accommodation and hyperaccommodation in foreign language learners: contrasting responses to french...

Language & Communication, Vol. 12, No. 3/4, pp. 295-315, 1992. Printed in Great Britain.

0271-5309/92 $5.00 + 0.00 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd

ACCOMMODATION AND HYPERACCOMMODATION IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNERS: CONTRASTING

RESPONSES TO FRENCH AND SPANISH ENGLISH SPEAKERS BY NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE RECIPIENTS

PETER GARRETT

Introduction Even at fairly advanced stages of foreign language learning, where a foreign language learner’s communication becomes more ‘interactional’. embracing ‘the need of the speaker and learner to feel valued and approved of’ (Richards, 1983. p.l17), a learner will almost certainly still have, in a general sense, a ‘foreign accent’. Defined as a ‘variety of pronunciation’ by Hughes and Trudgill (lY79. p. 2), accent for the foreign learner can be more specifically considered a foreign variety more or less approximating a native variety. because it will contain some of the pronunciation characteristics of the first language (henceforth, Ll) (Leather, 1983, p. 203).

Much of the evaluative research into foreign language learners’ interlanguage has tended to focus on judgements of such deviations from target language norms in terms of error gravity. Typically, specific erroneous linguistic features are isolated, and presented to evaluators. Usually, such features are extracted from written data and are often, though not always, presented in written form (see review in Eisenstein, 1983). While some have investigated the reactions of only native speaker (henceforth, NS) judges (Hultfors, 1987), other studies have compared the reactions of NS and non-native speaker (henceforth, NNS) judges, and found the latter more severe in their judgements, employing different criteria and often focusing on different linguistic features compared with NS judgements (James, 1977: Hughes and Lascaratou, 1982; Sheorey. 1986). These judges have usually been teachers of the particular foreign language.

This teacher and error-gravity focus has meant that the studies have largely addressed the question of how students’ foreign language products are, or might be graded, though in the case of Hultfors (1987), suitable targets of accuracy have been considered for foreigners with different roles in an NS context (tourist, secretary, manager). Evaluations of linguistic deviations have therefore tended to be measured in degrees of severity. Potential favourable reactions to learners’ deviations from the target standard have not been a great focus of interest (but see Albrechtsen et al., 1980); nor is the possibility generally entertained that mastery of native speaker varieties, for example, U.K. ‘received pronunciation’ (henceforth, RP) might carry potential losses as well as gains (Coupland, 1990).

From the now long-established field of speech evaluation research (see reviews in Giles et al., 1987a; Giles and Coupland, 1991), it is clear that learners will be judged not

Correspondence relating to this paper should be addressed to Mr Peter Garrett. Linguistics Department. University of Wales Bangor, Bangor. Gwynedd LLS7 2DG. U.K.

2% PETER GARRETT

only according to the formal accuracy of their speech or the intelligibility of their message. They will also project an array of favourable and unfavourable personality traits. which will vary in subtle but semiotically important ways from one variety to another. Though there has been much attention paid to such effects in bilingual, second language contexts (see review in Ryan, 1983). studies of these effects in relation to foreign language learners (e.g. Albrechtsen rt al., 1980) are relatively scarce. Yet knowledge of these kinds of communicative effects is undoubtedly of considerable value to foreign language teachers and learners. and not least in setting targets for foreign language teaching.

Nor should such knowledge be confined to effects on teachers. If the function of language teaching is to prepare learners for communication outside the classroom, then effects on people from various walks of life need to be explored, and with widely used languages such as English, where NNSs are often more likely to be using it with other NNSs than with NSs, the communicative effects on NNSs will be at least as important as those on NSs.

Giles (1970), using the matched-guise technique (Lambert. 1967), investigated native British English reactions to a variety of English accents (foreign. U.K. urban, LJ.K. rural and RP) across three dimensions (pleasantness, comfort. and prestige) and found marked differences in reactions to some of the foreign accents. In addition, a pilot study by Garrett (1984) (a replication of Giles, 1970. using older subjects with a broader variety of U.K. geographical affiliations) identified two (French and Spanish) accents of English, which received starkly contrasting judgements across all three of the above dimensions. It seems likely then that the pronunciation characteristics of the Ll that are carried over into the learner’s second language pronunciation have some influence on evaluations.

Both the French and Spanish accents mentioned above could reasonably be described as ‘broad’. Since reactions to accent have been found to differ according to mildness and broadness (e.g. Ryan et al., 1977; Brennan and Brennan, 1981). studies of foreign learners’ accents should also take the degree of accentedness into account. Such gradations. however, cannot realistically be seen purely in terms of points along a standard scale from ‘very broad’ to ‘native-like’ standard pronunciation. The latter is in any event a goal that is not attainable for most learners (Selinker, 1972. p. 212: Johansson, 1978. p. 112: Kenworthy, 1987, p. 3: Gimson 1989, p. 314). Furthermore. other types of speech behaviour, which do not lie comfortably on such linear scales. also occur. Roach (1983). for example, notes:

for foreign learners. a typical situation-regrettably an almost inevitable one-is that they learn a ;t’y;e of pronunciation which could be described as careful or formal (p. IhO).

There is. in effect, a learner style of pronunciation, then, which sounds somewhat over- articulated and unassimilated to NS ears. The causes and sociolinguistic nature of such speech styles deserve further investigation. The ‘impossible model of perfection’ often set by teachers (Cook, 1979, p. 168) may play a role and, in terms of accommodation theory (Giles and Powesland, 1975), learners’ convergence to it. Monitor overuse (Krashen, 1981, p. lSf), too, has been claimed to lead to an ‘overcareful style of speaking’ and an ‘overconcern with correctness’.

Conceptually, though, there is potential confusion here. What is this ‘impossible model of perfection’? What kind of ‘correctness’ are such learners over-concerned with?

ACCOMMODATION AND HYPERACCOMMODATION 297

Presumably, one that does not lead towards normal NS pronunciation but rather to a degree of over-articulation that might be described as hypercorrection.

But this ‘unassimilated hypercorrection’ is not the linguistic hypercorrection we find described by Labov (1972). This latter hypercorrection found, for example, in the New York lower middle class, was based on excessive frequency of production of overtly or covertly prestigious phonological variables, and this was thus quantitative rather than intrinsic in nature.

Nida (1956, p. 10) refers to the extreme concern of some second language learners to speak prestigious varieties. Developing the knowledge to discriminate between the relative statuses of language varieties is an integral part of the acquisition of communicative competence, as indeed is the development of an awareness of other language attitudes (Day, 1982, p. 116). The ability to make finer distinctions between varieties is doubtless more difficult to attain (e.g. Platt and Weber, 1984). Non- native learners of English who have RP as their target, knowing that this variety of pronunciation has high acceptability and considerable prestige (Gimson, 1989, p. 316), may be unaware of any significant distinction between ‘general’, ‘conservative’ and ‘advanced’ RPs (p. 88) and/or their respective differing social meanings.

Advanced RP is a somewhat ‘exclusive’ variety, used for high prestige value in certain social and professional groups in the U.K. Foreign learners aiming at RP, but taking this particular variety as their target, might also be seen as hypercorrecting, not in the ‘over- articulated’ sense, nor in the Labovian sense of the frequency of production of specific prestigious phonological forms, but this time in the sense of the social exclusiveness of the specific variety itself.

For whichever reason linguistic hypercorrection is produced, in different people, it may take different forms, yet to be investigated. Nevertheless, reactions to such learner styles are of equal importance to reactions to the mild and broad variants. The present study explores evaluative judgements of this last type of hypercorrection.

Judgements of learners’ low convergence to target language norms (accent broadness), or their higher convergence (accent mildness), or hyperaccommodation (hypercorrection) are likely to be affected by judges’ perceptions of learners’ repertoires: i.e. whether their current level of proficiency allows style selection and accommodation shifts (Beebe and Giles, 1984). Error studies (see above) suggest NSs are more tolerant than NNSs of linguistic deviation from target norms. This would lead one to expect that they would look more favourably than NNSs on a broad-accented (but intelligible) learner, giving the benefit of the doubt where the listener is uncertain of the speaker’s ability to make shifts (but cf. Brennan and Brennan, 1981). Less difference in NS and NNS judgements might be expected in cases of mild accentedness. Hypercorrection might evoke negative reactions from NSs, if they (NSs) are anxious to preserve their superior status (Beebe and Giles, 1984) and maintain a gap between themselves and the ‘out group’ of NNSs (Edwards, 1976; Giles et al., 1977, p. 332ff). NNS judges, as members of the outgroup, would not share these grounds for negative evaluation.

The null hypotheses for the study reported below are: (1) That there are no differences between judgements by NSs and NNSs. (2) That there are no differences between the judgements of French and Spanish

accented speakers of English.

748 PETEK GARREIT

(3) That there are no differences between the judgements of broad vs mild vs hypercorrect accent variants.

Method A modified matched-guise technique was employed. The matched-guise technique,

which was first introduced in a study by Lambert et al., (lY60), involves asking listener judges to listen to recordings of a series of different people, although, unknown to them. they are presented with the speech of the same person producing the same text in more than one variety or code. Such stimulus control is aimed at keeping paralinguistic features (e.g. speech rate, pitch) constant. However, where it is not practicable to find an individual to produce all of the varieties required for a specific study some degree of stimulus control has to be sacrificed through modifications to the technique (see, for example, El-Dash and Tucker, 1975). In the present study. the technique was modified to include a male and female speaker (cf. Levin. in prep.) of each Ll (French and Spanish), each producing three accent categories: broad, mild and hypercorrect. Although this necessarily resulted in some loss of stimulus control, and thus led to additional variation between the speech samples, there were compensatory gains in coverage (male and female), in authenticity, and in accuracy (Masterson et al., 1983).

Materials preparation: the accented speech samples A 64-word ‘factually neutral’ passage was recorded, read by two French (Paris) and

two Spanish (Madrid) speakers of English, one male and one female in each case. Each of the speakers had spent some time residing in England and usually spoke fluent English with a mild accent. The readers were asked to read the passage in their usual mild accent first, and then to read in a broad accent, as if reverting to an early stage in their proficiency. Finally they were asked to read it as if they wished to indicate high social position in the U.K., their attention being drawn particularly to specific stressed RP vowel sounds. A description of these accented speech samples is set out below. Speech rates were kept constant at 12X words per minute for all speech samples in order to eliminate their possible effects on listener evaluations (Street and Brady, 1982).

Several samples of each variant were recorded. A selection of the readings was then played to 20 NS postgraduate and undergraduate students and university technicians. with an age range of 18-44 producing a mean of 25. They were asked to place each reading into one of four accent categories: broad, mild. hypercorrect. no foreign accent.

The accent specimens on which these 20 judges were in strong agreement in their categorizations were then arranged in differing random orders on four tapes. along with two RP (one NS male, one NS female version). After each speech sample instructions were included to the listener to stop the tape and fill in the questionnaire, after which the next voice was introduced by its number. Thus recognition of recurring people was impeded.

In the preparation of the hypercorrect accents, readers’ attention was drawn to four RP vowels: IaIl. /eIl. /oU/, and /al. and their realizations in advanced RP. Advanced forms of /aI/ and /eI/ tend towards extra length in the first element with relatively little vocalic glide, leading respectively to [a:] (with a slight movement to [z]) and [g:] (Gimson. 1989, p. 129ff). /oU/ has a nucleus relatively more forward in advanced RP, tending towards [e:] or [c:] (p. 135), while /a~/ tends to be realized as [e:]

(p. 10X). Tables 1 and 2 show the extent to which these hypercorrect forms were

ACCOMMODATION AND HYPERACCOMMODATION ?YY

realized in the three categories of accentedness produced by the French and Spanish speakers.

Table 1, Hypercorrect variables produced in the French accents

English Example sound word

Occurrence in three guises

RP realization Hyper-realization Broad Mild Hyper N:’

ire/ /aI/

ieli

lo”/

have

by

day

motion

[=I [&I 0 0 2 4

[atI [a:?] 0 0 I 0 14

[et1 [c:l 0 0 4 10 ]a”] I&J1 0 0 2 6

Total: 0 0 IX 34

*Maximum possible number of occurrences.

Table 2. Hypercorrect variables produced in the Spanish accents

English sound

Example word


RP realization Hyper-realization Broad Mild Hyper N*

have

by

day motion

[=I I&l 0 I 3 4

[atI [a::] 0 0 8 I4

[Jl [=I 0 0 8 10

WJ] [c”l 0 0 3 6

Total: 0 I 22 34

*Maximum possible number of occurrences

In the cases of the broad and mild French and Spanish accents, the speakers were given only the most general guidance, as mentioned above, with no particular phonological features drawn to their notice. Hence Tables 3 and 4 contain figures for accented sounds produced in response to this broad instruction and, in contrast to the hypercorrect variables, these were not pre-selected for the speakers to focus concentration on. As these two tables suggest, the sounds produced in these variants were much in keeping with available descriptions of such French (Kenworthy, 1987; Walter, 1987) and Spanish (Coe, 1987; Finch and Ortiz Lira, 1982; Kenworthy, 1987) learner English. For both French and Spanish speakers, /I/, /a~/, and /oU/ changed in similar ways (although Standard Continental French speakers may in fact realize /aY as [a] or [cl---, depending on how they perceive it (Walter, 1987, p. 44); in part, this is a function of their precise target variety of English, the variety of French they are starting from, and/or the stage of their interlanguage). Vowel differences showed up more in the diphthongs /aI/ and /ef/ in the recorded text, with the second element, in the Spanish case, tending to be stronger than in RP (Coe, 1987, p. 73). The French vowel system has none of the above diphthongs, though there can be adjacent vowels producing an effect bearing some resemblance to the English diphthongs on occasions (MacCarthy, 1975, p. 61).

300 PETER GARRE’I~I

Consonant cluster reduction is a feature that distinguishes Spanish from French English. The reductions recorded in Table 4 occurred in: its, axis, length, and sixty.

Cluster reduction led to the following respective pronunciations: [is], [asis], [lcn]. and [s&i].

Table 3. Broad variables in the French accents


English Example Broad Broad Mild Hyper N* sound word realization

iI/

!af

iafl ICI/ dJ/ Idi

/Hi

/r/

dark/i!

ihl

this

have

by

day

motion

the

earth

rotate

1cll

have

IO 0

2 0

6 5

6 2

2 0

5 0

I 0 x 3 2 0 2 0

40

4

I3

IO

6

IX

6

16

4

2

Total: 44 10 0 120

*Maximum possible number of occurrences

Table 4. Broad variables in the Spanish accents


English Example Broad Broad Mild Wper N”

sound word realization

this

have

by

day

motion

is

r01L3tfJ

have

Cluster simplifications

7

4

4

3

5

IO

9

1

7

40

4

13

10

6

18

I6

2

IO

Total: 50 23 6 116

*Maximum possible number of occurrences.

Tables l-4 do not, needless to say, contain an exhaustive list of all the features of French and Spanish accented English present in the accent samples. Even complete phonetic transcriptions would usually not provide such comprehensive information. Nevertheless, the quantified and tabulated variables, selected on the basis of their documentation in the linguistic literature mentioned above, and native speaker listener

ACCOMMODATlONANDHYPERACCOMMODATlON 301

intuitions regarding which of these best characterize the recorded samples, provide a good reflection of the accent differences.

One or two words need to be added as regards prosodic features, however. Such features are, of course, far more difficult to tabulate in the above fashion. Moreover, it is not always clear to what such features should be attributed. Transfer from other languages (e.g. Ll) or varieties may play a role, but intonation patterns might also reflect a speaker’s attitude or their grammatical interpretation of what they are reading as much in the foreign language as in the Ll (which raises questions, of course, about whether texts can be factually neutral). Nevertheless, some of the more salient features in the accents require a mention here.

Amongst such features characteristic of French learners of English are, firstly, a tendency for less vowel reduction in unstressed syllables and, secondly, despite an intonation relatively similar in many respects to English, a tendency towards step-like movements rather than glides (Walter, 1987, p. 45). These were both present in the broad French variants (though the latter feature was noticeable only in that produced by the female), whereas neither was discernible in the mild accents. Thus the decreased presence of broad features as speakers moved to mild variants, which is evident in Tables 3 and 4, is also reflected in this prosodic area.

The pattern for the Spanish speakers was similar. Salient prosodic features for European Spanish speakers of English include, firstly, the same tendency as French speakers regarding the lack of vowel reduction. Secondly, there tends to be a more ‘even’ sentence rhythm than in NS English, resulting in an absence of the typical prominences of English and, thirdly, there is often a tendency to use a narrower pitch range, which can produce a somewhat bored effect (Coe, 1987). Again, while all three of these were present in the broad variant category, only the female produced the third feature (to a lesser extent in her mild variant too), along with a somewhat staccato. word-by-word rhythm. This rather reflects another pattern evident in Tables 3 and 4; namely that accents which the judges allocated to the same accent category inevitably varied somewhat in their precise qualities of broadness, mildness, etc.

It will be noticed, then, that of the above-mentioned broad variants, the Spanish realized them slightly more than the French speakers. This may in part be attributed to the fact that the French speakers had spent longer in the U.K., had apparently become more integrated into NS circles and had more deeply assimilated NS speech features. The seemingly paradoxical ability of the Spanish speakers to more than bold their own in the hypercorrect guises (Tables 1 and 2) can perhaps be explained by the fact that the speakers’ attention was drawn in this case to only a few specific vowel sounds.

Materials preparation: the judgement scales A questionnaire was prepared containing the following questions: (1) How pleasant does this person’s accent sound? (2) How comfortable would you feel in conversation with this person? (3) How irritating does this person sound? (4) How sincere does this person sound? (5) How likeable does this person sound? (6) How much status would you associate with this person? (7) How intelligent does this person sound?

302 PETER GARRF3”I

Questions 1,2 and 6 were based on those asked in studies by Giles (1970) and Garrett (1984). Questions 4,s and 7 relate to Lambert’s three dimensions of perceived personality: personal integrity, social attractiveness and competence, respectively (1967, p. 95). Question 3 was included on the basis that ‘once a reasonable level of comprehensibility has been attained, the question of irritation becomes relevant’ (Albrechtsen et ul., 1980, p. 395). All judgements were on 7-point bi-polar scales (e.g. 1 = very pleasant; 7 = very unpleasant), with the exception of a 4-point scale for question 3 (1 = very irritating: 4 = not at all irritating), since bi-polarity would have generated a confusing ‘very unirritating’. The questions were arranged in random order, with 50% of the questionnaires having the questions in reverse order. Each set of evaluations was on a separate page to impede reference to earlier coding choices. A written instruction sheet was also prepared.

Subjects Forty-seven NSs and 10 NNSs were asked to evaluate the 14 recorded voices (male

and female Spanish accented and male and female French accented English in broad, mild and hypercorrect variants, plus one NS male and one NS female RP versions) on each of the seven scales. NS judges were 22 postgraduates and 19 undergraduates from a variety of disciplines, 3 unemployed. who described themselves only as ‘mothers’. a lecturer, a science laboratory technician and an unemployed school-leaver engaged on casual tasks in a science department. Judges came from a wide variety of IJ.K. geographical backgrounds. Thus there was no identifiable sub-group representing any specific region. Their age range was 17-44 (mean age. 24). Similarly, the 10 NNS judges were from a variety of European geographical origins (though none from France or Spain). and were attending short advanced courses in English as a Foreign Language in England. None of the NS or NNS judges were English language teachers.

Procedure Evaluations were conducted in Tandberg open-booth language laboratories, identical

for both NSs and NNSs. Since there were four tapes and two questionnaires, judges were allocated to one of eight groups. They were then shown how to operate the booths and care was taken to ensure that no judge started the tape before reading the instruction sheet. Comprehension of the instructions was also checked.

The instructions informed the judges that they would hear an English text read several times. and should try to imagine what sort of person was speaking each time. They should then give their opinions of each person by filling in the appropriate page of scales for each voice. The text they would hear was printed on the instruction sheet, and judges were asked to familiarize themselves with it before starting the tape.

The first page of scales was marked ‘example’, and was already completed in such a way as to imply that each scale could be regarded as distinct from the others. This example was referred to and explained in the instruction sheet.

Each judge was allowed to work through the task at their own speed, and was free to leave as soon as they had finished. On average. the whole procedure took just under 30 minutes.

Results Making the simplifying assumption that the rating scale data could be treated as interval,

ACCOMMODATlON AND HYPERACCOMMODATION 303

a 3-way ANOVA (using the SPSS MANOVA program) was conducted on the evaluations of each scale for the French and Spanish speakers. The 4-point irritation scale ratings were reversed and then ‘stretched’ to 7-point ratings for the sake of comparability. Results reported below are deemed to be significant where ~~0.01. Table 5 gives an overview of where and at what level results achieved significance.

Table 5. An overview of significant results (p~O.01)

NSiNNS Speaker Ll Spcakcr Interactions: NSiNNS Interactions: speaker Ll judges accent by speaker accent by speaker accent

Pleasant 0.00 1 0.000 0.000 0.000

Comfortable 0.000 0.000 0.000

Irritating 0.000 0.000 0.000

Sincere 0.000 0.006 0.000

Likcablc 0.006 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000

Statusful 0.000 0.000

Intelligent 0.000 0.000

Hypothesis I

Differences between the evaluations by NS and NNS judges were evident. However, there was only one result where there was a simple effect for nativeness or non- nativeness of judges, with no other scales even approaching significance: overall, NSs found the foreign speakers of English (regardless of Ll and accentedness) more likeable than the NNSs did. Mean scores were 4.26 and 3.86, respectively.

Other significant results regarding nativeness and non-nativeness of judges occurred as interactions with speaker accentedness, for pleasantness, sincerity, likeability and irritation (see Fig. 1). The mean scores for these interactions are set out in Table 6.

Table 6. Mean scores for significant interactions between NSiNNS judges and speaker acccntedness (~~0.01)

Broad Mild Hypercorrect

Pleasant

Irritating

Sincere

Likeablc

NS 3.83 4.03 3.18

NNS 2.98 4.00 3.33

NS 4.84 4.72 5.48

NNS 5.50 4.83 5.05

NS 4.31 4.46 3.63

NNS 3.75 4.80 3.80

NS 4.58 4.43 3.58

NNS 3.35 4.35 3.25

In all these interactions, results matched expectations in so far as NSs showed substantially more favourable reactions to the broad accented speakers (regardless of Ll) than did the NNSs, whereas NS and NNS judgements of the mild and hypercorrect variants differed far less noticeably. Against expectations, however, NS and NNS

(a)

6

5.5.

5

4.5.

3.:

mm

3-

&,

2.5~

Bro

ad

Mild

H

yper

corr

ect

251-

Bro

ad

Mild

H

yper

corr

ect

I - Nat

ives

-1

3._

Non

-nat

ives

(b)

6,

M I

wM

8 ::

4.5.

B

2 4.

3.5-

3-

*.5+

Bro

ad

Mild

H

yper

corr

ect

(d)

6-

2.5

Bro

ad

Mild

H

pper

corr

ect

___-

- - N

ativ

es

__Q

__

Non

-nat

ives

Fig

. I.

Sig

nilic

ant

in

tera

ctio

ns

be

twe

en

ca

teg

ory

o

f sp

ea

ker

ac

crn

ted

~~c

ss a

nd n

ativ

ene

ss

or

non-

nativ

ene

ss

of

jud

ge

?.

(a)

Ple

asa

ntne

ss.

(h)

irrita

tion.

(c

) si

nce

rity.

(d

) lik

ea

bili

ty.


judgements of the hypercorrect differed little. Lastly, it would appear that the significant difference between NS and NNS judges’ ratings for likeability was caused by NNS judgements always remaining below NS judgements (see d in Fig. l), whereas there were cross-overs on pleasantness, sincerity and irritation (see a-c in Fig. 1).

Hypothesis 2

Speakers in the French guise were consistently judged to be more pleasant, comfortable and likeable than speakers in the Spanish guise, while the latter were near (taking ~~0.01) to being judged significantly more irritating (p=O.O18). Mean scores are displayed in Table 7.

Table 7. Mean scores for significant results regarding speaker Ll (~~0.01)

French Spanish

Pleasant 3.81 3.43

Comfortable 4.04 3.56

Irritating 4.94 5.12

Likeable 4.27 3.95

Significant interactions between speaker Ll and speaker accentedness occurred for all seven scales, however, revealing the precise nature of the overall speaker Ll results above. Figure 2 shows that the judgements of the three French accents varied little, whereas judges were far more discriminating in their judgements of the three Spanish accent categories. For mildly accented speech, the Spanish guise is regarded more favourable on all traits, but this effect is almost entirely reversed for the other two categories.

Table 8. Mean scores for significant results for interactions between speaker Ll and speaker accentedness (~~0.01)


Pleasant French 3.99 3.79 3.64

Spanish 3.31 4.26 2.67

Comfortable French 4.22 4.06 3.86

Spanish 3.65 4.22 2.83

Irritating French 5.00 4.81 5.03

Spanish 4.91 4.67 5.78

Sincere French 4.12 4.29 4.04

Spanish 4.30 4.76 3.28

Likeable French 4.48 4.31 4.01

Spanish 4.28 4.54 3.05

Statusful French 4.12 4.12 4.26

Spanish 3.80 4.66 4.38

Intelligent French 4.24 4.26 4.24

Spanish 4.02 4.72 4.15

306 PETER CiARRE’l-I

P ,’

,’ ,’

,’ I’

,’ ,’

,’ ,’

I’ [1

\\ \\ I \\

>\ \%

I\ \\ ‘u

(e)

6 I/-

-c

‘\. b

2.54

I

Bro

ad

Mild

H

yper

corr

ect

M

b ,+

‘---_

__

cx

4.5.

/’

----

‘___

m

5 iz

4-

&.

.’

3 5-

3

2.51

Bro

ad

Mild

H

yper

corr

ect

L.l

Bro

ad

Mild

H

yper

corr

ect

Fre

nch

_*__

Span

ish

Fig.

2.

Sign

ific

ant

inte

ract

ions

be

twee

n ca

tego

ry

of s

peak

er

acce

nted

ncss

an

d L

l of

spe

aker

. (a

) Pl

easa

ntne

ss,

(b)

com

fort

, (c

) ir

rita

tion,

(d

) si

ncer

ity,

(e)

likea

bilit

y.

(f)

stat

us,

(g)

inte

llige

nce.

30x PETER GARRETT

In the broad accented category, Spanish speakers were regarded as less pleasant and comfortable, but more or less equal with the French speakers on the other judgements. In hypercorrected, however, they were regarded as equally statusful and intelligent. although regarded less favourably on all the other scales. The overall advantage of the French accents in Table 7 stems from the less favourable reactions to the broad and hypercorrect Spanish accents compared with the French equivalents. The relevant means for Fig. 2 are set out in Table 8.

Hypothesis 3 Results for speaker accentedness were significant across all scales (see Table 9). The

most striking finding is that the hypercorrect guise was most consistently seen least favourably on five of the seven scales (pleasant, comfortable, irritating, sincere, likeable), while being more highly valued on the status and intelligence scales, where the broad accents were downgraded in relation to the mild and hypercorrect. As was seen above (Table 8, Fig. 2), these results were largely due to the marked downgrading of the Spanish rather than French hypercorrect variant in particular on pleasantness. comfort, irritation, sincerity and likeability, and the advantageous position of the Spanish mild accent compared with the French mild on all seven scales.

Table 9. Mean scores for significant speaker acccntedness results (~~0.01)

-

Pleasant

Comfortable

Irritating

Sincere

Likeable

Statusful

Intelligent


3.68 4.02 3.15

3.Y4 4.14 3.34

4.96 4.76 5.40

4.2 1 4.52 3.66

4.38 4.42 3.53

3.Y6 4.39 4.32

4.13 4.49 4.19

Discussion The results in general lead us to reject all three null hypotheses, since some differences

were found in each case between NSs and NNSs, speakers of different Lls, and the three different accent variants. Of particular interest here are the findings for interactions

between speaker Ll and speaker accentedness (Table 8, Fig. 2) showing that evaluations of accent variants were dependent on the speaker’s Ll. These results pose three main questions, which are here formulated in terms of the two distinct judgemental dimensions of solidarity (the pleasant, comfortable, irritating, sincere, likeable scales). and status (the status and intelligence scales) (Giles and Ryan, 1982; Ryan, 1983).

(1) Why should the Spanish speaker (and not the French) meet with more favourable responses on the solidarity scales when using a mild rather than broad or hypercorrect variant (see a-e in Fig. 2)?

(2) Why should evaluations be so relatively unfavourable on the solidarity scales for the Spanish speaker employing the hypercorrect variant (see a-e in Fig. 2)?


(3) Why should the Spanish speaker’s hypercorrect variant meet with more favourable responses (equal to the French) on the status scales {see f and g in Fig. 2) than on the solidarity scales?

These questions can be more ilIuminatingly addressed by considering them in terms of the central propositions of current accommodation theory (Giles ef al., 1987b). In order for recipient perceptions to additively facilitate positive evaluations of convergence on solidarity scales, recipients should perceive:

(a) a match to their own communicational style;

(b) a match to a linguistic stereotype for a group in which they have membership;

(c) the speaker’s convergence to be optimally distant s~)ciolinguistically, and to be produced at an optimal rate. level of fluency, and level of accuracy; and/or

(d) the speaker’s style to adhere to a valued norm, especially when:

(i) perceived speaker effort is high;

(ii) perceived speaker choice is high: and

(iii)perceived intent is altruistic or benevolent (Giles et al., 1987b, p. 38).

In discussing the above three questions, it should be noted that the third and last (c and d(iii)) propositions are affected by design factors. It will be recalled that recipients were presented with a recording of a ‘factually neutral’ passage read aloud; rate and fluency were controlled. One objective of such measures is to make it less likely that any intent will be perceived (but see earlier comments on intonation, and Giles ef al., 1989).

Questio~ls I and 2 (see a-e in Fig. 2) In answering these two questions, let us take each of the accent categories in turn:

Broad accent judgements: since the NNS judges were advanced learners, it is doubtful if propositions (a) and (b) are of great importance here (though variation within the accent categories should not be entirely ruled out). Thus we are left focusing mainly on d(i) and (ii). Since judges might be conscious of the fact that a greater number of educated English people (like the NS judges) have studied French than have studied Spanish. it is possible that they perceive that the French broad accented speakers have more choice and are therefore making more effort when they converge than their Spanish counterparts. If the broad accent is a signal of low proficiency in English, and of speakers struggling with the foreign language, judges may be more impressed that the French speakers did not try the easier path open to them of using French. In short, the French broad accented speakers are possibly perceived as making a double effort since they are perceived to have made the choice not only of doing their best with the linguistic complexities of the foreign language, but also of perhaps unnecessarily crossing language boundaries in the first place. The plausibility of this explanation, though, depends on how the listeners saw the (in this case unspecified) context in which the speakers were speaking.

Mild accent judgements: these are more equal for the French and Spanish speakers. Proposition (d) could now apply equally. And since neither the French or Spanish speakers are now struggling, perceptions of effort and choice are also likely to be more balanced. The French speakers are now perhaps perceived to have passed the threshold

310 PETEK GARRETT

beyond which it is easier to communicate in English than to risk the often serious difficulties of attempting to converse in French in the U.K.

Hypercorrect accent judgements: these are more difficult to explain. Examination of prosodic features throws up no obvious clues as to why this French-Spanish division should occur, but there were differences in the realization of specific phonological variables (see Tables 1 and 2). A study manipulating each of these variables separately might show whether these evoke different reactions. However, it may well be that there is a conflict there between a socially valued (or prestigious) norm and a personally valued norm and/or the recipients’ own behaviour, and that perhaps a group of more socially prestigious judges would evaluate differently for the solidarity scales. Giles et nl. (1987b) point out that the state of current research does not yet allow us to specify effects where propositions are in conflict. A possibility here though is that social contextual variables (Coupland, 1988, p. 116) come more to the fore. Judges may see such prestigious variants as in some way less incongruous for or more becoming of the French speakers.

Perhaps the connotations of some Lls place restrictions on how much accommodation recipients are prepared to accept or feel comfortable with (see Bradac and Mulac. 19X4. p. 2: Ross and Shortreed, 1990).

Question 3 (f and g in Fig. 2)

Giles et al. (1987b, p. 40) note that most of the work in accommodation theory has focused on the solidarity rather than the status variable, and indeed propositions (a), (b) and (c) seem largely solidarity oriented. If, however. (d) is interpreted as a valued social rather than personal. or group norm-i.e. relating to overt rather than covert prestige (Trudgill, 1972)-then Spanish and French speakers can be said to be making comparable efforts to achieve this norm. And since it is a socially valued norm, its status is more readily recognized in both cases. Again the imprecision arising from grading of accents into categories should not be completely forgotten. but from the above discussion emerges at least the possibility of two evaluative patterns arising not only from differing background social contextual factors, but also from expectations regarding the recipient’s knowledge of the speaker’s Ll. Intuitively, it seems likely that the relatively stable pattern of reactions across variants that pertains to the French accents is the less common.

Of particular interest about the interactions between speaker Ll and speaker accentedness is the absence of any interactions involving both of these together with the NSlNNS judge variable (just as there were no interactions between speaker Ll and the nativeness or non-nativeness of the judges). It should be noted, as with the interpretation of all the differences in the judgements of NSs and NNSs too, that the NNS judges were all Europeans. Perhaps the general accord on interactions between speaker Ll and the nativeness or non-nativeness of the judges, and interactions between these two variables and the speaker accentedness, stems from shared reactions to the (European) speaker Ll factor.

Regarding the interactions between speaker accentedness and the NYNNS judges (Table 6, and a-d in Fig. 1). that the NSs and NNSs in this study should be in accord regarding the mild accents is explicable in terms of mildness being a shared valued norm (proposition (d)). NNSs here show more consistency in their judgements, always, regardless of Ll, favouring the mild. It is worth noting that these NNS judges were paying to attend a private language school, thus demonstrating the considerable value


they place on more closely approximating NS proficiency. Other NNS judges, attaching less or no value to this goal and sharing the Ll and culture of the speaker, might well respond differently (see, for example, Giles and Byrne, 1982; Garrett et al., 1989).

A particularly surprising and interesting result, and one which runs counter to expectations, is that NS and NNS judgements of the hypercorrect accents were actually broadly in accord. It would appear from this, then, that NNS operated with similar optimum degrees of accommodation. Without qualitative data, it is difficult to place any confident interpretation on this, but it may be that NNSs are able to empathize with NS reactions to hyperaccommodation on these solidarity scales, or that they sense other disadvantages (e.g. to identity) setting in apparently at about the same point.

Finally, we are left with the question of why the NSs appear in many respects more tolerant than NNSs of foreign speakers’ errors. Here, we should perhaps bear in mind that, unlike in the error gravity studies mentioned earlier, our judges were not teachers. Our only clue here is the significant difference in the NS and NNS ratings for likeability (see Table 5), together with the fact that one of the factors distinguishing the NS and NNS judges is that speakers are converging to the former’s Ll. In the simplest and most general terms if, as one person converges towards another, ‘this increases the likelihood that the second will like the first’ (Giles et al., 1987b. p. 14). then it could (somewhat simplistically) be suggested that NS may be more tolerant because they like the foreign learners more. That only likeability is significant of the solidarity scales is hard to explain. Perhaps it is in some way more sensitive than the other solidarity scales here to accommodation levels.

Lessons for learners of English as a foreign language It seems that there was, then, some overall social advantage across all the scales

included in this study in the mild accents. It would also seem that foreign (especially Spanish) speakers of English may tend to reach some kind of evaluative optimum at about that level, though perhaps for different reasons.

Language learners have differing motivations, however, for learning a foreign language. Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) integrative and instrumental orientations, provide a useful frame of reference (Stevick, 1976, p. IlO), though remaining ill- defined (McDonough, 1981, p. 151). It seems reasonable to argue that learners with a predominantly instrumental orientation are likely to be more concerned with reactions on more status-related scales such as intelligence, education, experience, etc., while those with a stronger integrative orientation are likely to be more affected by reactions on more solidarity-related scales, such as likeability, friendliness, etc.

Keeping this in mind, and without wishing to overgeneralize, we might tentatively build on our initial conclusion regarding the overall advantage of a mild accent:

(1) Firstly, the results suggest that integrative learners, or learners operating in solidarity-stressing domains such as the home. family and neighbourhood (Giles and Ryan, 1982, p. 219) may be downgraded if their pronunciation is hypercorrect. A broad accent may also fare less well, depending on the learner’s Ll, more by non-native interactants than by NSs.

(2) Secondly, results suggest that instrumental learners, or learners operating in status- stressing domains such as work, government and school (Giles and Ryan, 1982) are more

312 PETER GARRET’I

likely to be downgraded if they speak with a broad accent, though this too will depend on their Ll. Whether they are speaking to NSs or (at least, European) NNSs appears to be of no import, from the present results.

Future directions With the current focus in language teaching pedagogy very much on the learner-

centred classroom, on learner’s communicative needs, and on the importance of developing communicative strategies in learners, this type of information is much needed. There are a number of ways in which such work could develop.

To begin with, the present study has looked only at learners of English. Furthermore, it has restricted itself to learners with only European French or Spanish as their Lls. Other Lls and foreign languages need to be explored.

Secondly, this study has focused only on judgements by British NS of English and by European NNSs. There is an ongoing need to investigate reactions by NSs and NNSs from elsewhere, and sub-divided by class, foreign language learning experiences, etc. For example, other studies have found some differences in the evaluative responses of European and non-European judges (e.g. Chandler, 1984).

Thirdly, a great deal of research into reactions to accents and dialects has been lacking in linguistic rigour. In the present study. the inclusion of more thorough (relative to the bulk of work in this area) yet still limited description of linguistic features has perhaps tended to accentuate rather than address this shortcoming. Recent work by Coupland (lY84. 1985) in particular has shown how much closer attention from the outset to linguistic description and analysis can add considerably to the quality of work of this type. This enables us not only to increase our awareness of the main linguistic distinctions between different varieties. but also to explore evaluative reactions as we manipulate specific linguistic features. or combinations of them. Similarly, the way is then open to exploring evaluative reactions to various incongruities that occur as we manipulate one level (e.g. phonology) against others (e.g. lexis, discourse competence). Close study of such incongruities is likely to be of great value in particular in this field of foreign and second language use, where learners are unlikely to have matching proficiency through all the linguistic levels.

Fourthly. though studies of such a relatively static nature as this are well established and undoubtedly of value, especially where accompanied by qualitative data, there is also a need for studies of ‘language in action’, taking us beyond the status-stressing environment of the language laboratory used in the present study, since ‘speakers may attempt to convey varying personas from moment to moment in interaction’ (Coupland. 1988. p. 108). Do NNSs shift styles in the same way as NSs? Where their proficiency restricts their scope for effective style shifting in order to meet convergence propositions a-d above or their divergence equivalents. what compensatory strategies are employed. and which to best effect? Do interlocutors react in the same way to style shifting in NNSs as in NSs?

Fifthly, further exploration of reactions by NSs and NNSs to hyperaccommodation are required. In addition. in the introduction to this paper, attention was drawn to the phenomenon of ‘learner styles’. for example ‘overcareful styles of speaking’. Closer analysis and description is needed of such styles, and how they are evaluated in various contexts.


Current movements in language teaching pedagogy place considerable reliance on learners being aware of themselves, their needs and their goals in the learning process, of how best to communicate their intentions, of how to stimulate unfavourable as well as favourable reactions in others, of the gains and losses involved in doing things one way or another (Garrett and James, 1990; James and Garrett, 1991). Armed with such awareness, learners are in a position to make informed decisions about how to proceed, and to gain confidence in themselves as learners and communicators. Knowing likely reactions to their repertoire or potential repertoire of language behaviours is an essential empowering component of language awareness, for foreign and second language learners as much as for NSs.

Acknowledjiemenfs-The author is grateful to Nik Coupland (Cardiff), Howard Giles (Santa Barbara). Phil Scholfield (Bangor), Carl James (Bangor), Frank Gooding (Bangor), and Malcah Yaeger-Dror (Arizona). for their useful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

REFERENCES

ALBRECHTSEN, D., HENRIKSEN B. and FAERCH. F. 1080 Native speaker reactions to learner’s spoken interlanguage. Language Learning 30,3655396.

BEEBE. L. and GILES, H. 1984 Speech accommodation theories: a discussion in terms of second language acquisition. International Journul of the Sociology of Language 46, S-32.

BRADAC, J. and MULAC. A. 1984 Attributional consequences of powerful and powerless speech styles in a crisis intervention context. Journal of Lungungr and Social Psychology 3, l-19.

BRENNAN. E. and BRENNAN. J. 1981 Accent scaling and language attitudes: reactions to Mexican American English speech. Lmguage and Speech 24,207-221.

CHANDLER, P. 1984 Linguistic interaction with foreign speakers: native speaker adjustments and foreign speaker reactions. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Wales. Bangor.

COE. N. 1987 Speakers of Spanish and Catalan. In Swan. M. and Smith. B. (Eds). Learner English. pp. 72-89. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

COOK, V. 1979 The English are only human. English Language Teaching Journal 33,163-168.

COUPLAND. N. 1984 Accommodation at work: some phonological data and their implications. international Journal of the Sociology of Language 46,49-70.

COUPLAND. N. 1985 Hark. hark the lark: social motivations for phonological style-shifting. Language und Conwnunicc~tion 5, 1533171.

COUPLAND. N. 1988 Dialect in Use. University of Wales Press. Cardiff.

COUPLAND. N. lY90 Standard Welsh English: a variable semiotic. In Coupland. N. (Ed.), English in Wales, pp. 232-2.57. Multilingual Matters. Clevedon.

DAY. R. 1982 Children’s attitudes towards language. In Ryan. E. and Giles. H. (Eds), Attimdes Towards Langrurge Varirrtion. pp. 116131. Edward Arnold. London.

EDWARDS, A. 1976 Languuge, Culture und Class. Heinemann. London.

EISENSTEIN, M. 1983 Native reactions to non-native speech: a review of empirical research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5, 160-176.

EL-DASH, L. and TUCKER, G. 1975 Subjective reactions to various speech styles in Egypt. International

Journal of the Sociology of Language 6,33-54.

FINCH, D. and ORTIZ LIRA, H. 1982 English Phonetics for Spanish Speakers. Heinemann, London,

GARDNER. R. and LAMBERT. W. 1972 Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Newbury House. Rowley, Massachusetts.

GARRETT, P. 1984 Native speaker evaluations of some foreign and regional English accents: an empirical study. Unpublished MA assignment, University of Wales, Bangor.

GARRETT. P.. GILES. H. and COUPLAND. N. 1989 The contexts of language learning. In Ting-Toomey. S. and Korzenny. F. (Eds). Lunguuge. Comnurnication and Culture. pp. 201-221. Sage, London,

GARRETT. P. and JAMES, C. 1990 Diversity and common ground in language awareness. In Huntcr- Carsch, M., Beverton. S. and Dennis. D. (Eds). Primary English m the Nntionat Curriculum. pp. X9-99. Blackwell, Oxford.

GILES. H. 1970 Evaluative reactions to accents. ~~~uc~f~[~nf~l Xeviaw 22,21 l-277. GILES. H., BOURHIS. R. and TAYLOR, D. 1977 Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In Giles. H. (Ed.), EQtnicitv und fnrqyorcp Relations. pp. 307-348. Academic Press. London.

GILES. H. and BYRNE. J. 1982 The intergroup model of second language acquisition. ./onrrzrr/ of’ Multilinpal and Multicultural Development 3, 17-40.

GILES. H. and COUPLAND. N. lYY1 Lrrn~urr~ct Contests and Corrsqurnces. Open tinivcrsity Press. Buckingham.

GILES. H., COUPLAND. N.. HENWOOD. K.. HARRIMAN. .I. and COUPLAND, J. IYXY The social meaning of R.P.: an int~r~enerati~)nal perspective. In Ramsaran. S. (Ed.). Siudkv in the rrr,r?ztr2c.itriir,rz “f ~~1~1~~~: A Ccjmrnemorcrrive ~f~)~i~n~~ in Hortnrrr of A. C. Ginwon. pp. 191-2 1 1. Routledge. London.

GILES, H.. HEWSTONE, M.. RYAN, E. and JOHNSON, P. 1987a Research on language attitudes. In Ammon, U.. Dittmar. N. and Mattheier. K. (Eds), SociolinRuistic.~, An lrrtrrnufional Handhook oJ‘ thr Scirrzw of Laqurrgc and .Sncirrv. Vol. 1. pp. SSS-SY7. Walter de Gruytcr. New York.

GILES. H.. MULAC. A.. BRADAC. J. and JOHNSON, P. 19X7h Speech accommodation theory: the first decade and beyond. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.). Com~nrricarion Yeurhook IO. pp. 13-48. Sage. London.

GILES. H. and POWESLAND, P. 1975 .@ec& Sivle un(l Social Evahdor~ Academic Press. London.

GILES. H. and RYAN. E. 1982 Prolegomena for developing a social psychological theory of Ianguagc attitudes. In Ryan. E. and Giles. H. (Eds). Affir~~~~~,.s Tortvrrds Longrruge @ariarion, pp. X33-223. Edward Arnold, London.

GIMSON, A. 1989 An itrtrohcricm to the P~~orzmci~rriw~ of Eng!bh. Edward Arnold. London.

HUGHES, A. and LASCARATOIJ. C. 1982 Competing criteria for error gravity. E~i~Iish Lrrngrrn~r 7ijachin,y .Journal31, 116-124.

HIJGHES. A. and TRIJDGILL. P. lY79 En,$ish Accrnrs and Diakcts. Edward Arnold. London.

HULTFORS. I’. 19x7 Krc~rions to Non-natiw English. Almqvist and Wiksell. Stockholm.

JAMES. C. 1977 Judgements of error gravities. ,%fi/ish Language Teaching Journal 31, llh-124.

JAMES, C. and GARRETT. P. (Eds) 1991 Lutz~~~~~~ Anvawn~.ss in /he Cfnwrc~wn. Longmon. London.

JOHANSSON. S. 1978 &n&s in Error Grwity. Acta Universitatis Goth~l~ur~~nsis. G~~thenburg.

KENWORTHY, J. 1987 7’emchinR I+z,$i.rh Pronuncturion. Longman, London.

KRASHEN. S. 1 Y81 Secotzd Lan,yuage Acquisirion and Sewnd Languugc~ f_(wning. Pergamon. Oxford.

LABOV. W. 1972 Soc,iolinRltr.sric Patrtvns. Blackwell. Oxford.

LAMBERT. W. 1967 A social psychology of bilingualism. ./orlrr~trl nf’.Sociol 1~sl~c.s 23, 91-I 09.

LAMBERT. W., HODGSON. R., GARDNER, R. and FILLENBAIJM. S. IO60 Evaluational reactions to spoken language. .loltmal ofilhnounlai and Suckrl Psydwlo~~ 60,44-S I LEATHER. J. 19X3 Second language pronunciation learning and teaching. f,u~z~~f~~~~~ Tcachiqq 16, 19X--219.

LEVIN. H. (in prep.) Personality traits of formal and informal speakers (tentative title).

MacC’ARTHY. P, 107.5 7%~ ~~~~c~~z~~~z~;~~~? ofFr?nciz. Oxford University Press. London.

McDONOUGH. S. 19x1 f?svcho/ogv in t;Oreign Lanpuge T~rrching. George Allen and Unwin, London.

MASTERSON. J., MULLINS. E. and MIJLVIHILL, A. 19x3 Components of cvaluativc reactions to varictics of Irish accents. I_itn~nugc~ rmd Sfwe1.h 26, 215-231.

NIDA, E. 1956 Some psychological problems in second language learning. l,nrzguage Lrarning 7,7-IS.

PLATT, J. and WEBER. H. 1984 Speech convergcncc miscarried: an investigation into inappropriate acc~)mm(~dati~n strategies. ~i?re~r7~~r~~~~ul lolcmtrl c!f‘the SucioiogjT of Longrtrtgc~ 46, 13 l-l 36.

RICHARDS, J. 19X.1 C~nlmuni~tive needs in foreign language learning. &$~h ~~z/~~~f~~f~ T~ffc~~;~z~ .fourtrcri 37, i 11~120.

ROACH. P. 19X3 Elrglish Phonetics LI& ~!tono/o~v. Cambridge Lfnivcrsity Press. Camhridgc.

ROSS. S. and SHORTREED. I. 1990 Japanese foreigner talk: convergence of divergence. ./olrrncrl o/‘A.sian Pacific Communicaliorz 1, 135-146.

RYAN. E. 1983 Some psychological mechanisms underlying native speaker evaluations 01 non-native speech. S/ntlier 111 Scrond I.unglnlgcJ Acquisition 5, 148-l 6 I,

ACCOMMODATION AND HYPERACCOMMODATION 31s

RYAN, E.. CARRANZA, M. and MOFFIE, R. 1977 Reactions towards varying degrees of accentedness in the speech of Spanish-English bilinguals. Language and Speech 20,267-273.

SELINKER, L. 1972 Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10,201-231.

SHEORY. R. 1986 Error perception of native speaking and non-native speaking teachers of ESL. English Language Teaching Journal 40,306-312.

STEVICK. E. 1976 Memory, Meaning and Method. Newbury House, Rowley, Massachusetts.

STREET. R. Jr and BRADY, R. 1982 Speech rate acceptance ranges as a function of evaluative domain, listener speech rate. and communication context, Communication Monographs 49,2YO-308.

SWAN. M. and SMITH. B. 1087 Learner English. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

TRUDGILL. P. 1972 Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language and Society 1,179-196.

WALTER. C. 1987 French speakers. In Swan, M. and Smith, B. (Eds), Learner English. pp. 42257. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

accommodation and hyperaccommodation in foreign language learners: contrasting responses to french...

Documents