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