Acquisition of elision, assimilation and weak forms by Polish learner of English:the comparison of two instruction techniques
Małgorzata Kul, School of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
3. intro: aimsaim one: to verify
whether non-nativespeakers of English
apply/identify rhythm,assimilation and elisionaim two: to compare theimmediate and the long-
term effects of twoinstruction techniques ofteaching casual speech
1. introa study in
pronunciationpedagogy;
Polish learnersof English
2. intro: scopeproduction and
perception ofcasual speech
elision (/h,t,d/)rhythm (weak forms)
assimilation (Yodcoalescence)
4. intro: twoinstruction techniques
traditional, formalinstruction (explicit)
vs. form focusinstruction (implicit)
5. intro: traditional,formal instruction
an explicit explanation(definitions, rules,
examples)followed by the
traditional listen-and-repeat procedure
8. method: subjects50 Polish learners of
English2nd year students of
undergraduate studiesSchool of English, AMU
6. intro: form focus instructiondeliberately employs linguistic
error; the learners are encouragedto identify the error and negotiate
a correct phonetic form (Long1991), NoF
“a linguistic error is made explicitto activate learners’ cognition […]and restructure their interlanguage
phonology” (Abe 2010: 1)
7. intro: research questionsresearch question one: doPolish speakers of English
apply/identify rhythm,assimilation and elision?
research question two:
which instruction techniqueis more effective in teaching
casual speech?
9. method: groupsNoF group comparedtwo versions of arecording in pairs (onehad an error, the otherdid not)
nonNoF group wassubject to a powerpoint
presentation
11. method: teststhe production part: thesubjects were recorded
reading a list of 15 sentencesthe perception part: thesubjects listened to 20
sentences and had to markthe affected sounds
(identification) as well asprovide the name of theaspect of casual speech
(naming)
10. method: procedureprestest-posttest design
a pretest (beforetreatment/observation)
a posttest 1 immediatelyfollowed the
treatment/observation perioda delayed posttest 2, performed
six weeks after posttest 1 toverify the effects of the two
types of instruction over time
12. results: pretestresearch question one: do Polish
speakers of Englishapply/identify rhythm,
assimilation and elision?
Production 46 %Perception 43 %
Both poor
Production: assimilation 62 %,elision and weak forms 41 %
Perception: assimilation 65 %,elision 53, weak forms 28 %
Assimilation the easiest to applyand identify
13. results: posttestsresearch question two: which instructiontechnique is more effective in teaching
casual speech?
Production: NoF outperforms the nonNoFgroup by 8 % (post1) and 20 % (post 2)Perception: NoF outperforms the nonNoFgroup by 13/15 % (post1) and 10 % (post
2)NoF more effective in the long term
NoF improved production and perceptionmore significantly than the explicit type ofinstruction, attesting the strongest effects
for weak forms, with slightly lower resultsfor assimilation and elision
14. discussion: pretestNon-native speakers of English apply and
identify rhythm, assimilation, elision below 50%
Good production of assimilation in comparisonwith elision and weak forms
Mother tongue?assimilation exists in Polish
pan Bóg → pam Bóg; wiesz gdzie→ wież dzie
so does elisionjest super → jes super; pierwszego
→ pierszego
Instead: Frequency of phrases ”wouldyou/don’t you
And/orperceptual salience
offricatives/affricates(Yod coalescence)
16. conclusion:conclusion one
poor production andperception of weak forms,
elision and assimilation necessitate stronger
emphasis on casual speechin pronunciation pedagogy
18. conclusions:Conclusion Three
Disadvantages of NoF (i.e.catering to a selected type oflearners) make a third type ofinstruction, combining the twotypes worthy of investigationand prompt the comparison of
NoF with the combinedapproach in acquisition of
casual speech
15. discussion: posttestsEffectiveness of NoF
the 70/20/10 principle (a modelin learning and development,
Lombardo and Eichinger1996): 70 experience
20 involvement10 exercise
Disadvantages of NoF:
caters to hearing-oriented,independent
learners
17. conclusions:conclusion two
In comparison with theexplicit instruction, not onlydid NoF improve perception
and production, but alsoraised metaphonological
competence; its effects werelasting
Production (pretest)
0%20%40%
60%80%
production
assimilation elision weak form
Perception (pretest)
0%
50%
100%
perception
assimilation elision weak form
Perception: identification (posttests)
0%20%40%
60%80%
100%
pretest posttest 1 posttest 2
NoF nonNoF
Perception: naming (posttests)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
pretest posttest 1 posttest 2
NoF nonNoF
Production vs. perception (pretest)
41%
42%
43%
44%
45%
46%
47%
assimilation elision weak forms
production perception
Production (posttests)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
pretest posttest 1 posttest 2
NoF non NoF
