ebook img

Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2 PDF

25 Pages·2001·0.38 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2

JournalofPhonetics(2001)29,191}215 doi:10.006/jpho.2001.0134 Availableonlineathttp://www.idealibrary.comon Factors a4ecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: a review Thorsten Piske DepartmentofEnglish, University ofKiel, D-24098Kiel, Germany Ian R. A. MacKay DepartmentofLinguistics,University ofOttawa,Ottawa,Ontario,K1N6N5Canada James E. Flege DepartmentofRehabilitation Sciences,UniversityofAlabamaatBirmingham, Birmingham,AL35205,U.S.A. Received27thSeptember1999,andaccepted26thSeptember2000 Thisarticlehadtwoaims:toprovideathoroughreviewoftheexisting literatureexaminingoveralldegreeofforeignaccentinasecondlanguage (L2),andtopresentanewforeignaccentexperiment.Theliterature reviewsuggestedthatawidevarietyofvariablesin#uencedegreeof foreignaccent.Thesevariablesincludeageof L2learning,lengthof residenceinanL2-speakingcountry,gender,formalinstruction, motivation,languagelearningaptitudeandamountof nativelanguage (L1)use.AgeofL2learningappearstobethemostimportantpredictor ofdegreeofforeignaccent.However,therelativeimportanceoftheother variablesisuncertain.Thisisbecausemanyvariablesrelatingtosubject characteristicstendtobeconfounded,andbecauseoflackofadequate experimentalcontrolinsomestudies.Theexperimentpresentedhere examinedthein#uenceofItalian-Englishbilinguals’ageofL2learning, lengthofresidenceinanL2-speakingenvironment(Canada),gender, amountofcontinuedL1(Italian)useandself-estimatedL1abilityon degreeofL2foreignaccent.Asexpectedfromtheliteraturereview,both ageofL2learningandamountofcontinuedL1usewerefoundtoa!ect degreeofforeignaccent.Gender,lengthofresidenceinanL2-speaking countryandself-estimatedL1ability,ontheotherhand,werenotfound tohaveasigni"cant,independente!ect onoverallL2pronunciation accuracy. ( 2001AcademicPress 1. Introduction For the last 30 years, beginning with the classic article by Asher & GarcmHa (1969), the phenomenonof perceived foreign accent in the speech of L2 learners has been investi- gatedinalargenumberofincreasinglydetailedexperimentalstudies.AsThompson(1991) E-mail:[email protected] 0095}4470/01/020191#25$35.00/0 ( 2001AcademicPress 192 „. Piske et al. pointsout,therearegoodreasonstostudythisphenomenon.Forexample,itmayhelp resolvesometheoreticalissuesregardingwhetherthereareage-basedconstraintsonL2 learning.Inaddition,identifyingfactorsthatin#uencedegreeof L2 foreignaccentmay be important for the teaching of second languages.The studies of overall degree of L2 foreign accent published so far di!er greatly in terms of the nature of the subjects and languagesexamined, as well as in the procedures used to elicit and evaluate nonnative speech. To some extent at least, these methodological di!erences appear to be respon- siblefor the often divergent results the studieshave yielded. Major (1987), Long (1990) and Thompson (1991) have provided thorough reviews of previous research. However, manystudieshavebeenpublishedsince.Therefore,thispaperwill"rstprovideacompre- hensivereviewoftheexistingliteratureondegreeofL2foreignaccent.Inaddition,itwill reportanexperimentexaminingL1use,avariablethathasonlybeenintroducedintothe literaturemorerecently.Itse!ectsondegreeofL2foreignaccentanditsrelationtoother factors that are likely to in#uence the pronunciation of an L2 will be examined. 2. Review of the existing literature In this part of the present paper, we will "rst review important di!erences as well as similarities between the subject populations of earlier studies of L2 foreign accent and betweenthetechniquesthathavepreviouslybeenusedtoelicitandevaluatenonnative speechsamples.Thenwewilldiscussprevious"ndingsregardingthosefactorsthathave been claimed to a!ect degree of L2 foreign accent. 2.1. Designs and methods used in previous research 2.1.1. Subject populations studied OveralldegreeofL2foreignaccentislikelytovaryasafunctionofthecharacteristicsof the subjects examined. As will be described below, the subjects examined in previous studies have di!ered in a number of potentially important ways, including target L2, native language, amount of experience with the target L2 and perhaps degree of motivation to pronounce the L2 well. Most previous studies have examined English as the target L2 being learned. Other target languages examined include German (Olson & Samuels, 1973; Missaglia, 1999; Moyer,1999),Hebrew(Seliger,Krashen&Ladefoged,1975),Dutch(Snow&Hoefnagel- HoKhle,1977),French(Neufeld,1979,1980),Spanish(Elliott,1995;Guion,Flege&Loftin, 1999,2000)andThai(Wayland,1997).Thenativelanguagesspokenbytheparticipants in previous foreign accent studies have been far more diverse. They include Spanish (Asher&GarcmHa,1969;Flege&Fletcher,1992);English(Olson&Samuels,1973;Snow & Hoefnagel-HoKhle, 1977; Neufeld, 1980; Elliott, 1995; Wayland, 1997; Moyer, 1999); Arabic,Japanese,PersianandThai(Suter,1976;Purcell&Suter,1980);Italian(Oyama, 1976;Flege,Munro&MacKay,1995;Flege,Frieda&Nozawa,1997;Missaglia,1999); Polish(Neufeld,1980); Dutch (Neufeld,1980; Bongaerts, Planken& Schils, 1995; Bon- gaerts,vanSummeren,Planken&Schils,1997);MandarinandTaiwanese(Flege,1988); Russian (Thompson, 1991); Swedish (Markham, 1997); and Korean (Flege, Yeni-Kom- shian & Liu, 1999b). In some cases, subjects from di!erent L1 backgrounds were examined in the same study(e.g.,Suter,1976;Purcell&Suter,1980;Tahta,Wood&Loewenthal,1981;Piper Degree of foreign accent in an ‚2 193 &Cansin,1988).Itseemsreasonabletoassumethattheaccuracywithwhichnonnative speakerspronounce an L2 is, at least to some extent, dependent on their L1. Unfortu- nately, none of the studies cited above except Suter (1976) and Purcell & Suter (1980) haveexaminedthee!ectofL1backgroundondegreeofL2foreignaccent.Inthesetwo studies,nativespeakersofArabicandPersianwerefoundtohaveabetterpronunciation of English than native speakers of Japanese and Thai. Overall, L1 background was identi"ed as the most important predictor of degree of L2 foreign accent of the 20 variablesconsideredbySuter(1976)andPurcell&Suter(1980).However,thesubjectsin thosestudieswerenotmatchedforothervariablessuchasageofL2learning(hereafter referredtoasAOL),lengthofresidence(LOR)inanL2-speakingcountryoramountof L2 use. The relative importance of L1 background, as compared to other variables, therefore remains uncertain. Thenonnativesubjectsinpreviousforeignaccentstudiesdi!eredinmorethanjustL1 background.ThesubjectsinsomestudieswerehighlyexperiencedintheL2(see,e.g.,the studiesbyFlege andcolleagues),whereas thosein otherstudieshad little experiencein the L2 (e.g., Olson & Samuels, 1973; Snow & Hoefnagel-HoKhle, 1977). Degree of motivation to speak an L2 well has also often been claimed to be an important determinant of degree of L2 foreign accent (see, e.g., Seliger et al., 1975; Suter, 1976; Purcell & Suter, 1980; Elliott, 1995; Bongaerts et al., 1995, 1997; Moyer, 1999). Acontrolgroupofnativespeakerswasrecruitedinmostofthestudiescitedsofarin addition to groups of nonnative subjects. Unfortunately, not all studies have included acontrolgroup(e.g.,Olson&Samuels,1973;Fathman,1975;Snow&Hoefnagel-HoKhle, 1977;Tahtaetal.,1981;Elliott,1995),whichleadstotwoproblems.Itremainsuncertain hownativespeakerswouldhaveperformedunderthespeci"ccircumstancesofaparticu- lar experiment, and it also remains uncertain whether the raters recruited to evaluate speech samples would have been able to distinguish native from nonnative speech. Thefactthatthesubjectsexaminedinpreviousresearchdi!eredalongthedimensions justdescribedoftenmakesdirectcomparisonsacrossstudiesproblematic.Assumingthat suchfactorsdoindeedin#uencedegreeofL2foreignaccent,onewouldnaturallyexpect toobservedi!erencesacrossstudies.Thus,theobservationthatL2foreignaccentstudies sometimes yield divergent results should not lead one to conclude that degree of L2 foreign accent cannot be scaled reliably and validly. 2.1.2. Elicitation techniques used StudiesofoveralldegreeofL2foreignaccenthavealsodi!eredintermsofthetechniques usedtoelicitnonnativespeechsamples.Inmoststudies,subjectshavebeenaskedtoread sentences (e.g., Asher & GarcmHa, 1969; Flege, 1988; Thompson, 1991; Flege & Fletcher, 1992;Bongaertsetal.,1995,1997;Moyer,1999),paragraphs(e.g.,Oyama,1976;Neufeld, 1979,1980;Tahtaetal.,1981;Piper&Cansin,1988;Thompson,1991;Bongaertsetal., 1995;Moyer,1999)orindividualwords(e.g.,Bongaertsetal.,1995;Elliott,1995;Moyer, 1999). In a number of studies, subjects have also been asked to recount personal experiences or to describe pictures and, thus, produce samples of free (i.e., extem- poraneous)L2 speech(e.g., Fathman,1975;Oyama,1976;Suter,1976;Piper & Cansin, 1988; Thompson, 1991; Bongaerts et al., 1995; Elliott, 1995; Moyer, 1999). And "nally there have been studies in which subjects were asked to repeat speech materials after hearinganativespeakermodel.Adirectrepetitiontechniquewas,forexample,usedby Snow&Hoefnagel-HoKhle(1977)orMarkham(1997).Flegeetal.(1995)andFlegeetal. 194 „. Piske et al. (1999b), on the other hand, used a delayed repetition technique to elicit L2 speech samples. Some researchers have used more than one elicitation technique (e.g., Oyama, 1976; Piper&Cansin,1988;Thompson,1991;Bongaertsetal.,1995;Markham,1997;Moyer, 1999).In mostinstances,analyseswerecarriedout to determineif degreeof L2 foreign accent varied as a function of type of elicitation. Both Oyama (1976) and Thompson (1991)reportedthat readspeech was judgedtobe morestronglyforeign-accentedthan extemporaneousspeech samples. Thismaybe due todi!erencesinreading ability.For example, the readings skills of immigrants who moved to an L2-speaking country relativelylateinlifemaybelimitedbecausetheyhavereceivedlittleeducationintheL2. Samplesof extemporaneousspeech may beproblematic,too. This is because they may containmorphosyntacticand lexicalerrors in#uencingthe foreign accent ratings given to nonnative speakers (Patkowski, 1990). In addition, subjects may be able to avoid di$cult L2 sounds, sound sequences or even words if they are asked to talk about something freely. For these reasons, more reliable measures of degree of L2 foreign accentmaybeobtainedifratersevaluatea"xedsetofmaterials(e.g.,sentences)thatwere elicitedbyusingadelayedrepetitiontechnique(fordetailsregardingthistechnique,see Section 3.1.2). 2.1.3. Rating techniquesused ThelistenerswhoevaluateL2speechinforeignaccentstudiesusuallyusearatingscale toindicatethedegreeofforeignaccenttheyperceiveinaspeechsample.Oneendofthe ratingscaleisreservedforoneextremecategoryusuallymarkedas&&native-likepronun- ciation’’or&&noforeignaccent’’,whereastheotherendofthescaleisreservedfortheother extremecategoryusuallymarkedas&&heavyforeignaccent’’or&&de"niteforeignaccent’’. The space between the two endpoints of a scale symbolizes degrees of foreign accent between the two extremes. The equal-appearing interval (EAI) scales used in previous studies have di!ered in resolution.A5-pointscalehasbeenusedmostcommonly(e.g.,Olson&Samuels,1973; Fathman, 1975; Oyama, 1976; Snow & Hoefnagel-HoKhle, 1977; Piper & Cansin, 1988; Patkowski,1980,1990;Thompson,1991;Bongaertsetal.,1995;Elliott,1995;Bongaerts etal.,1997).Othertypesofscalesthathavebeenusedinclude3-pointscales(e.g.,Tahta etal., 1981), 4-pointscales(e.g., Asher & GarcmHa, 1969),6-point scales(e.g., Suter, 1976; Moyer, 1999) and 9-point scales (e.g., Flege et al., 1999b; Guion, Flege & Loftin, 1999, 2000).Flege(1988),Flege&Fletcher(1992)andFlegeetal.(1995)employedacontinu- ousscaletoevaluateforeignaccent.Theratersrecruitedforthesestudieswereaskedto movealeveronaresponseboxovera10cmrange.Dependingonwheretheleverwas positionedavaluebetween0and255wasreturned.Theauthorsusedacontinuousscale because, at the time, it was uncertain how many scale values were needed to capture listeners’fullrangeofsensitivitytovariationsinL2foreignaccent.Studiesthatdidnot actually use rating scales were those of Neufeld (1979, 1980) and Markham (1997). In these studies, the raters were asked to classify subjects in terms of several native and nonnative categories. InviewofthefactthatnostandardscaleformeasuringdegreeofL2foreignaccenthas been developed so far, the question arises whether all scales ensure equally valid and reliablemeasuresofdegreeofL2foreignaccent.Southwood&Flege(1999)carriedout research to determine whether foreign accent is a metathetic continuum (i.e., a con- Degree of foreign accent in an ‚2 195 tinuumlikepitch thatcan be dividedinto equal intervalsranging fromhigh to low) or a prothetic continuum (i.e., a continuum like loudness that is not amenable to linear partitioning). They found that when judging native Italian speakers of English, native English listeners were able to partition L2 foreign accent into equal intervals. This indicated that foreign accentedness is a metathetic continuum, which means that it is appropriatetouseanEAIscaleinforeignaccentstudies(seealsoFig.1).Withregardto therangeofthescalevaluesthatareneededtoexploitlisteners’fullrangeofsensitivity, Southwood&Flege(1999)foundthata9-point(or11-point)scaleshouldbeusedtorate L2 speech samples for degree of foreign accent. Thenumbers ofraters usedin variousL2 foreignaccent studieshavedi!ereddrasti- cally,rangingfromjust1(Snow&Hoefnagel-HoKhle,1977)or2(e.g.,Olson&Samuels, 1973;Fathman,1975;Oyama,1976)to85(Neufeld,1979).Itisnotknownatpresenthow manyratersareneededtoprovideareliableestimateofdegreeofL2foreignaccent.The numberofratersneededmaydependontherangeofforeignaccentsrepresentedwithin a sample. For example, a larger number of raters may be needed to detect di!erences between groups of subjects representing only a small range of foreign accents. Oneimportantmethodologicalquestionpertainstothecharacteristicsofthelisteners calleduptoratespeechmaterialsfordegreeofL2foreignaccent.Insomestudies,namKve raters were recruited to evaluate speech samples (e.g., Asher & GarcmHa, 1969; Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Flege et al., 1995). In other studies, &&expert’’ raters such as linguists (e.g., Fathman, 1975) or ESL teachers (e.g., Piper & Cansin, 1988) have participated. Thompson(1991)reportedthatinexperiencedratersgenerallyperceivedahigherdegree ofL2foreignaccentinnonnativespeechthanexperiencedraters.Bongaertsetal.(1997), on the other hand, found no signi"cant di!erences between experienced and inexperi- encedraters.Itappears,then,thatarepresentativesampleofratersshouldberecruited and not one particular type of rater. 2.2. Factors claimed to a+ect degree of ‚2 foreign accent Giventhelargedi!erencesbetweenstudiesindesignandmethodology,itisprobablynot surprisingthat L2 foreignaccent studieshave at times producedresultsthat appear to con#ict.Thishasledresearcherstodrawratherdi!erentconclusionsaboutthein#uence thatcertainfactorshaveondegreeofL2foreignaccent.Inthefollowingparagraphswe willdiscussthefactorsthathavereceivedthemostattentionintheliterature.Theseare age of L2 learning, length of residence in an L2-speaking environment, gender, formal instruction, motivation, language learning aptitude and amount of L1/L2 use. 2.2.1 Age of ‚2 learning Itisoftenclaimedthatacriticalperiod(CP)existsforhumanspeechlearning.According totheCPhypothesis,completemasteryofanL2isnolongerpossibleiflearningbegins after the end of the putative CP (e.g., Lenneberg, 1967; Scovel, 1969, 1988; Patkowski, 1980,1990).AnumberofresearchershavesuggestedthattheremaybeseveralCPs,each a!ectingdi!erentlinguisticabilities(e.g.,Fathman,1975;Seliger,1978;Walsh&Diller, 1981;Long,1990;Hurford,1991).The"rstabilitytobelostwouldbetheoneneededto develop a native-like pronunciation of an L2. Individuals who began learning an L2 before the end of the CP for speech learning would have a much better pronunciation than would individuals"rst exposed to the L2 after the end of the CP. 196 „. Piske et al. InmanyL2foreignaccentstudies,subjects’ageof"rstexposuretotheL2,orwhatwe refer to here as AOL, has been indexed as the age at which the subjects "rst arrived *oftenasimmigrants*inapredominantlyL2-speakingcountry.Theresultsofthese L2foreignaccentstudiesdo,infact,supporttheviewthattheearlierinlifeonelearnsan L2,thebetteritwillbepronounced(Asher&GarcmHa,1969;Fathman,1975;Seligeretal., 1975; Suter, 1976; Oyama, 1976; Tahta et al., 1981; Piper & Cansin, 1988; Flege, 1988; Patkowski,1990;Thompson,1991;Flege&Fletcher,1992;Flegeetal.,1995;Flegeetal., 1999b; Moyer, 1999). CP e!ects have usually been attributed to an age-related loss of neural plasticity or to some sort of neurofunctional reorganization that occurs during development (e.g., Lenneberg, 1967; Scovel, 1969; Lamendella, 1977; Neville, Mills &Lawson,1992).Alternatively,ithasbeensuggestedthatage-relatedchangesindegree of L2 foreign accent result from the nature and the extent of the interaction between a bilingual’s L1 and L2 systems (e.g., Oyama, 1979; Flege, 1987, 1988, 1995, 1998a; Bialystok, 1997). According to this latter approach, age is an index of the state of development of the L1 system. The more fully developed the L1 system is when L2 learning commences, the more strongly the L1 will in#uence the L2. Afewstudieshavepointedtowhatnowseemstobeaparadoxicale!ect,thatis,better performance by late than early learners of an L2 (e.g., Olson & Samuels, 1973; Snow &Hoefnagel-HoKhle,1977).Snow&Hoefnagel-HoKhle(1977),forexample,reportedthat older native English children and adults were better able to imitate Dutch sounds in individual words than were younger children when tested 6 weeks after arriving in the Netherlands.However,by 10}11 months after arriving in the Netherlandsthe younger childrenbegantooutperformtheolderlearnersinpronouncingatleastsomeL2sounds. Fromresultslikethese,Long(1990)concludedthatadultandadolescentlearnersmight haveaninitialrateadvantageoveryoungerchildreninL2pronunciationability,albeit an advantage that is only temporary. AccordingtotheCPhypothesis,thereshouldbeacleardi!erencebetweentheforeign accentratingsobtainedforindividualswhobeganlearningtheL2beforevs.aftertheend ofaCP(e.g.,Lenneberg,1967;Scovel,1969,1988;Patkowski,1980,1990).Anumberof studies have shown, however, that the relationship between AOL and degree of L2 foreignaccent is linear withoutany sharp discontinuitiesnear the beginning of adoles- cence (e.g., Oyama, 1976; Flege, 1995; Flege et al., 1999b). The "nding that there is agradualincreaseindegreeofL2foreignaccentledbothOyama(1976)andLong(1990) to suggest that there is a &&sensitive’’ rather than a &&critical’’ period for L2 learning. Unfortunately, the two terms &&critical period’’ and &&sensitive period’’ are often used interchangeablyintheL2literature.Thedi!erencesbetweenthetwoconceptsshouldbe noted, however. Di!erent suggestions have been made as to when the putative critical or sensitive periodforL2speechlearningends.Scovel(1988)suggestedthataCPendsattheageof 12years.AccordingtoPatkowski(1990),aCPendsattheageof15years.Onthebasisof a literaturereview,Long(1990) inferredthat an L2 is usually spokenaccent-freeif it is learned by the age of 6 years. Foreign accents would, however, be present in most individualswhobeginlearningtheL2aftertheageof12years.Long’sview(1990)that learnerswithanAOLoflessthan6yearsaremuchmorelikelytospeakanL2without a foreign accentthan are adolescent or adult L2 learners is supported by the results of a number of studies (e.g., Tahta et al., 1981; Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Flege et al., 1995). However, a few studies have also shown that an AOL of less than 6 years does not automaticallylead to accent-free L2 speech. For example, Flege et al. (1997) examined Degree of foreign accent in an ‚2 197 the foreign accent ratings given to two groups of early Italian-English bilinguals that werematchedforaverageAOL(mean"6yr)butthatdi!eredsigni"cantlyinamountof L1(Italian)use.BothgroupsofearlybilingualsspokeEnglishsentenceswithadetectable foreignaccent.Whenaseparateanalysiswascarriedoutforthesubjectswiththelowest AOL in the study (mean"3.2yr), even this group of subjects was found to have adetectableforeignaccentinEnglish.Similarly,Thompson(1991)reportedthatsomeof the raters recruited for her study detected a slight foreign accent in the L2 speech producedbytwonativespeakersofRussianwhohadbegunlearningtheL2(English)at the age of 4 years. Just as evidence accumulates that some early bilinguals will speak their L2 with a detectable foreign accent, a number of studies have provided evidence that some L2 learners with AOLs of over 12 years may avoid speaking their L2 with a detectable foreign accent. For example, Moyer (1999) identi"ed a native English subject with an AOLof22yearswhoobtainedameanratinginGermanthatwashigherthantherating giventooneoffournativeGermancontrolsubjects.InastudybyBongaertsetal.(1997), "ve adult learners of English were given ratings comparable to the ones obtained for native English control subjects. According to the authors, the subjects’ "rst extensive exposuretoBritishEnglishhadoccurredattheageof18yearsorlater.Flegeetal.(1995) reportedthat6%of120nativespeakersofItalianwhohadbegunlearningEnglishafter theageof12yearsperformedinanative-likerange.However,noneofthesehadbegun learning English after the age of 16 years. Insummary,previousforeignaccentresearchhasshownthatearlylearnersspeakL2 with a lower degree of foreign accent than late learners. However, no study has as yet provided convincing evidence for the claim that L2 speech will automatically be ac- cent-free if it is learned before the age of about 6 years and that it will de"nitely be foreign-accented if learned after puberty. It thus appears that factors other than AOL alsohavean in#uenceon degreeof L2 foreignaccent. Moreover,as has been noted by Flege (e.g., 1987, 1998b), the age e!ects found in L2 studies are di$cult to interpret because AOL is typically confounded with other variables that are likely to a!ect the pronunciationofanL2.Theseconfoundedvariablesinclude,forexample,chronological age,length of residencein an L2-speakingenvironmentandamount of L1 and L2 use. 2.2.2. ‚ength of residence The variable examined most frequently in studies of L2 foreign accent has been AOL. Thenext most frequently studied variablehas been amountof L2 experience.In many L2studies,thisvariablehasbeenoperationalizedas&&lengthofresidence’’(LOR),which speci"es the number of years spent in a community where the L2 is the predominant language. Previous research has produced con#icting evidence concerning the import- ance of LOR for L2 pronunciation accuracy. The discrepancies across studies may be due,inpart,tothefactthatLORonlyprovidesaroughindexofoverallL2experience. Studiesthathavereportedan in#uenceof LORondegree ofL2 foreignaccent include Asher&GarcmHa(1969),Purcell&Suter(1980),Flege&Fletcher(1992),Flegeetal.(1995) andFlegeetal.(1999b).However,therearealsoseveralstudiesthathavenotfoundan e!ectofLOR.ThesestudiesincludeOyama(1976),Tahtaetal.(1981),Flege(1988),Piper and Cansin (1988), Thompson (1991), Elliott (1995) and Moyer (1999). Five studies by Flege and his colleagues (Flege, 1988; Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Flege etal.,1995;Riney&Flege,1998;Meador,Flege&MacKay,2000)providedabasisfor 198 „. Piske et al. understanding why some studies found an LOR e!ect, whereas others did not. Flege (1988) examined two groups of adult native Taiwanese learners of English di!ering in LOR (1.1 vs 5.1yr). The foreign accent ratings obtained for these two groups did not di!ersigni"cantly.Flege(1988)interpretedthisas supportfor thehypothesisthatafter arapidinitialphaseoflearning,LORdoesnota!ectthedegreeofL2foreignaccentof individuals who began learning the L2 as adults (see, e.g., Oyama, 1976; Tahta et al., 1981).Flege & Fletcher (1992) investigatedEnglish sentencesspoken by two groups of lateSpanish}Englishbilingualsdi!eringin LORin theUS(0.7 vs. 14.3yr).The experi- enced subjects received signi"cantly higher ratings than those with less experience. However,LORwasnotidenti"edasasigni"cantpredictorofdegreeofL2foreignaccent inamultipleregressionanalysis(whichidenti"edAOLasthemostimportantpredictor of degree of L2 foreign accent). Flege & Fletcher (1992) concluded that LOR is a less importantdeterminantofdegreeofL2foreignaccentthanAOLis.Theyalsosuggested that some previous studies probably did not "nd a signi"cant LOR e!ect because the range of LOR values examined was too narrow. They suggested that their Spanish subjects, but not the native Taiwanese subjects examined by Flege (1988), showed an e!ectofLORbecausetheSpanishsubjectshadlivedforashorterperiodoftimeinthe US than the inexperienced Taiwanesesubjects (0.7yr, S.D."0.3 vs. 1.1yr, S.D."0.7). ResultsobtainedbyFlegeetal.(1995),Riney&Flege(1998)andMeadoretal.(2000) supportedtheconclusiondrawnearlierbyFlege(1988,seealsoOyama,1976;Tahtaet al., 1981) that the size of LOR e!ects depends on whether subjects are still in an early phase of L2 learning or not. In the study by Flege et al. (1995), 10 native speakers of Canadian English used a continuous rating scale (see Section 2.1.3) to evaluate short Englishsentencesthathadbeenproducedby240nativeItaliansubjects.62ofthese240 native Italian subjects were re-recorded by Meador et al. (2000) 4 years later. The 62 subjects had arrived in Canada at an average age of 11 years and had been living in Canada for an average of 35 years. Foreign accent ratings were obtained for these subjectsby "ve newlisteners,whouseda9-pointscale rangingfrom&&strongestforeign accent’’ to &&native English-no accent’’. The two sets of foreign accent ratings obtained for the 62 native Italian subjects are shown in Fig. 1. The y-axis shows the mean ratings obtained using a 9-point scale by Meadoret al. (2000),and the x-axis shows the mean continuous-scaleratings obtained forthesamesubjectsbyFlegeetal.(1995).Thestrengthofthecorrelationofthetwosets ofratings(r(60)"0.94,p(0.001)issurprising,fortwothingswerenecessary.First,the two sets of listeners who evaluated recordings made at 2 times had to scale degree of foreignaccentinacomparablewaydespitethefactthatdi!erentscalingproceduresand speechmaterialswereused.Second,thesubjects’relativedegreeofforeignaccenthadto remain constant across the 4 years that separated the recordings. The strength of the correlation shown in Fig. 1 should reassure those who have expressed skepticism that overall degree of perceivedforeign accent can be scaled reliably (e.g., Markham, 1997). And it shows that, for subjects who are highly experienced in their L2, an additional 4 years of experience using the L2 are unlikely to alter degree of L2 foreign accent. The"ndingjustreporteddoesnotmean,however,thatdegreeofforeignaccentnever changes. Riney & Flege (1998) recorded 11 native Japanese speakers at International ChristianUniversityinTokyoduringtheirfreshmanyear(T1)andsenioryear(T2).T1 andT2wereseparatedby42months.Englishsentencesproducedbythestudentswere ratedbynativespeakersofEnglishlivinginBirmingham,Alabama.Sentencesspokenby three students receivedsigni"cantly higher ratingsat T2 than at T1. Of these, two had Degree of foreign accent in an ‚2 199 Figure1. Themeanforeignaccentratingsobtainedfor62nativeItalianlearners ofEnglishin1992usingacontinuousratingscale(seeFlegeetal.,1995)andin 1996usinga9-pointratingscale(seeMeadoretal.,2000). residedinCaliforniaforanacademicyear.The"ndingofRiney&Flege(1998)therefore supportsthehypothesisthat,inearlyphasesofL2 learning,additionalexperiencewith the L2 may lead to a signi"cant decrease in degree of L2 foreign accent. In summary, not every study has shown a signi"cant e!ect of LOR on degree of L2 foreign accent. In those studies where an LOR e!ect was found, LOR was a less importantpredictor of degree of L2 foreign accent than AOL. Apparently, an e!ect of LORismuchmorelikelytobefoundifthegroupsofL2learnersexamineddi!ergreatly intermsofmeanLORvalues.AsshownbyFlege&Fletcher(1992),adultlearnersmay showane!ectofLORifagroupofsubjectswithLORsoflessthan1yeariscomparedto a group with LORs of several years. Moreover, for highly experienced subjects, addi- tionalyearsofexperienceintheL2appeartobeunlikelytoleadtoasigni"cantdecrease in degree of L2 foreign accent. In the early phases of L2 learning, on the other hand, additional experience in the L2 may well lead to less foreign-accented L2 speech. However,atpresentitisnotpossibletode"nepreciselywhatismeantby&&earlyphase’’. This is because no study in the existing literature has examined changes in degree of foreign accent in a longitudinal design. 2.2.3. Gender Previousresearchhasprovideddivergent"ndingsconcerningthein#uenceofgenderon degree of L2 foreign accent. Asher & GarcmHa (1969) found that female children and adolescents obtained higher ratings than age-matched males did. The e!ect of gender becameweakerwhenAOL-de"nedsubgroupswereconsidered.Thedi!erencesbetween 200 „. Piske et al. maleandfemalelearnersweregreatestforindividualswithanAOLof1}6years.Asher &GarcmHa(1969)alsofoundthatgenderdi!erencesdiminishedasLORincreased.Tahta etal.(1981)examinedsubjectswithAOLsofover6years.Theauthorsidenti"edgender as a signi"cant predictor of degree of L2 foreign accent, with women receiving higher ratingsthanmen.AnalysesofAOL-de"nedsubgroupsindicatedthatthee!ectofgender wasduetosubjectswhohadbegunlearningtheL2aftertheageof13years.Inastudyby Thompson (1991), females also received higher ratings than males, with gender ac- counting for 11% of the variance in degree of L2 foreign accent. Most studies have not identi"ed gender as a signi"cant predictor of degree of L2 foreignaccent(e.g.,Olson&Samuels,1973;Suter,1976;Snow&Hoefnagel-HoKhle,1977; Purcell&Suter,1980;Flege&Fletcher,1992;Elliott,1995).Flegeetal.(1995)foundthat gendere!ectsdi!ereddependingonAOL.FemalesubjectswithAOLslessthan12years received higher ratings than males, whereas males with AOLs greater than 16 years receivedhigherratingsthanfemales.Flegeetal.(1995)carriedoutANOVAsexamining the responses given to questionnaire items by female and male subjects matched for AOL, but were unable to provide a straightforward account of the gender}AOL interaction. In summary, the results obtained for gender do not lead to any strong conclusions. Some studies reported a signi"cant in#uence of gender, whereas others did not. The majority of the studies that identi"ed gender as a signi"cant predictor of degree of L2 foreignaccentfound that femalesusually receivedhigherratings than males. However, twostudies(Asher&GarcmHa,1969;Flegeetal.,1995)suggestedthatthee!ectofgender may vary as a function of AOL and amount of L2 experience. 2.2.4. Formal instruction Many studies examining the in#uence of formal instruction on degree of L2 foreign accenthavenotproducedencouragingresultsforlanguageteachers.Studiesthatdidnot identify instructional variables as signi"cant predictors of degree of L2 foreign accent includeThompson(1991),Elliott(1995),Flegeetal.(1995)andFlegeetal.(1999b).Flege & Fletcher (1992) identi"ed &&number of years of English-language instruction’’ as asigni"cantpredictorofdegreeofL2foreignaccentbutitaccountedforonly5%ofthe variance in the foreign accent ratings obtained for native Spanish learners of English. Twoinstructionalvariableswereidenti"edassigni"cantpredictorsofL2pronunciation accuracybySuter(1976).Itisnoteworthy,however,thatoneofthesevariables,i.e.,total amountofformalclassroomtraininginEnglish,wasfoundtobeinverselyrelatedtoL2 pronunciationaccuracy. L2 pronunciation receives little attention in most foreign language classrooms. This mightexplainwhyinstructionalvariablesseemtohavehadsolittlee!ectinthestudies justcited.Theresultsofthreestudiesindicatethatinstructionalvariablesmaybefound to have a larger e!ect on degree of L2 foreign accent if the subjects received special training in L2 pronunciation. Bongaerts et al. (1997) identi"ed "ve late learners of English who received ratings in English that were comparable to those obtained for nativespeakersofEnglish.Accordingtotheauthors,thesehighlysuccessfulL2learners had all received (unspeci"ed) intensive training in the perception and production of Englishsounds.Moyer(1999) examinednativeEnglishspeakersof German.Shefound that those subjects who had received both suprasegmental and segmental training obtainedratingsthatwereclosertotherangeofratingsobtainedfornativespeakersof

Description:
Page 1. Journal of Phonetics (2001) 29, 191}215 doi:10.006/jpho.2001.0134. Available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on. Factors a4ecting
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.