Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:05:19.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LONGITUDINAL L2 DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROSODIC MARKING OF PRAGMATIC MEANING

PROSODIC CHANGES IN L2 SPEECH ACTS AND INDIVIDUAL FACTORS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2021

Naoko Taguchi Open the ORCID record for Naoko Taguchi [Opens in a new window] ,
Kevin Hirschi  and
Okim Kang Open the ORCID record for Okim Kang [Opens in a new window]
Naoko Taguchi*
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Kevin Hirschi
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Okim Kang
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Naoko Taguchi, Professor, English Department, Northern Arizona University, 705 S. Beaver Street, PO Box 6032, Flagstaff, AZ86001. E-mail: naoko.taguchi@nau.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated whether L2 English learners’ prosodic properties in speech acts change as they are immersed in the English-speaking academic community over time, and if so, what individual and contextual factors (proficiency, orientation to language study, and target language contact) potentially affect these changes. Forty-seven Japanese learners of English in an English-medium university in Japan completed a speaking task that elicited two speech acts (request and opinion) three times over one academic year (8 months). Their speech was analyzed for discourse intonational features (e.g., tone choices, prominence ratio, and pitch range). Results showed that all prosodic properties changed over time, although the pace and patterns of changes differed among the properties. Proficiency and language contact significantly affected the change in tone choice, but no other relationship was found between individual/contextual factors and changes in prominence ratio or pitch range.

Type
Research Report
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , July 2022 , pp. 843 - 858
Check for updates
Open Practices
Open materials
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The experiment in this article earned an Open Materials badge for transparent practices. The materials are available at https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york%3a939409&ref=search

References

REFERENCES

Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2014). Preference structure in L2 Arabic requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11, 619–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-23. http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Breen, M., Dilley, L. C., Kraemer, J., & Gibson, E. (2012). Inter-transcriber reliability for two systems of prosodic annotation: ToBI (Tones and Break Indices) and RaP (Rhythm and Pitch). Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8, 277–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., & Warren, M. (2008). A corpus-driven study of discourse intonation: The Hong Kong corpus of spoken English (prosodic) (Vol. 32). John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2007). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29, 359–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2020). TOEFL ITP Assessment Series. https://www.ets.org/toefl_itp/ Google Scholar
Freed, B., Dewey, D., & Segalowitz, N. (2004). The language contact profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, P. (2004) Meaning in academic contexts: A corpus-based study of pragmatic utterances. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Newbury House.Google Scholar
Johnson, D., & Kang, O. (2017). Measures of intelligibility in different varieties of English: Human vs. machine. Proceedings of the Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 58–72.Google Scholar
Kang, O. (2010). Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, O., Ahn, H., Yaw, K., & Chung, S. (2021). Investigation of relationship among learner background, linguistic progression, and score gain on IELTS. The IELTS Research Report Series. https://www.ielts.org/-/media/research-reports/ielts-rr_2021-1_kang-et-al.ashx Google Scholar
Kang, O., & Johnson, D. (2018). Contribution of suprasegmental to English speaking proficiency: Human rater and automated scoring system. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15, 150–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, O., & Kermad, A. (2020). ESL learners’ pronunciation development in the immersion context. Speak Out, 63, 43–50.Google Scholar
Kang, O. & Kermad, A. (2019). Prosody in L2 pragmatics. In Taguchi, N. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 78–92). Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Kang, O., Kermad, A., & Taguchi, N. (2021). The interplay of proficiency and study abroad experience on prosody of L2 speech acts. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20024.kan CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, O., Rubin, D., & Pickering, L. (2010). Judgments of ELL proficiency in oral English and acoustic measures of accentedness. Modern Language Journal, 94, 554–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kermad, A. (2018). Speaker and listener variability in the perception of non-native speech. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.Google Scholar
Knowles, G. (2016). Patterns of spoken English: An introduction to English phonetics. Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 21, 81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, L. (2001). The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, L. (2018). Discourse Intonation: A discourse-pragmatic approach to teaching the pronunciation of English. University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, L, Hu, G., & Baker, A. (2012). The pragmatic function of intonation: Cueing agreement and disagreement in spoken English discourse and implications for ELT. In Romero-Trillo, J. (Ed.), Pragmatics, prosody and English language teaching (pp. 199–218). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Ren, W. (2012). Pragmatic development in Chinese speakers’ L2 English refusals. EUROSLA Yearbook, 12, 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trio, J. (2012). Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smit, U., & Dalton, C. (2000). Motivational patterns in advanced EFL pronunciation learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 38, 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2010). Longitudinal studies in interlanguage pragmatics. In Trosborg, A. (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics vol. 7 (pp. 333–361). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2013). Individual differences and development of speech act production. Invited submission. Applied Research on English Language, 2, 1–16.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., Xiao, F., & Li, S. (2016). Development of pragmatic knowledge in L2 Chinese: Effects of intercultural competence and social contact on speech act production in a study abroad context. Modern Language Journal, 100, 775–796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Maastricht, L., Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (2016). Native speaker perceptions of (non-)native prominence patterns: Effects of deviance in pitch accent distributions on accentedness, comprehensibility, intelligibility, and nativeness. Speech Communication, 83, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wennerstrom, A. (2001). The music of everyday speech: Prosody and discourse analysis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xiao, F., Taguchi, N., & Li, S. (2018). Effects of proficiency sub-skills on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese study abroad. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Taguchi et al. supplementary material

Appendices A-D

Download Taguchi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 36.5 KB