign’ accent among immigrant
learnersofEnglishintheUSA(totalN!50)asitcorrelatestolearnerorientationto
the target language and target language culture. Correlation analyses confirm the
significance of age of onset and length of immersion, as well as learner attitudes,
including: (a) reasons for learning English; (b) perceived ability to improve in
English;(c)desiretoimproveaccent;(d)self-confidenceinEnglish;(e)comfortwith
assimilation to the target language culture (USA); and (f) intention to reside in the
USAlong-term.Acloseexaminationofthedatapointstothreemainconclusions:(1)
languageattitudesaresignificantforaccent,asaremoretraditionalmeasuressuchas
ageofonsetwiththetargetlanguageandlengthofresidenceinthetargetlanguage
environment; (2) attitudes toward the target language itself are more powerfully
linked to accent than are culture-directed attitudes, though both are significant;
(3)acombinationofexperienceandapositiveorientationappearstobeparticularly
important forattaining greater authenticity inaccent.
doi: 10.2167/jmmd514.0
Keywords: second language learning, language attitudes, bilingualism, age of
acquisition, adult learners, Englishas a secondlanguage
Introduction
Therelevanceofaccentforsecondlanguageacquisition(SLA)canhardlybe
questioned from an empirical point of view; it has long taken centre stage in
such diverse frameworks as maturational constraints on neurocognitive
faculties, on the one hand, and sociopsychological limits on linguistic and
cultural assimilation to a new language, on the other. Fromthe perspective of
education, accent has been a focal point of some of the most far-reaching
foreignlanguageteachingmethodsinthe20thcentury,e.g.theDirectMethod
and Audiolingualism. Yet these days, teachers have little hope of finding a
standardised approach to pronunciation instruction, and despite decades of
research,contradictoryfindingshaveuncoveredmorequestionsthananswers
when it comes to explaining the pervasiveness of accent for late second
language (L2) learners (see Derwing & Munro, 2005). Perhaps more impor-
tantly, the impact of accent on communication is still poorly understood. In
short, we have not sufficiently contextualised the relevance and scope of
accent ! a timely concern in light of increasing multilingualism and multi-
culturalism in the USA and globally.1
Given emerging multiple standards for (L2) English, does accent still
matter, as long as the intended message is understood? Munro and Derwing
0143-4632/07/06502-17$20.00/0 –2007A.Moyer
J.OFMULTILINGUALANDMULTICULTURALDEVELOPMENT Vol.28,No.6,2007
502
DoLanguageAttitudesDetermineAccent? 503
have explored this issue through their well known work on intelligibility
(Derwing & Munro, 1997; Munro & Derwing, 1995). Several researchers have
presented their own definitions for intelligibility as well, for example, as the
listener’s apprehension of the intended message (Nelson, 1982), basic word
andutterancerecognition(Smith,1992),andeventhesocialacceptabilityofan
utterance (Nihilani, 1993; see also Gass & Varonis, 1984; Munro & Derwing,
1995).MunroandDerwinghaveshownthatpooraccentratingsareassociated
with phonetic, phonemic and grammatical errors, as well as problems with
intonation. To be sure, judgements of accent are also partly subjective, as
listener familiarity with the L2 user’s mother tongue could influence
perceptions of intelligibility, as could the listener’s own ideas about what
(or moreaptly, who) representsalegitimate ‘standard’for English pronuncia-
tion (seeGolombek &Jordan,2005). Thereisemergingevidencethataccurate
production of certain segmental and prosodic features is essential to commu-
nication,dependingonthephonemicdistinctionsofthe(target)language.For
English, Jenkins (2000, 2002) has proposed that some phonemic distinctions
are ‘core’ to successful communication, based on her studies of interactions
between native and non-native speakers.2 Jenkins’ conclusion is that certain
(language-specific) features must be accurately produced and perceived to
ensure that meaning is unambiguous. Communication breakdown is most
likely when non-natives focus on segmental cues, missing important con-
textual information embedded in higher-level language features (e.g. supra-
segmental, lexical, etc.) (Jenkins, 2002: 89). Phonological attainment, in terms
ofbothperceptionandproduction,isthuscriticaltothesuccessfulnegotiation
of meaning; it is not simply icing on the cake for otherwise fluent L2 users.
Traditionally, the research on accent in a second language (L2) has
addressed the basic question of whether anyone can really become native-
like after the proposed critical, or sensitive, period (see Bongaerts et al., 1997;
Flege, 1987; Flege et al., 1999; Moyer, 1999, 2004; Munro & Mann, 2005 for
empiricalfindings;seeBialystok&Hakuta1999;Hyltenstam&Abrahamsson,
2003;Marinova-Toddetal.,2000forreviewsanddiscussion).Thefactthatonly
a few ‘exceptional’ learners appear to do so suggests that a native-like accent
inL2isnotarealisticexpectation(cf.Ioupetal.,1994;White&Genesee,1996).
While some scholars continue to question any evidence contrary to the
critical period hypothesis (e.g. Long, 2005), the issue is far from closed;
constraints in phonological attainment are highly complex and not well
understood, likely because their source is inherently unobservable. Further-
more,itispossiblethat constraints long attributed toneurobiological changes
(associatedwithmaturation)aremoreaffectivethanneurocognitiveinnature,
as theseappeartobefundamentallylinked (Pulvermu¨ller &Schumann,1994;
Schumann, 1994, 2001). Equally plausible is the possibility that observable
constraintsarearesultofactuallanguageexperience,e.g.limitedcontactwith
nativespeakersresultinginalackofinteractiveuseofthetargetlanguage,etc.
(Flege & Liu, 2001; Jia & Aaronson, 1999; Moyer, 2004, 2007b, forthcoming a;
Thompson, 1991; Yeni-Komshian et al., 2000). One aspect of language contact
or experience that could potentially mitigate these constraints ! formal
instruction ! has been shown to be significant for L2 accent (Bongaerts et al.,
1997; Moyer, 1999, 2004; Thompson, 1991), with suprasegmental training on
504 JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment
stress, pitch and intonation of particular benefit (Derwing & Rossiter, 2003;
Elliott, 1997; Missaglia, 1999; Moyer, 1999, 2004). While language contact and
usenaturallyvarygreatlyacrosslearners,thoseexposedearlyonarefarmore
likely to enjoy instructional experience and greater personal contact with
native speakers (Moyer, 2004, 2007). To the extent that these factors are
confounded with age of onset (AO), they do not necessarily get their due,
unless the researcher examines a wide array of variables and measures their
influence alongside that of AO.
Inaddition toanearly start,anative-like accent isoftenshownto correlate
to long-term residence in the target-language country, however, statistical
analyses of this factor’s significance have resulted in contradictory findings
across studies (see Piske et al., 2001). One obvious problem is that simplistic
measures of language contact (length of residence (LOR), for example) tell us
nothing about the quality of that experience from the point of view of input
and interaction. To illustrate this problem, we need only consider why some
learners reside for years in-country, eventually making the transition to L2
dominancewhileothersdonot.Thereareindicationsthatlongerresidencein-
country positively affects the learner’s sense of fluency, and corresponds to
greater frequency of contact with native speakers and the likelihood of more
instructioninthesecondlanguage,especiallyformaltrainingandfeedbackon
pronunciation (Moyer, 2004). Such factors may predict an eventual shift in
language dominance ! no minor artefact of L2 experience, as the functional
and symbolic relevance of L2 relative to L1 is so important; those who rely
more on L2 do end up sounding closer-to-native than those who retain the
mother tongue as their primary means of communication (see Moyer, 2004,
forthcomingb;Singleton,2000).Itisimportanttobearinmindthatalongerin-
country residence will not lead to a shift in language dominance without
sufficientneed,desireandsupport;suchanimportanttransitionispredicated
on both positive sociopsychological orientations and favourable external
circumstances. Some evidence exists to support this argument: strong
significance for LOR is apparent when groups are highly differentiated in
terms of years (e.g. 1!2 years versus 12" years in-country), with the long-
term residents attaining far more authenticity in both production and
perception of new (L2) speech sounds (Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Flege et al.,
1995) (see fourth section).
In addition to language contact and experience, a number of socio-
psychologicalfactorshavebeenshowntoexertsignificantinfluenceonaccent,
including concern for pronunciation accuracy, sense of identity, motivation to
learn the target language and attitudes toward the target language culture,
among others (see Moyer, 1999, 2004; Oyama, 1976; Piller, 2002; Purcell &
Suter,1980;Smit,2002;Smit&Dalton,2000;Thompson,1991).Thisresearchis
somewhat preliminary relative to the long-standing tradition of motivation
research in SLA, but these new directions address the interrelationships
between age and L2 experience, and thus represent a welcome expansion in
the critical period literature. It should be noted, however, that some scholars
remain sceptical about the significance of social and psychological factors,
given that any observed statistical significance could be an artefact of their
relationship toAO (Oyama, 1976). That problemnotwithstanding,factorslike
DoLanguageAttitudesDetermineAccent? 505
AO and LOR represent far more than mere exposure to the second language;
theyreflectanall-important,thoughidiosyncratic,balanceofcontact,useand
orientation in L2 (see Moyer, 2007 for discussion), all of which influence both
affective and cognitive strategies for improving pronunciation (Moyer, 2004,
2007).
To summarise, three decades of evidence have established that many
individualfactorsaresignificantforaccent,includingexperientialandlearner
orientation factors pertaining to both the target language and its culture.
Relatively few investigations have centred on sociopsychological factors as
influentialforattainmentinL2phonology,perse,nevertheless,thesequestions
bear closer scrutiny given that accent matters on both the collective and the
individual levels; it affects not just communicative fluency but contributes to
judgements of social belonging and identity as well. Recent scholarship has
questioned traditional assumptions of the intractability of a foreign accent for
late learners, indicating that many aspects of experience and orientation
determine the likelihood that one can, and will, acquire an authentic accent.
These broader considerations of learner orientation and experience motivate
the current study.
The Current Study
The current study endeavours to examine learner attitudes as potentially
significanttoaccent,basedonpreviousworkcitedabove.Theobjectivesofthe
studyaretoframethesignificanceoflearnerattitudesagainstmoretraditional
measures of L2 experience (AO and LOR), and to compare potentially
differential effects among categories of attitudes. In keeping with these
objectives, two main questions guide the study:
(1) Are language attitudes relevant to phonological attainment once more
traditional measures of language exposure, e.g. AO and LOR, are taken
into account?
(2) Are any differences apparent between attitudes toward the target
language itself and attitudes toward the target language culture when
it comes to accent in a second language?
The first question addresses the significance of attitudes relative to AO and
time spent in-country. The second question concerns the relative influence of
learner attitudes when categorised as language-directed versus culture-
directed, specifically. Correlation and multiple regression analyses will exa-
mine these effects statistically, to find out whether attitudes are as impor-
tant as the traditional measures of L2 experience, and to discover whether
certain kinds of attitudes are associated with more native-like phonological
acquisition.
Participants
All participants were students at a large university in the Mid-Atlantic
regionoftheUSA,respondingtoflyerspostedaroundcampusforvolunteers.
All identified themselves at the outset as either native (NS) or non-native
506 JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment
Figure1 Participants’ NativeLanguages (NNSonly; N#42)
speakers(NNS)ofEnglish,resultingin8whoservedasNScontrolsand42as
NNS subjects (total N#50; 17 men and 33 women3). Participants ranged in
agefrom18to49(Mean#25years). Several participantshadrecentlyarrived
in the USA at the time of data collection, while others had been residents for
many years (the range is vast, at 1 month!25 years; Mean#5 years). Seven
were married to native English speakers. Participants represented 15 native
languages, as shown in Figure 1.4
Instrument and procedure
Participants completed a survey on their language learning background
and specific aspects of their sociopsychological orientation as concerns the
target language (English) and the USA. Response types were scalar, short
response, or open-ended in nature, for the following areas.5
(1) Language exposure/experience factors ! AO, LOR in an English-
speaking country, and marriage to a native speaker were noted, as
were total years of English instruction.
(2) Learner orientation factors ! language-related attitudes and culture-
related attitudes were measured as follows: (a) reasons for learning
English; (b) intensity of motivation for learning English; (c) perceived
abilitytoimproveinEnglish;(d)desiretoimproveaccent;(e)self-rating
offluency in English;(f) attitudestowardAmerican culture;(g) comfort
withtheidea ofcultural assimilation(intheUSA);(h)perceivedeasein
establishing contact with native speakers of English in the USA; and
(i) intention to reside in the USA long-term.
DoLanguageAttitudesDetermineAccent? 507
Thelinguisticaspectofthestudyelicitedread-aloudandfreespeechthrougha
series of tasks in this order6:
(1) A word list (65 in all) targeting phonemic distinctions and features
predicted to be difficult for NNS of English (e.g. all vowels, and the
consonantsandconsonantclusters ð,u,N,v,E,l,w,ts,da,ntN,mpl,nus,
tw, bN, as well as terminal voicing of obstruents);
(2) 10read-aloudsentenceswhichfocusedonword-levelstresspatternsand
phonetic difficulties;7
(3) read-aloud paragraph-length texts;
(4) a brief, free speaking task with prompt; and
(5) a picture description and narration task.
A range of controlled and guided tasks wereincluded to represent segmental
and suprasegmental abilities more authentically than in isolated tasks alone.
Raters and ratings
Four self-identified native speakers of English volunteered to listen to the
speech samples.8 All were American female students at the same university,
ranging in age from 22 to 30 years, pursuing language-related degrees at the
graduate level (literature, culture, applied linguistics, etc.). Inter-rater relia-
bilityforalltaskratingswasverifiedstatistically.(Kendall’sTau-bscoresranged
from 0.80 to 0.52, depending on rater pairing.) All recordings were broken
down into separate tasks, and reordered in master tapes so that
no rater heard any speaker’s collective tasks consecutively. This was done
to minimise monotony and rater fatigue, and to minimise the chance that the
rater would recognise individual speakers and assign ratings based on
previous task performance. In this way, separate scores for each task could
alsobeassignedandtaskperformancecouldbecompared.Forexample,each
rater heard a randomised order of speakers and tasks as follows: Speaker J,
Task 1 (word list), followed by Speaker S, Task 4 (impromptu speaking),
followed by Speaker B, Task 2 (sentences), and so on in random order. Raters
were asked to evaluate each individual speech sample for accent on a 5-point
scale, with ‘1#no foreign accent’ and ‘5#strong foreign accent’. Raters
also filled out a brief survey on their language learning background. None
was a pure monolingual speaker of English; all raters knew at least one
other language and characterised themselves as bilingual or multilingual in
those languages.
Results9
L2 user participants are clearly differentiated from the native speaker
controlsintermsofaccentratingsaccordingtoPearson’sproductcorrelations
(r).(Figure2showsatask-by-taskbreakdown.)Notaskdifferenceswithinthe
groups are statistically significant, only the NS!NNS group distinction is
significant according to a t-test (pooled Means for NS#1.18, where ‘1’#‘no
foreign accent’; for NNS it is 2.9; t#6.23, Sig of t#0.0001).
508 JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment
Figure2 Comparing Accent RatingsbyGroupMeans(AllTasks)(N#50)
The significance of language exposure factors
As expected, AO and LOR both show a linear, negative relationship to
accent ratings, while the other two measures of language experience are not
strongly linked to performance (see Table 1).
Table 1 Correlatingaccent tolanguageexperience/exposure(NNS only;N#42)
Accent ratings
r p
Ageofonset 0.69 0.0001***
Lengthofresidence 0.58 0.0001***
Married toNS 0.01 0.93
Years ofEnglishinstruction 0.17 0.28
*pB0.05;**pB0.01;***pB0.001
The significance of learner attitudes
Learner attitudes were predicted to be significant for outcomes, assessed
here as both culture-directed and language-directed attitudes. Table 2 shows
theresultsfortheculture-directeditems.MostoftheNNSparticipants(31,or
74%)reportapositiveattitudetowardAmericanculture,while11(26%)report
DoLanguageAttitudesDetermineAccent? 509
Table 2 Correlatingaccent tocultural attitudes (N#42)
Accent ratings
r p
AttitudestowardAmericanculture 0.12 0.44
Comfortwith culturalassimilation 0.37 0.02*
Perceived easeofcontact toNS 0.24 0.13
Intentionto reside long-term inUSA 0.34 0.03*
*pB0.05;**pB0.01;***pB0.001
a negative or strongly negative attitude. Comfort with the idea of cultural
assimilation in America reveals a different trend: 40, or 95%, feel they could
easily assimilate while only 5% are unsure (several did not respond).
Participants also described relative ease of establishing contact with native
EnglishspeakersintheUSA:25sayitiseasyorveryeasy(60%),9areneutral
and6believeitisnoteasy todoso(2didnotrespond).Ofthesefirst 3items,
only comfort with assimilation is significant for accent ratings. The assimila-
tion measurealsocorrelates significantly (negatively) to current age, which in
turn is significant to outcomes at r#0.33 and pB0.03, meaning that older
participants are less likely to feel comfortable with assimilating, possibly
because they have a longer-established, personal sense of cultural belonging
that is not American.
Each learner’s intention to reside in the USAwas also measured. For this
sample, 25 (60%) plan to stay in the USA permanently or for at least 5 years,
while only 6 (14%) say they will stay for 2 years or less. The remaining 26%
project a 2!5-year residence. Intention to reside is assumed to gauge the
learner’slong-terminvestmentinL2asfollows:thosewhointendtostayinan
English-speakingenvironmentlong-termaremorelikelytobeconcernedwith
their accent and overall fluency (see Moyer, 2004 for comparable results).
When the significance of this factor is examined more closely, two interesting
relationships become clear: (1) those who intend to stay less than a year are
tightly grouped in the poorestperformance range,i.e. they have the strongest
foreign accents according to the raters; (2) those with both professional and
personal orientation are likely to plan a longer residence (r#0.54; pB0.0001)
and to demonstrate a more native-like accent (as the next set of findings
shows).
As for attitudes toward the target language itself, a number of correlations
are noteworthy (Table 3). Ten participants, or 24%, say they are only
professionally motivated, or career-oriented, when it comes to learning
English, while 30 of the non-native participants (71%) report their reasons
for learning English as both personal and professional. This combination of
personal and professional orientation is statistically significant for closer-to-
native accent ratings, suggesting that an investment in L2 that is complex is
more significant than is any single type of motivation by itself (see similar
findings in Moyer, 1999, 2004). The intensity of language-oriented motivation
510 JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment
Table 3 Correlatingaccent tolanguageattitudes (N#42)
Accent
r p
Reasons forlearning English 0.37 0.02*
Intensityofmotivation towardlearning English 0.20 0.20
Perceived abilityto improve inEnglish 0.38 0.01**
Desireto improve accent 0.52 0.0001***
Self-ratingoffluencyinEnglish 0.68 0.0001***
*pB0.05;**pB0.01;***pB0.001
is ‘very high’ according to 28 participants (67%) and ‘high’ for another 10
(23%), however, this factor is not significant for outcomes. At the same time,
thesensethatonecanimproveinEnglishwithenougheffortisalsoquitehigh:
28 strongly believe it is possible for them to improve (66%), and only 5
(12%)answeredthisquestionnegatively(9wereneutral)(seesimilarresultsin
Smit, 2002). The perception that one can improveis highly correlated to LOR,
andtoamoreintegratedsetofreasonsforlearningEnglish(bothprofessional
and personal).
This group of learners is somewhat split when it comes to the desire to
improve accent: 26 (62%) report a strong or very strong desire to improve,
while 16 (38%) report that they are neutral or do not care. Of course, it is
possible that those with an impressive accent report little desire to improve
(for obvious reasons), and that those who realise their accent is identifiably
non-native, but who can still communicate effectively, may similarly express
littlemotivationforimprovement.Onanotherlevel,existingtensionsbetween
language identities, group affiliations and perceptions of accent could also
haveaprofoundinfluenceonone’smotivationtochangeanestablishedaccent
(see Gatbonton et al., 2005; Piller, 2002). While this factor demonstrates a very
significant,positive linktooutcomefortheseparticipants,whatthismeansin
practical terms is uncertain. It is surely the case that not all learners have the
samecapacitiestoimprove,evenifthedesireisthere(Yuleetal.,1987),sothe
practical implications of such a desire arenot immediately obvious. Here,the
surveys were useful for exploring what a strong desire to sound native could
translate to in practical terms. Many of these learners initiate theirown kinds
of pronunciation feedback opportunities, reporting that they read aloud to
practice pronunciation and intonation specifically, that they mimic native
speakers on television and radio, and that they often look up the pronuncia-
tionofwordsinthedictionary.Oneparticipantevennotedthatherecordshis
own voice to listen for pronunciation inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
Asforself-ratingoffluencyinEnglish,22(52%)reportthattheyare‘fluent’
or ‘very fluent’, saying they are sometimes mistaken for native. Only 7 (17%)
donotfeelfluent.Thisfactorshowsastrongcorrelationtooutcomes,meaning
thatthosewiththehighestjudgementoftheirownabilitiesdo,infact,exhibit
closer-to-native performance overall (see Smit, 2002 for similar results). This
DoLanguageAttitudesDetermineAccent? 511
factor is not terribly revealing because it does not indicate any identifiable
influence on accent, however, self-ratings of fluency are clearly tied to
phonologicalabilitiesasjudgedbyothers ! confirmationthataccentisindeed
a central aspect of language ability.
Comparing the relative contributions of language attitudes
A primary objective of this study was to explore the significance of
language attitudes alongside the factors of AO and LOR. No claims can be
made for causal relationships according to the limits of correlation analyses,
however, a morecomplexstatistical modelsuchas multiple regression can be
used to partial out the effects of one set of factors to reveal the remaining
significanceofothers.Tomaximise thecontribution oftheexperientialfactors
AO and LOR in the model a ‘Block’ analysis can combine their strength and
measure it against a second ‘block’ ! the attitudinal factors. In the multiple
regressionanalysisusedhere(Table4),weseethatthisfirstblockaccountsfor
34% of the variance (R), and that the second block ! reasons for learning
Englishanddesiretoimproveaccent,twoofthemostsignificantfactors from
thecorrelationanalyses ! addsanother16%totheexplanation.Togetherthese
factors account for 71% of the variance ! an impressive finding. The bottom
half of Table 4 shows that these two attitudinal factors hold their own, even
aftertheinfluenceoftheotherfactorshasbeenaccountedfor,orpartialledout
(see Sig column at bottom of Table 4).
Results from these analyses are preliminary, but there is strong indication
here that language attitudes are not completely conflated with AO. Any
conclusions must necessarily be tentative regarding how influential these
attitudinal variables are compared to experiential ones. At a minimum,
Table 4 Multiple Regression Model! AO/LOR andlanguageattitudes
R R2 R2 F df1 df2 Sig of F
change change change
Step1:AO"LOR 0.58 0.34 0.34 9.57 2 34 0.0001***
Step2:Desireto improve 0.71 0.50 0.16 5.64 2 32 0.008**
accent"reasonsfor
learning English
Std. Beta t Sig
error
AO 0.03 0.04 0.27 0.78
LOR 0.02 -0.33 -2.37 0.02*
Desireto improve accent 0.08 -0.36 -2.41 0.02*
Reasons forlearning 0.22 -0.33 -2.69 0.01*
English
*Sig#0.05orless;**Sig#0.01orless;***Sig#0.001orless