the role of dialectal variation in - home : slu variation...the role of dialectal variation in ......
TRANSCRIPT
The Role of Dialectal Variation in Second Language Learning
Lauren SchmidtUniversity of Missouri‐St. Louis
Dialectal variation & second language learning?
• What role does dialectal (regional, social) variation play in learning a second language?
• (When) are second language (L2) learners exposed to dialectal variation?
• Do L2 learners acquire and use dialectal features in their own speech?
Dialectal variation & second language learning?• For example, in the case of Spanish…
– Presence in distributed geographic spaces over several centuries
– Approximately 400 million speakers– Regional and social variation
• L2 learners of Spanish may be exposed to many different varieties: • instructors, study abroad, the media, Latino populations in the U.S.
What we know• Role of dialectal variation in Second Language Acquisition?
– Little known regarding second language (L2) acquisition and use of dialectal variation
– Focus on global effects of dialect: listening comprehension, intelligibility, attitudes (e.g., Eisenstein 1986, Major et al. 2005, Forde 1995)
• Effect of dialect on listening comprehension by L2 learners(Eisenstein & Berkowitz 1981, Major et al. 2005, Ortmeyer & Boyle 1985, Zahedi et al. 2007)
– “standard” vs. “non‐standard”– Dialect familiarity, “model accent advantage” (Tauroza & Luk 1997)– Other factors at play?
• For example: sociolinguistic factors, attitudes toward different dialects, amount of exposure (Fox & McGory 2007, Eisenstein & Verdi 1985)
What we know• Do L2 learners incorporate regional and social variants into their interlanguage systems? – Evidence for use of some local dialectal features in L2 production (e.g., Blondeau et al. 2002, Goldstein 1987)
• Production of Spanish sociophonetic variants by small group of advanced learners (Geeslin & Gudmestad 2011)
– Others find that all L2 learners do not use dialectal variants even when exposed to them (e.g., Goldstein 1987, Friesner & Dinkin 2006)
– Effects of L2 dialects to which exposed on perceptionof L2 sounds (Baker & Smith 2010, Escudero & Boermsa 2004, O’Brien & Smith 2010)
• But not always… (Fox & McGory 2007)
Summary & Objectives of studySummary:• Some learners incorporate dialectal features in own speech
(but not always)• Regional and social variation affects global comprehension
– But…what are the effects of individual dialectal features?– And…if effects on comprehension diminish with L2 experience
(familiarity), why?
Objectives: 1. To explore the effect of L2 forms that are subject to regional,
social, and stylistic variation on listening comprehension2. To determine how L2 learners perceive (categorize) dialectal
variants and if perception changes with increased experience
The dialectal variant• Weakening of Spanish syllable‐ and word‐final /s/
(Hualde 2005)(1) sibilance [s]: [fos.ka] fosca (nonsense)(2) aspiration [h] (glottal frication): [foh.ka](3) deletion: [fo.ka]
Aspirated‐/s/ limited to certain geographic regions, including lowland and coastal Latin America, the Caribbean, the Canary Islands (Hammond 2001, Lipski 1994)
• favored by different social groups within these regions (e.g., male speakers, Hoffman 2001)
• [h] more frequent in more informal or conversational registers (e.g., Lafford 1986, Cid‐Hazard 2003)
Speech perception: aspirated‐/s/• Spoken word activation – dependent upon legitimacy of variation, not degree of variation (Sumner & Samuel 2005)
• In the case of variants of Spanish syllable‐final /s/:– Legitimate variants of /s/ in s‐weakening dialects: [s], [h], Ø– Thus, [kos.ta], [koh.ta], and [ko.ta] (but not *[kof.ta]) should all productively activate the construct costa ‘coast’
The dialectal variant: L1 English• Language‐specific perception / perception of non‐native
sounds shaped by L1 phonology (e.g., Kuhl 1992, Best 1994, Flege 1995)
• English glottal fricative /h/– English /h/ is contrastive in syllable‐initial position, but does not occur syllable‐finally (McMahon 2002) “hat” vs. “at”
• Prediction: English‐speaking learners of Spanish may not attend to Spanish syllable‐final [h]
– [h] does not occur as a legitimate variant of English /s/ as it does in /s/‐weakening dialects of Spanish“dust” *[dɅht]
• Prediction: The L2 learners may not associate [h] with /s/
Research Questions1. What is the effect of /s/‐aspiration on comprehension of
spoken Spanish? Does the presence of the aspirated form affect identification of familiar lexical items?
2. How do English‐speaking learners of Spanish perceive(categorize) aspirated variants of /s/?
3. Who are our L2 learners? When and how are they exposed to dialectal variation?
Method – Participants (N=233)
L2 Group N Description
Level 1 learners 56 Elementary Spanish
Level 2 learners 52 Intermediate Spanish IILevel 3 learners 59 300‐level Spanish literature and culture courses
Level 4 learners 25 400‐level Spanish literature and linguistics courses
Level 5 learners 21 University instructors of Spanish courses / graduate students in Spanish literature
Native Spanish Control Group N Region
/s/‐aspirating 20 La Rioja, Argentina
Method – Tasks 1. Categorization (Perception) Task (A, B)
– To determine how listeners categorize syllable‐final aspirated variants (in nonce words)
2. Lexical Identification Task (A, B)– To examine comprehension of familiar Spanish words spoken with syllable‐final aspirated variants (translation)
3. Language Background Questionnaire (3 versions)– To measure exposure to /s/‐weakening varieties and experience with Spanish
4. Vocabulary Familiarity Task– To ensure knowledge of lexical items used in Lexical Identification Task (unknown, familiar, known)
Categorization Task Stimuli• 158 disyllabic nonsense words [CVC.CV] and [CV.CV]
– Target stimuli (N=14)• Nonce items with word‐internal s‐aspirated coda [CVh.CV] (14)
[bah.pe], [dih.to]
– Control stimuli (N=64)• Nonce items with word‐internal full‐s coda [CVs.CV] (14)• Nonce items with other word‐internal coda contexts: lateral, rhotic, nasal, labiodental fricative, no coda
[mis.po], [gal.ka], [sof.te]
– Distracter stimuli (N=80)• Target different positions and sounds, nonce items
[fin.ko] [ne.ro], [ka.ti]
Lexical Identification Task Stimuli
• 45 disyllabic and trisyllabic real words– Target stimuli (N=12)
• Spanish words with word‐internal /s/‐aspirated coda[poh.tɾe] postre ‘desert’ [eh.ku̯e.la] escuela ‘school’
– Control stimuli (N=12)• Spanish words with word‐internal full sibilant coda
[tʃis.me] chisme ‘gossip’ [ma.es.tɾo] maestro ‘teacher’
– Distracter stimuli (N=21)• Other sociophonetic features (Argentine /ʃ/, Castilian /θ/) (N=16)• Nonce words (N=5)
[bol.pa] bolpa (nonce) [bo.te.ʃa] botella ‘bottle’
RESULTS I1. What is the effect of /s/‐aspiration on comprehension of
spoken Spanish? Does the presence of the aspirated form affect identification of familiar lexical items?
Results I: Lexical Identification Task
Figure 1. Mean comprehension scores according to variant of /s/
* * * *
Lexical IdentificationWhat is the effect of /s/‐aspiration on comprehension of spoken Spanish? • There is a significant effect of the aspirated variant [h] on
identification of familiar Spanish lexical items for the L2 learners– L2 learners are better at identifying familiar words pronounced with the full sibilant variant [s] than the same words pronounced with the aspirated variant [h]
• However, this effect diminishes with increased experience and disappears by Level 5 (graduate students)– Level 5 learners and native speakers at ceiling levels for both variants
RESULTS II
2. How do English‐speaking learners of Spanish perceive (categorize) aspirated variants of /s/?
Results II: Categorization Task
Figure 2. Categorization accuracy of aspirated‐/s/
Results II: Categorization Task
Figure 3. Distribution of response types for aspirated‐/s/
Perception of aspirated‐/s/How do English‐speaking learners of Spanish perceive aspirated variants of /s/?
– Levels 1 and 2 (beginning, intermediate) do not identify word‐internal syllable‐final [h] as ‘s’
• “Ignoring” coda [h]? Influence from the L1 phonology? – ([h] not contrastive in coda position in the L1)
– At Level 3 (high intermediate), some learners begin to identify [h] as ‘s’
– By Levels 4 and 5 (advanced, graduate students), ‘s’ is the preferred response, followed by ‘f’ (similar to the Argentine group)
Perception of aspirated‐/s/• L2 perception of sociophonetic variation:
– Evidence of a dynamic L2 perceptual system – changes in how a new (target) sound is perceived
• Evolving system not just for categorical or ‘standard’ sounds, but also for sounds subject to regional, social, and stylistic variation
– In second language acquisition research and pedagogy must recognize that dialectal variation plays a role in language learning and use
RESULTS III: Exposure
3. Who are our L2 learners? When and how are they exposed to dialectal variation?
a) Region of origin of (native) instructorsb) Study abroad in different dialectal regionsc) Exposure to dialects in the Media (TV, film, music)d) Explicit linguistic knowledge / awareness
RESULTS III: Exposure
Types of exposure to /s/‐weakening dialects across level (% of level)
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5
Study Abroad
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5
Instructor(s)
0102030405060708090100
1 2 3 4 5
Media
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5
Knowledge
RESULTS III: Exposure
Figure 4. Types of exposure to /s/‐weakening dialects across level
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
% of Level
Level
Instructor(s)
Study Abroad
Media
Knowledge
Exposure to dialectal variationWho are our L2 learners? When and how are they exposed to dialectal variation? • Exposure to /s/‐weakening dialects varies with proficiency
level of the learner– Lower‐level learners (Levels 1 & 2) have very limited exposure
• Primarily through region of origin of native instructors
– Many higher‐level learners (Levels 4 & 5) receiving multiple types of exposure to Spanish dialectal variation:• Study / living abroad• Media (TV, film, music)• Explicit knowledge
However…Do instructors use dialectal features
in the language classroom?
And what about non‐native instructors?
How is this ‘explicit knowledge’ gained?
General Discussion1. Significant effect of a particular dialectal variant
(aspirated‐/s/) on comprehension of Spanish lexical items– Effect diminishes with increased experience
2. Development in perception of a L2 dialectal variant – L2 learners move towards native‐like patterns of perception of
variable sounds with increased experience• Seems to begin (for this population) at Level 3
3. L2 learners not exposed to certain dialects of Spanish (/s/‐weakening) until higher levels? – study abroad, Media, instruction (explicit knowledge)– Is exposure necessary for acquisition of perception dialectal
features and to diminish effects on listening comprehension?
Future Study• Are dialectal features (e.g., sounds, vocabulary) used in the
second language (L2) classroom? – If so, how often? By whom? Which features? Are they explicitly
taught or just present in the input?
• At what proficiency level should dialectal variation be introduced? – Are beginning and intermediate‐level learners “ready” for
dialectal variation?– How should it be introduced? What dialects should be included?
Should also teach social and stylistic variation?
• How might learner attitudes or reactions toward the social group(s) associated with different dialects affect acquisition and use of dialectal features?
Implications for a Language Program?• Must recognize language within its sociocultural context– One part is regional variation – but what about social and stylistic variation? (For example: gender‐specific patterns, language use according to formality of context)
• Benefits of exposure to target language dialects– QUESTION: When and how to do so?
• Include instruction on major dialectal features in language courses?
Implications for a Language Program?
• Gutierrez & Fairclough (2006):– Call for the incorporation of sociolinguistic, stylistic, and contextual (register) variation in the language classroom
• From the beginning level incorporate awareness of other dialects and cultures
• As advance productive use of alternative dialects
– GOAL: for advanced speakers to be prepared to interact in the real world, first focusing on local varieties (U.S. Spanish) and then on other varieties around the world
Gutierrez, M. & M. Fairclough. 2006. Incorporating linguistic variation into the classroom. In R. Salaberry & B. Lafford (Eds.), The Art of Teaching Spanish, 173‐191.
Implications for a Language Program?• Further support for the incorporation of dialectal variation in the
language curriculum:– Chapelle (2009) – argues for greater incorporation of Canadian French
content in textbooks, particularly in the northern US– Valdman (1988) – pedagogical norms should include “a full range of
target language variability, including sociolinguistically stigmatized features”
– Haddad (2006) – “learners should be exposed to dialects early on” (Arabic)
• HOWEVER – some disagreement concerning goals– Auger & Valdman (1999)
• Not necessarily a favorable reception toward L2 use of colloquial or socially marked accents?
• GOAL: to recognize or be aware of dialectal features, not to acquire full range of features of one dialect
References• Auger, Julie & Albert Valdman. 1999. Letting French students hear the diverse voices of
Francophony. The Modern Language Journal, 83, iii, 403‐412. • Baker, Wendy & Laura Catharine Smith. 2010. The impact of L2 dialect on learning
French vowels: Native English speakers learning Quebecois and European French. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 5, 711‐738.
• Best, Catherine T. 1994. The emergence of native‐language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In Judith C. Goodman & Howard C. Nusbaum(Eds.), The development of speech perception, pp. 167‐224. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
• Blondeau, Helene, Naomi Nagy, Gillian Sankoff & Pierre Thibault. 2002. La couleurlocale du francais L2 des anglo‐montrealais. Acquisition et interaction en langue etrangere, 17, 73‐100.
• Chapelle, Carol. 2009. A hidden curriculum in language textbooks; Are beginning learners of French at U.S. universities taught about Canada? The Modern Language Journal, 93, ii, 139‐152.
• Cid‐Hazard, Susana. 2003. Variacion de estilo en relacion a la variable fonologica /s/ en el espanol de Santiago de Chile. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 22, 2, 13‐43.
• Eisenstein, Miriam. 1986. Target language variation and second‐language acquisition: Learning English in New York City. World Englishes, 5, 1, 31‐46.
• Eisenstein, Miriam & Diana Berkowitz. 1981. The effect of phonological variation on adult learner comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 75‐80.
• Eisenstein, Miriam & Gail Verdi. 1985. The intelligibility of social dialects for working‐class adult learners of English. Language Learning, 35, 2, 287‐298.
• Escudero, Paolo & Paul Boersma. 2004. Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. SSLA, 26, 551‐585.
• Flege, James Emil. 1995. Second language speech learning. Theory, findings, and problems. In Winifred Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross‐language research, pp. 233‐277. Timonium, MD: York Press.
• Forde, Kevin. 1995. A study of learner attitudes towards accents of English. HKPU: Working Papers in ELT & Applied Linguistics, 1, 2, 59‐76.
• Fox, Robert Allen & Julie Tevis McGory. 2007. Second language acquisition of a regional dialect of American English by native Japanese speakers. In Ocke‐Schwen Bohn & Murray J. Munro (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege, pp. 117‐134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Friesner , Michael & Aaron Dinkin. 2006. The acquisition of native and local phonology by Russian immigrants in Philadelphia. Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 2, 91‐104.
• Goldstein, Lynn M. 1987. Standard English: The only target for nonnative speakers of English? TESOL Quarterly, 21, 3, 417‐436.
• Gutierrez, M. & M. Fairclough. 2006. Incorporating linguistic variation into the classroom. In R. Salaberry & B. Lafford (Eds.), The Art of Teaching Spanish, 173‐191.
• Haddad, Youssef. 2006. Dialect and standard in second language phonology: The case of Arabic. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 19, 147‐171.
• Hammond, Robert. 1978. An experimental verification of the phonemic status of open and closed vowels in Caribbean Spanish. In Humberto López Morales (Ed.), Corrientes actuales en la dialectología del caribe hispánico, pp. 33‐125. Hato Rey: Editorial Universitaria, Universidad de Puerto Rico.
• Hoffman, Michol. 2001. Salvadoran Spanish /‐s/ aspiration and deletion in a bilingual context. Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 3, 115‐27.
• Hualde, Jose Ignacio. 2005. The Sounds of Spanish. New York: Cambridge U Press.• Kuhl, Patricia. 1992. Psychoacoustics and speech perception: Internal standards,
perceptual anchors, and prototypes. In Lynne A. Werner & Edwin W. Rubel (Eds.), Developmental psychoacoustics, pp. 293‐332. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
• Lafford, Barbara.1986. Valor diagnóstico‐social del uso de ciertas variantes de /s/ en el español de Cartagena, Colombia. In Rafael A. Núñez Cedeño, Iraset Páez Urdaneta & Jorge M. Guitart (Eds.), Estudios sobre la fonología del español del Caribe, pp. 53‐75. Caracas: La Casa de Bello.
• Lipski, John. 1994. Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman.• Major, Roy C., Susan M. Fitzmaurice, Ferenic Bunta & Chandrika Balasubramanian.
2005. Testing the effects of regional, ethnic, and international dialects of English on listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55, 1, 37‐69.
• McMahon, April. 2002. An introduction to English phonology. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
• O’Brien, Mary Grantham & Laura Catharine Smith. 2010. Role of first language dialect in the production of second language German vowels. IRAL, 48, 297‐330.
• Ortmeyer, Carolyn & Joseph Boyle. 1985. The effect of accent differences on comprehension. RELC Journal, 16, 48‐53.
• Sumner, Meghan & Arthur G. Samuel. 2009. The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialect variants. Journal of Memory & Language, 60, 4, 487‐501.
• Tauroza, Steve & Jasmine Luk. 1997. Accent and second language listening comprehension. RELC Journal, A Journal of Language Teaching and Research in Southeast Asia, 28, 54‐71.
• Valdman, Albert. 1988. Classroom foreign language learning and language variation: The notion of pedagogical norms. World Englishes, 7, 2, 221‐236.
• Zahedi, Hameed, Rahman Sahragard & Zahra Nasirizadeh. 2007. The effects of phonological features on Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Journal of Pan‐Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 11, 2, 115‐130.