Cargando…

Variability in L2 Vowel Production: Different Elicitation Methods Affect Individual Speakers Differently

Elicitation methods are known to influence second language speech production. For teachers and language assessors, awareness of such effects is essential to accurate interpretations of testing outcomes. For speech researchers, understanding why one method gives better performance than another may yi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Munro, Murray J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9326214/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35910947
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.916736
_version_ 1784757232371499008
author Munro, Murray J.
author_facet Munro, Murray J.
author_sort Munro, Murray J.
collection PubMed
description Elicitation methods are known to influence second language speech production. For teachers and language assessors, awareness of such effects is essential to accurate interpretations of testing outcomes. For speech researchers, understanding why one method gives better performance than another may yield insights into how second-language phonological knowledge is acquired, stored, and retrieved. Given these concerns, this investigation compared L2 vowel intelligibility on two elicitation tasks and determined the degree to which differences generalized across vowels, vowels in context, lexical items, and individual speakers. The dependent variable was the intelligibility of Cantonese speakers' productions of English /i I u ℧/ in varying phonetic environments. In a picture-naming task, the speakers produced responses without an auditory prompt. In a second task–interrupted repetition–they heard exemplars of the same targets without pictures, and repeated each one after counting aloud to 10, a step intended to disrupt their short-term auditory store and therefore prevent simple mimicry. For target words with scores below 80% on picture naming, mean intelligibility was more than 10 points higher on interrupted repetition. However, that difference did not generalize across conditions or across speakers. Thus, although it is technically accurate to say that, on average, interrupted repetition yielded better vowel intelligibility than did picture naming, that observation requires a great deal of qualification, particularly because of individual speaker differences. The outcomes are interpreted in terms of their relevance to language assessment and phonetic learning.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9326214
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93262142022-07-28 Variability in L2 Vowel Production: Different Elicitation Methods Affect Individual Speakers Differently Munro, Murray J. Front Psychol Psychology Elicitation methods are known to influence second language speech production. For teachers and language assessors, awareness of such effects is essential to accurate interpretations of testing outcomes. For speech researchers, understanding why one method gives better performance than another may yield insights into how second-language phonological knowledge is acquired, stored, and retrieved. Given these concerns, this investigation compared L2 vowel intelligibility on two elicitation tasks and determined the degree to which differences generalized across vowels, vowels in context, lexical items, and individual speakers. The dependent variable was the intelligibility of Cantonese speakers' productions of English /i I u ℧/ in varying phonetic environments. In a picture-naming task, the speakers produced responses without an auditory prompt. In a second task–interrupted repetition–they heard exemplars of the same targets without pictures, and repeated each one after counting aloud to 10, a step intended to disrupt their short-term auditory store and therefore prevent simple mimicry. For target words with scores below 80% on picture naming, mean intelligibility was more than 10 points higher on interrupted repetition. However, that difference did not generalize across conditions or across speakers. Thus, although it is technically accurate to say that, on average, interrupted repetition yielded better vowel intelligibility than did picture naming, that observation requires a great deal of qualification, particularly because of individual speaker differences. The outcomes are interpreted in terms of their relevance to language assessment and phonetic learning. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9326214/ /pubmed/35910947 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.916736 Text en Copyright © 2022 Munro. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Munro, Murray J.
Variability in L2 Vowel Production: Different Elicitation Methods Affect Individual Speakers Differently
title Variability in L2 Vowel Production: Different Elicitation Methods Affect Individual Speakers Differently
title_full Variability in L2 Vowel Production: Different Elicitation Methods Affect Individual Speakers Differently
title_fullStr Variability in L2 Vowel Production: Different Elicitation Methods Affect Individual Speakers Differently
title_full_unstemmed Variability in L2 Vowel Production: Different Elicitation Methods Affect Individual Speakers Differently
title_short Variability in L2 Vowel Production: Different Elicitation Methods Affect Individual Speakers Differently
title_sort variability in l2 vowel production: different elicitation methods affect individual speakers differently
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9326214/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35910947
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.916736
work_keys_str_mv AT munromurrayj variabilityinl2vowelproductiondifferentelicitationmethodsaffectindividualspeakersdifferently