512
WINTER 2012
The Acquisition of Dialectal
Phonemes in a Study Abroad
Context: The Case of the
Castilian Theta
Stephanie M. Knouse
Furman University
Abstract: This exploratory study investigates the incorporation of dialectal variants
in second language (L2) pronunciation and how the learning context intersects with this
acquisition. Specifically, this research examines to what extent L2 learners of Spanish
acquire the regional phoneme /u/ from north‐central Spain in both study abroad (SA) and
at‐home (AH) programs. Native versus nonnative L2 pronunciation over time in potential
[u] contexts is also considered. The findings suggest that students rarely produce [u] after
contact with native speakers in either learning context, yet the use of the phone is
facilitated by a SA experience and conditioned by select linguistic and extralinguistic
factors. Moreover, beginning and intermediate students appear to make greater gains in
nativelike pronunciation as a result of the SA experience as compared to advanced
students.
Key words: Spanish, dialectal phonemes, L2 variation, pronunciation, study abroad
Introduction
The opportunity to study a foreign language in a country where that language is
spoken is thought to be paramount for second language acquisition (SLA). Many
university students are encouraged by their professors and mentors to spend time
abroad in a foreign country in order to increase their proficiency in a particular target
language and to gain worldly experience. By immersing oneself entirely in the
language of study and target culture, learners gain the main advantage of a study
abroad (SA) context in that they are ideally exposed to plentiful amounts of second
language (L2) input, which would be virtually impossible to simulate while residing
in their country of origin. Because it has been widely accepted that including an
experience in a SA context is extremely beneficial to the L2 student’s knowledge of
Stephanie M. Knouse (PhD, University of Florida) is an Assistant Professor of
Spanish and Foreign Language Education at Furman University, Greenville, South
Carolina.
Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 45, Iss. 4, pp. 512–542. © 2013 by American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages.
DOI: 10.1111/flan.12003
and abilities with the target language and
culture,1 many American college students
go abroad as part of an academic program;
in fact, during the 2009–2010 scholastic
year 270,604 undergraduates traveled to a
different country as part of their collegiate
experience, and 5.8% of these students
abroad (15,695) were enrolled in a program
exclusively dedicated to the study of a
foreign language (Institute of International
Education, 2011, p. 2).2
Spanish is the most commonly taught
foreign language in the United States in both
the secondary and postsecondary arenas
(Furman, Goldberg, & Lusin, 2010). As a
result, many language students go abroad to
Hispanophone countries to better understand and produce the language and to
return to the United States more proficient
in Spanish. Of all foreign countries to which
students travel to study the language, Spain
was the third most popular destination
in 2009–2010 (25,411 students), up 5.1%
from the previous academic year, according
to the Open Doors “Fast Facts” Report from
the Institute of International Education
(2011, p. 2). Spain also ranked first among
Spanish‐speaking countries included in this
list of the top 25 destinations and attracted
49% of all students studying in countries
where Spanish is spoken (Institute of
International Education, 2011, p. 2), even
though other areas like Mexico, the
Caribbean, Central America, and South
America—which also offer SA programs—
are closer in proximity and are perhaps more
cost effective.3 Therefore, it seems fairly
logical to inquire about the linguistic outcomes of sending almost half of the students
studying in a Spanish‐speaking country to
Spain, a country that has distinct dialectal
features not typically used in the varieties of
Spanish spoken in the United States.
Given that a large percentage of American students travel to the Iberian Peninsula
to study Spanish, it was my interest to
investigate if and to what extent these L2
learners incorporate linguistic phenomena
found only in Spain as a result of participating in SA programs in the region. In
513
particular, I focused on how students did
or did not acquire the Castilian /u/ as part of
their phonemic inventory, and the factors
that affected this acquisition. Unless one is
in contact with the limited number of
Spaniards residing in the United States4 or
with a native or nonnative instructor of the
language who uses this phone on a regular
basis, few American students studying
Spanish are exposed to this sound before
going abroad to Spain, should they choose to
do so. For those L2 learners who do choose
to study in the region, why do some students
return from their stay abroad producing [u]
in some or mostly all contexts, and why do
others fail to do so? Using a variationist
approach,5 this research addresses this
question and aims to identify the linguistic,
social, and stylistic factors that condition
how students studying in Spain realize the
Castilian [u].
Background on /u/
In this section I provide some basic details
about /u/ and the phonological processes
observed in native (L1) speech. The phoneme /u/ is classified as a voiceless interdental fricative and is very similar to the “th” in
the English words thick and moth. Although
the use of /u/ is observed in other varieties of
Spanish, albeit a rare phenomenon,6 it is
primarily those Spanish speakers from the
north‐central region of Spain who systematically produce this phone, which is one of
the defining phonological characteristics of
Castilian Spanish (Azevedo, 2009). In other
parts of the Iberian Peninsula, phonological
phenomena such as seseo and ceceo are
observed; that is, the categorical use of the
[s] or [u], respectively, with the graphemes
“s,” “ce,” “ci,” and “z”; however, these
phonological processes are not typically
observed among native speakers from
north‐central Spain (Whitley, 2002).
The phonological process involving /u/
in Castilian Spanish is known as distinción,
or “distinction,” as speakers distinguish the
use of [u] and the voiceless alveolar fricative
[s] with the graphemes “ce,” “ci,” and “z,”
employing the former sound rather than the
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
latter in these contexts. As Schwegler,
Kempff, and Ameal‐Guerra (2010) discussed, distinción is a fairly recent phonological phenomenon in north‐central Spain
and became prevalent in this geographical
area between the 16th and 17th centuries
(p. 370). It is thought that this later
development would explain why [u] is
rarely observed in American varieties of
Spanish, as the process had not yet occurred
when the first Spaniards departed for the
New World. In present‐day Castilian
Spanish, the words casa “house” and caza
“hunt” form minimal pairs [ká.sa] and
[ká.ua], yet in most other Spanish‐speaking
countries these two words would be pronounced exactly the same [ká.sa], as seseo—
or the realization of the [s] as corresponding
to the graphemes “s,” “ce,” “ci,” and “z”—is
the default in nearly all Latin American
varieties of Spanish. Therefore, due to the
preference of Latin American Spanish in the
L2 classroom, it is safe to say that the vast
majority of students studying Spanish in the
United States would be exposed to seseo as
opposed to distinción in their classes and in
their communities.
Context of Learning and Study
Abroad
Context of Learning
Within the field of SLA, many researchers
have come to support the idea that the
learning context is a critical element to
consider when analyzing how L2 students
acquire language (Collentine & Freed,
2004; Díaz‐Campos, 2004, 2006; Firth &
Wagner, 1997; Martinsen, Baker, Dewey,
Bown, & Johnson, 2010, p. 45; Schumann,
1976). These scholars have advocated for
including the physical, social, and cultural
setting when examining the factors known
to affect L2 acquisition, especially because
language learning is inherently a social
phenomenon and meaning is always
negotiated between two or more individuals
in a communicative, social environment
(Vygotsky, 1978).
WINTER 2012
Some of the learning contexts that have
been frequently studied over the past few
decades have been classroom immersion
environments and SA programs (Collentine
& Freed, 2004), as well as naturalistic
settings (Siegel, 2003). Many times social
and affective influences about language are
closely linked to SLA when one considers
the effects of learning environments; these
social‐psychological factors add a profound
dimension when a researcher analyzes the
effects of different learning contexts, especially when learners are acquiring the L2
while immersed in the culture. Whichever
the learning context, I too uphold the belief
that this external factor should be taken into
consideration with the acquisition of a L2,
especially since we, as language instructors,
frequently advocate for and send our
students to a different learning context to
better acquire and manipulate the L2. The
present analysis focuses on how classroom
and SA environments play a role in L2
pronunciation with the hopes of contributing to a body of research dedicated to how
learning contexts shape L2 acquisition.
SA and Pronunciation
As mentioned in the above section, many
SLA researchers, especially in the past two
decades, have carried out investigations on
how a SA learning context may or may not
facilitate different aspects of L2 acquisition.
This research has focused on, but is not
limited to, SLA of the following areas:
pronunciation and speaking abilities, grammatical structures, pragmatic and communicative competence, narrative abilities,
vocabulary development, and cognitive
abilities (see Lafford & Collentine, 2006,
for a full review of these different areas of L2
Spanish in SA settings). As the scope of this
investigation is limited to dialectal sounds in
L2 phonology, the studies highlighted in
this section will focus exclusively on the oral
abilities of L2 learners who have participated
in SA programs. Several investigations
within SLA research have emphasized
different nuances of oral abilities after a
stay abroad: fluency (DeKeyser, 1986;
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
514
Freed, 1995a; Freed, Segalowitz, &
Dewey, 2004; Isabelli, 2001; Lafford, 1995;
Segalowitz & Freed, 2004), oral proficiency
(Freed, 1990, 1995a, 1995b; Ginsberg &
Miller, 2000; Guntermann, 1992a, 1992b;
Magnan & Back, 2007; Martinsen, 2007;
Segalowitz & Freed, 2004), and segmental
pronunciation (Díaz‐Campos, 2004, 2006;
Lord, 2006, 2010; Simões, 1996; Stevens,
2001).
As in other areas of SLA SA research, the
benefits of a SA experience are, on the whole,
positive (Carroll, 1967; Lafford, 2006), yet
some studies have not been able to make
such a decisive conclusion. With respect to
L2 pronunciation of segmental phonemes of
Spanish, some analyses have shown improvements in targetlike pronunciation after
spending a period abroad, while the evidence from other investigations does not
indicate definitive positive gains as a result
of this learning context. For example, the
results of Simões (1996) determined that
while four out of five of the participants
improved their speaking abilities in terms
of a simulated ACTFL Oral Proficiency
Interview, certain acoustic features of the
participants’ L2 speech did not develop as
much as one might have anticipated after
the 5‐week experience in Costa Rica. The
researcher found that only two of five
participants displayed significant improvements with respect to vowel quality. It was
observed that these five L2 learners of
Spanish were only slightly able to produce
shorter vowels and fewer examples of the
English “schwa” [c]; in only some instances
they used linking strategies and produced
fewer hesitations. The participants still, by
and large, continued producing nonnative
sounds when speaking in Spanish, even after
an immersion experience and direct contact
with native speakers (NSs) of the language.
Another study that showed mixed
results of the effect of a SA program
regarding targetlike pronunciation was
that of Díaz‐Campos (2004), who investigated how students who completed a
10‐week SA experience in Alicante, Spain,
compared to those enrolled in an at‐home
515
(AH) program for the same length of time.
All participants read a short text with 60
words containing the segments to be
studied. After analyzing commonly taught
segmental features in L2 Spanish textbooks
from the read‐aloud excerpt, he concluded
that both the SA and AH groups increased
nativelike production of word‐initial stops
[p, t, k] and word‐final laterals [l] over time.
Yet neither the AH nor the SA students
improved their use of the voiced intervocalic
fricatives [b, ð, g] after the treatment period,
lending credibility that these students could
not establish a different phonemic category
in the L2 for these similar, but different
sounds (cf. Flege, 1987). Therefore, it would
seem that the learning context did not
appear to positively affect the L2 pronunciation of the SA students with regard to these
phones. Notably, when Díaz‐Campos classified all of the specified segments as either
nativelike or nonnative and incorporated
external factors (i.e., gender, context of
learning and time of recording, years of
formal language instruction, etc.) into the
analysis, it was discovered that the AH
posttest data yielded a higher percentage and
probability of nativelike pronunciation
when compared to the SA group’s posttest
data. In other words, the AH group showed a
slightly higher rate of overall improvement
when compared to the SA students over
time. Díaz‐Campos inferred that the AH
students probably had more years of formal
instruction in Spanish, which also resulted
as a statistically significant factor in predicting nativelike pronunciation of the segments. He concluded by stating: “These
results are slightly puzzling in that they do
not reveal striking differences between SA
and AH students” (p. 270). These results
also make one wonder: What are the
phonological benefits of studying abroad
for the L2 Spanish learner?
To follow up on the findings in his 2004
analysis, Díaz‐Campos (2006) compared
how different types of speaking tasks—
namely, conversational versus read‐aloud
tasks—affected the production of these
same segmental features in L2 phonology
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
and linked this analysis to the effect of SA
and AH learning contexts. In this investigation, the researcher incorporated two‐
minute extracts from pre‐ and posttest
ACTFL OPI data as the conversational
task and compared the patterns of this
corpus to the pre‐ and posttest data from the
read‐aloud task used in the 2004 study
described above. When taking into consideration the task type itself, Díaz‐Campos
observed that SA students were more
successful across time than AH students in
producing targetlike segmental pronunciation during the conversational task; specifically, SA students made more gains when
realizing the word‐initial voiceless stops
[p, t, k], syllable final laterals [l], and palatal
nasals [ ] after the treatment period. Even
though both groups as a whole realized more
nativelike sounds during the OPI in comparison to their performance during the
read‐aloud task, Díaz‐Campos suggested the
SA students’ marked success in conversational speaking was due to an increased
amount of interaction with NSs during the
10‐week period in Spain. It appears that
because the SA students were presented with
more opportunities to practice informal
speech on a daily basis (e.g., outside of class
with host families, with other various
members of the NS community), they
were able to enhance their speaking skills
of this genre, thus showing more developments over time.
The findings of Stevens (2001) likewise
offer support as to how a SA experience can
benefit L2 pronunciation. He included the
following groups in his investigation: one
control group (students who participated in
an AH program in Los Angeles) and two
experimental groups (students who spent a
summer in Madrid and others who were
there for an entire semester). After analyzing
the realizations of the consonants [p, t, k, b,
ð, g, r, ] from the pre‐ and posttests, Stevens
determined that those students who participated in SA programs of either length of time
showed statistically significant improvements
in nativelike pronunciation—especially the
reduction of voice onset time of word‐initial
WINTER 2012
voiceless stops [p, t, k]—when compared to
the students who remained stateside. He
accredited the success of the experimental
groups to “the amount and type of input
provided by the study abroad experience”
(p. 195).
Lord (2010) also observed positive
gains in L2 pronunciation after a stay abroad
from students who had traveled to Mexico as
part of an academic program. Yet the
learning context was not the lone contributing factor for success in her study. She
contended that it is not only a SA context
that enhances L2 students’ performance
regarding nativelike phonetic forms, but
rather it is the combination of a SA
experience along with prior explicit instruction of L2 sounds that promotes higher
levels of mastery. The researcher analyzed
the production of the fricative consonants
[ß, ð, g] versus their occlusive counterparts
[b, d, g]; the latter group of sounds is
commonly observed in L2 Spanish pronunciation of NSs of English due to L1 transfer,
because many L2 students are unaware of
the phonological process of fricativization in
Spanish. The results of the analysis confirmed that those students who had taken an
introductory course on phonetics before
their 8‐week stay abroad in Mexico were the
most successful in targetlike pronunciation
of these sounds. Although both the noninstruction and instruction group benefitted
from the immersion experience, Lord
affirmed that “those with instruction in
addition to immersion may reap even more
benefits” (p. 497).
SLA and Variation
The SLA research mentioned above focused
exclusively on sounds observed in most or
all varieties of Spanish. These studies
compared nativelike and nonnative realizations produced by L2 learners after a time
abroad in order to ascertain how the learning
context shapes SLA. While this type of
emphasis is very important for an understanding of the linguistic effects of a stay
abroad, it seems to be equally as important to
discover if L2 learners acquire dialectal
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
516
features exclusively characteristic of that
particular region. For this reason, a burgeoning subfield of SLA research of Spanish
phenomena has started to address research
questions that unite SLA, sociolinguistics,
and regional variation (Geeslin, 2011); the
present study likewise attempts to contribute to this growing body of knowledge.
The majority of research that merges
SLA and L1 variation has dealt with
morphological or syntactic phenomena,
such as copula choice (Geeslin, 2002;
Geeslin & Guijarro‐Fuentes, 2006), the
preference of the subjunctive or indicative
moods (Geeslin & Gudmestad, 2008a;
Gudmestad, 2006), the acquisition of direct
object versus indirect object pronouns
(Geeslin, García‐Amaya, Hasler‐Barker,
Henriksen, & Killam, 2010; Salgado‐Robles, 2011), and subject pronoun expression
(Abreu,
2009;
Geeslin
&
Gudmestad, 2008b). With respect to SLA
studies centered on how L2 students acquire
“geographically indexed” phones (Willis,
Geeslin, & Henriksen, 2009), only two
previous studies have concentrated on this
topic and, coincidentally, both have analyzed the acquisition of /u/ by L2 learners of
Spanish after a SA experience in Spain.
Geeslin and Gudmestad (2008c) discovered that of 130 American students who
spent time abroad in Spain, only nine
students realized [u] in their speech. All
nine of these participants belonged to one of
the three highest predeparture proficiency
levels, and the two students who categorically used [u] pertained to the highest
proficiency level. In the same study, the
researchers also analyzed /s/‐weakening,
which is not only a dialectal feature in
Spanish but also a socially conditioned
phenomenon. Five of the 130 students
produced examples of the weakened /s/, all
of which were realized only in word‐final
position. As with the results of [u], the five
students producing this sound had tested
into the highest proficiency level. Upon
reviewing the results of a posttest survey,
Geelsin and Gudmestad argued that social‐
psychological factors played a role in
517
whether or not the participants acquired
/u/ or incorporated /s/‐weakening in L2 speech.
As the results of the aforementioned
study had determined that those students
with the highest levels of proficiency were
more likely to incorporate dialectal or L1
variable phones in their speech, Willis et al.
(2009) targeted this type of student as
the focus of their study of /u/. All nine
participants of this investigation were highly
motivated graduating high school seniors
who were studying in a Spanish‐speaking
country for the first time, specifically in
León, Spain. They found that, over time,
eight of the nine learners reduced the use of
[s] and [z] in the contexts where [u] was
possible, replacing these phones with [u];
only one student moved in the opposite
direction and disfavored the use of the
geographically indexed variant after the
experience abroad. Willis et al. concluded
that these motivated students were able to
reorganize L2 phonemic categories and
incorporate dialectal features used by the
NS community in León. While the results of
these studies provide important insights on
the acquisition of /u/, they do not include
tools to measure students’ attitudes on L2
pronunciation, nor is an AH group used as a
point of comparison in Willis et al. (2009).
For these reasons, I expanded the scope of
the analysis of [u] use by incorporating these
elements into the present investigation.
Research Questions
Given the need for further empirical research regarding L2 acquisition of dialectal
phonemes and the interest to probe further
in comparing SA and AH groups, I posed the
following exploratory research questions:
RQ1: Regarding the amount of [u]
production over time, how do students
participating in a SA program in Salamanca, Spain, compare to students in an
AH course with an instructor who
realizes the dialectal variant?
RQ2: What are the linguistic, social, and
stylistic factors7 that contribute to the
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
WINTER 2012
acquisition of /u/ after a 6‐week stay
abroad in Salamanca, and how do
attitudes of pronunciation play a role
in this acquisition?
RQ3: In all contexts where [u] is
possible, how does target vs. nontarget
pronunciation by SA and AH students
compare over time?
Methodology
Participants
A total of 25 American university students
participated in the present study. During
summer 2008, the data were collected from
the SA group, which consisted of a total of 15
students (14 females and 1 male) studying
abroad for a 6‐week period in Salamanca.
All of these participants were L1 speakers of
English.8 The average length of formal study
of Spanish by the SA group was 5.6 years
(range 2–10 years). Of these 15 students,
3 (20%) were pursuing a major in Spanish,
3 (20%) were pursuing a minor in the
language, and the other 9 (60%) did not
pursue Spanish as either a major or minor at
their respective universities. None of these
students had studied in a foreign country
prior to this experience. This SA program
was ideal for the present investigation
because NSs of this region, as well as all of
the students’ instructors, regularly employ
distinción in their speech. The presence of
NS use of [u] and distinctión were corroborated with NS salmantino data collected
during the same summer (salmantinos are
people originally from Salamanca). A random sample of 25 open‐ended sociolinguistic interviews was analyzed. The 25
salmantinos realized [u] at a rate of 99%
(622/625) during these interviews in all
contexts containing the “ce,” “ci,” and “z”
graphemes.
The data from the AH group were
collected in summer 2009 from students
attending a 6‐week summer Spanish course
at a large state university. There were a total
of 21 students enrolled in the class; however,
the data from 11 students in total were
discarded because 8 of these students were
native or bilingual speakers of Spanish and 3
did not complete all of the required tasks.
Upon eliminating these 11 students, there
were a total of 10 nonnnative participants
(7 females and 3 males) in the AH group,
whose L1 was English. The average length of
formal study was 6.5 years (range 5–9 years);
and of these 10 students, all 10 (100%) were
pursuing Spanish as their minor. All of these
students were enrolled in their third or
fourth year of collegiate Spanish, and all had
passed an advanced grammar and composition course as a prerequisite of the class;
thus, they were all considered advanced
language students. Four of the 10 AH
participants had studied in Spain during a
6‐week period the prior summer (3 in
Santander, 1 in Seville).
It is important to clarify why I chose this
particular AH group with which to compare
those students studying abroad in Salamanca. First, the course in which these
students were enrolled lasted a total of
6 weeks, which was the same length of study
as the SA program. The average number of
years of formal study of the SA and AH
groups was also fairly analogous (5.6 years
vs. 6.5 years, respectively). Most important,
the instructor of the AH class spoke with a
Castilian accent—and consequently used
[u]—when teaching in Spanish. It was one
of my research interests to ascertain whether
or not AH students in contact with a speaker
using dialectal features would acquire these
linguistic characteristics and, if so, at what
rate. As with the salmantino NSs, I corroborated that this instructor realized [u] in her
speech, which she did with an average of
82.9% (92/111—there were 111 occurrences from the available analyzable data).
Finally, as 4 of the 10 AH participants had
already been exposed to /u/ in prior SA
experiences, it was of interest to observe (1)
whether the dialectal feature had already
been acquired and was still maintained
by these participants a year after their
experience abroad, and (2) whether being
re‐exposed to the phone would prompt these
students to use the sound in their speech.
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
518
Tasks and Treatment Period
Learners in both the SA and AH groups
participated in a pretest upon arriving in
Spain or during the first days of the summer
class at the AH institution. There were two
speaking tasks included in the first session of
testing: reading a short newspaper article
and responding to open‐ended questions
(see Appendix A). These particular pre‐ and
posttest readings were chosen because
they were authentic texts written by native
Spanish speakers, as opposed to texts
designed exclusively for experimental purposes; each were comparable in length, and
both articles contained a similar number of
contexts where [u] could be realized.9 The
interview questions were related to the
students’ personal and academic interests
and were designed to facilitate natural,
spontaneous conversation. All SA participants carried out the speaking tasks in a
quiet room using an Olympus or Sony
portable digital recorder, whereas the data
from the AH group were collected in a
different manner. The AH participants were
instructed to find a quiet room and to call a
toll‐free number that corresponded to my
Gabcast account. When the data were
collected, http://www.gabcast.com was a
Web site where members could create
podcasts through the use of a telephone
and “publish” them online; because my
account was set to “private,” only I had
access to the recordings. The participants
completed both speaking tasks using a
landline or cell phone and selected the
option to save the recordings in my private
account as an mp3 file.
During the pretest I also administered a
Pronunciation Attitude Inventory (PAI)
based on Elliott (1995) to both the SA and
AH groups in order to determine if students’
attitudes on L2 pronunciation played a role
in the acquisition of /u/. The PAI required
participants to rate 12 statements about
L2 pronunciation using a 5‐point Likert
scale (1 being “never true of me” and 5
“always true of me”) (see Appendix B). As in
Elliott (1995), three of the questions were
worded negatively to avoid a survey effect;
519
the answers to these particular questions
were inverted in order to get the corresponding score. The points on the PAI
questionnaire were totaled; the highest score
possible came to 60 points. The more
emphasis the student placed on acquiring
and employing nativelike pronunciation
in Spanish, the higher the overall total.
Students in the SA group averaged 48.1
points out of 60 on the PAI (range ¼ 42–52),
and the AH group similarly averaged 47.7
points out of 60 (range ¼ 44–52).10
Prior to their arrival in Spain, students
participating in the SA program in Salamanca were given a choice as to whether
they wanted to spend the 6‐week experience
with a host family or reside in a student
dormitory run by a private Spanish company. Out of the 15 participants abroad, 11
decided to live with a host family and 4
opted for the dormitory setting. Of those SA
students residing with host families, all were
placed with another student enrolled in the
same SA program; of those in the dormitories, two students lived alone and two
roomed with another L2 learner of Spanish.11 Once in Spain and before the official
courses began, all SA students were placed in
beginning, intermediate, or advanced grammar classes based on their scores on a
grammar language proficiency test. Students
placing in the beginning levels were obliged
to take the following courses: beginning
grammar, vocabulary expansion, language
laboratory, and communication skills practice. Those placing in the intermediate and
advanced proficiency levels took a grammar
course corresponding to their respective
level, as well as three electives from the
following areas of study: Spanish culture and
society, Spanish literature and literary
analysis, contemporary Spanish history,
Spanish art, and composition and conversation. All students attended class daily
Monday through Friday for at least 4 hours
per day, totaling about 120 contact hours
during the entire 6‐week experience.
The 10 AH students participated in a
6‐week, on‐campus course entitled “Introduction to Hispanic Linguistics.” All of these
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
students needed to complete this upper‐
level class as one of the requirements of the
Spanish minor at the academic institution.
In this course, students were exposed to the
different fields of linguistic study, such as
phonetics and phonology, morphology,
history of the Spanish language, syntax,
SLA, language contact, dialectology, and
sociolinguistics. Regarding the chapters on
phonetics and phonology, the AH students
were explicitly instructed for five class
periods on how to articulate nativelike
sounds in Spanish—especially in comparison to similar phones in the English
phonological system, as well as on dialectal
phonological differences within the
Spanish‐speaking world. In particular, the
professor explicitly taught the class about
the phonological phenomena distinción,
seseo, and ceceo observed in the Iberian
Peninsula. This class met Monday through
Friday for 1 hour and 15 minutes per day
during the 6‐week period, totaling about
36.25 contact hours.
Both the SA and AH groups participated
in a posttest as their respective experiences
were coming to a close. The structure of the
two speaking tasks was the same in this
round of testing as in the previous one;
however, the read‐aloud text and open‐
ended questions were substituted with
different content to avoid a repetition effect
(Appendix C). Throughout the entire
testing period, I had not informed the
participants of the purpose of the study;
only after all participants finished the
posttest did they learn about the focus of
the present investigation.
Data Analysis
I identified all instances where [u] could
occur—specifically, those contexts that
included the “ce,” “ci,” and “z” graphemes
in both the first and second testing session
tasks—and subsequently coded them
according to the sound produced by the
L2 learner. Inaudible or unintelligible
speech samples were excluded from the
analysis. I used acoustic analysis software
WINTER 2012
(PRAAT) to facilitate judgments of [z] and
[s] when the voicing of the sound could
not be determined. Likewise, a NS of north‐
central Castilian Spanish listened to a
sample of the data in order to establish
interrater reliability. There was a high
percentage of agreement (88.7%, 298/336),
and the NS rater and I came to a consensus in
those cases where there were judgment
discrepancies.
After the exclusions, the two rounds of
testing between the SA and AH groups
yielded a total of 3,476 possible occurrences
of [u]: 2,119 from the SA group (59% of the
data) and 1,357 from the AH group (41% of
the data). These tokens were coded in a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet based on linguistic, social, and stylistic factor groups.
Within the linguistic factor groups, the
grapheme, stress of the syllable, and word
position were incorporated in the analysis.
There were four social factor groups considered: type of housing, level of grammar
instruction, scores on the PAI, and field of
study. Finally, the task type and test session
were included as the stylistic factor groups.12
Along with descriptive statistics, there
were two statistical programs used in this
analysis. The majority of the data was
analyzed via GoldVarb X (Sankoff, Tagliamonte, & Smith, 2005), a VARBRUL
program that has been used in other L2
segmental phonological investigations
(Díaz‐Campos, 2004, 2006; Hurtado &
Estrada, 2010). GoldVarb X, a multivariate
logistic regression program typically employed in variationist analyses, offers researchers a powerful tool to facilitate the
discovery and interpretation of linguistic
patterns (cf. Bayley, 2002; Guy, 1993;
Paolillo, 2002), as it is believed that language
patterns are not randomly formed but rather
structured in a predictable manner, otherwise known as “orderly heterogeneity”
(Labov, 1982, p. 17; Weinreich, Labov, &
Herzog, 1968, p. 100). GoldVarb X calculates the input probability of the dependent
variable—or, in this study, the sound
produced by the speaker in all instances
where [u] could occur—without the
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
520
contextual and extralinguistic factors present. Subsequently, the program runs a
stepping‐up and a stepping‐down of the
data (i.e., comparing all the factor groups in
a stepwise manner) and arrives at the model
that is the best fit. The program determines
the factor groups that have a statistically
significant effect on the dependent variable
and calculates the probabilistic weights
within each factor group. These probabilities note the likelihood of a factor within the
group to co‐occur with the application value
(Bayley, 2002) or, in the present study, the
use of [u]: The individual factors that have
probabilistic weights greater than 0.50
favored the use of [u], whereas factors less
than 0.50 were said to disfavor the use of [u].
From the results of the GoldVarb X analysis,
it is also possible to ascertain a ranking of the
factor groups from the most to the least
influential over the dependent variable; this
is known as the magnitude of effect, or
range. Therefore, GoldVarb X is a tool that
allowed me to not only determine which
factors within the factor groups conditioned
the use of [u], but also to rank which
linguistic, social, or stylistic factor groups
had the largest impact on shaping the
production of this dialectal phone.13
The other statistical program implemented in the analysis was a chi‐square test.
Chi‐square tests allow researchers to compare the proportions of data from two factors
in order to determine if there is a statistically
significant difference between the groups.
One limitation of the GoldVarb X software is
that it cannot account for categorical data;
that is, data in which there is no variation
present. This type of data is otherwise
known as “knockouts.” Because there were
examples of categorical data in some of the
variables, chi‐square tests were substituted
for GoldVarb X analyses wherever knockouts were present.
Hypotheses
RQ1
I hypothesized that the SA group would
produce [u] at a higher rate than the AH
participants after the 6 weeks, due to a
521
greater amount of contact with NSs of
Spanish who regularly realize the sound in
and outside the classroom. Thus, the extent
to which L2 learners realized [u] in their
speech would be positively correlated to the
SA context of learning.
RQ2
With respect to the linguistic factor groups, I
expected participants to favor the use of [u]
in word‐medial position, as in Willis et al.
(2009), and when primed upon reading the
“z” grapheme. Of the social factor groups, I
hypothesized that those participants living
with host families, as opposed to those
residing in the student dormitory, would
tend to produce more instances of [u], again
due to more intense contact with NSs of this
variety. Furthermore, I anticipated higher
scores on the PAI to be directly related to
higher rates of [u] realization. If students
highly valued L2 pronunciation and sounding like NSs of Spanish, it was thought that
they would be more likely to incorporate
this dialectal feature, as did the NSs (or near‐
NSs) with whom they were in contact.
Regarding the potential stylistic influences, I
expected to observe a significant difference
of [u] use between the reading of the text
and the open‐ended questions, as Tarone
(1979, 1982, 1983) and Major (1987)
contended that formal tasks (e.g., readings)
elicit more targetlike phenomena—or in this
case, more dialectal phones—when compared to informal tasks (e.g., open‐ended
interview questions).
RQ3
In all contexts where [u] was possible, I
predicted that the SA group would show
more relative gains in nativelike pronunciation and a decrease in the use of nonnative
phones across time when compared to the
AH group, due to the immersion experience
and intense contact with NSs of Spanish.
Results
RQ1: Overall [u] Use
Responding to my first research question,
the overall production of [u] was minimal
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
WINTER 2012
but nonetheless present in the data (N ¼ 36/
2,119; 1.7%). Out of the 15 L2 learners in the
SA group, 7 participants realized at least one
example of [u] during either the readings or
the open‐ended interviews. Of the 36
realizations of [u], the same SA participant
produced three occurrences of [u] during
the pretest; six different participants produced the remaining 33 examples of [u]
during the posttest. No member of the AH
group produced [u] in the entire data set,
not even the four students who had been
exposed to the phone during previous SA
programs. Therefore, only the SA group was
included in GoldVarb X analysis of linguistic, social, and stylistic factor groups,
because, as explained in the section above,
categorical data—in this case, 0/1,357 (0%)
examples of [u] from the AH group—could
not be accounted for by the statistical
program. It was nevertheless possible to
confirm the considerable disparity of [u] use
between the participants of the two learning
contexts: a chi‐square test found a statistically significant difference in the use of [u]
between the SA and the AH groups
(x2 ¼ 23.29553651; p < 0.001).
RQ2: Linguistic, Social, and Stylistic
Factors
To address my second research question, I
analyzed the linguistic, social, and stylistic
factor groups separately in order to clearly
ascertain the internal and external factors
shaping [u] use. The results of the GoldVarb
X analysis of the contributing linguistic
factors shaping the use of [u] by the SA
participants are presented in Table 1. The
GoldVarb X analysis of the linguistic factor
groups could not include word position, as
no variation was observed in the data.
Interestingly, the participants categorically
realized [u] in word‐medial position (100%,
36/36), yet chi‐square tests revealed no
significant difference between word‐medial
and word‐initial and/or word‐final positions. The only linguistic factor group
selected as having a significant effect on
the use of [u] was the grapheme itself
(range ¼ 21).
When the SA participants read or spoke
words containing “z,” they were much more
likely to use [u] with this grapheme (0.79);
conversely, the use of [u] was moderately
disfavored when the learners read or spoke a
word containing the “ce” or “ci” digraphs
(0.43). Therefore, it was more probable for
participants to produce [u] with words such
as empezar “to start” or realizan “they carry
out” than necesarios “necessary” or conversaciones “conversations” (examples taken
from the reading tasks). The stress of the
syllable was not selected as a statistically
significant factor group conditioning the use
TABLE 1
GoldVarb X Results of the Contributing Linguistic Factors to the Probability
of [u] in the SA Group
Input probability: 0.013 (1.7%)
N ¼ 36/2,119
Probability
% [u]
Grapheme
“z”
0.79
5
“ce” “ci”
0.43
1
Range
36
Stress of syllable
[0.53]*
2
Stressed syllable
[0.46]
1
Unstressed syllable
Log likelihood ¼ 172.014; p ¼ 0.000; x2/cell ¼ 0.0068
*
N
% Data
18
18
17
83
23
13
56
44
Square brackets indicate that the factor group was not selected as statistically significant.
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
522
of [u], which corroborated the findings of
Willis et al. (2009).
Regarding the social factor groups, two
were selected as having a statistically
significant effect on the acquisition of [u]:
level of grammar proficiency (range ¼ 44)
and field of study (range ¼ 25) (see
Table 2). Those SA students who placed in
either the beginning or intermediate‐level
grammar courses while in Salamanca were
much more likely to realize [u] (0.60 and
0.68, respectively), whereas the L2 students
testing into the advanced grammar courses
strongly disfavored using [u] in their speech
(0.24). This finding is intriguing, as L2
learners of Spanish in beginning and
intermediate proficiency levels were not
found to realize the phone in Geeslin and
Gudmestad (2008c); in their study, only
those students pertaining to advanced
proficiency levels produced [u]. I provide
a possible explanation of these results in
523
the following section (see Discussion and
Conclusion).
In addition, those students pursuing a
major or minor in Spanish were more likely
to realize [u] (0.65), as compared to those
participants who were officially specializing
in other areas (0.40). The results from this
factor group are potential evidence that
motivation could play an influential role in
the acquisition of dialectal features. Yet
attitudes on targetlike L2 pronunciation did
not correlate to [u] production, contrary to
previous expectations. It was thought that
those L2 learners scoring higher on the
PAI—thus, maintaining the attitude that it is
important to be perceived as more nativelike
when speaking in Spanish—would realize
[u] more frequently. Even though a significant relationship between the PAI and [u]
use was not observed, these findings are
congruent to those in Elliott (1995), as the
results of the PAI in his study did not
TABLE 2
GoldVarb X Results of the Contributing Social Factors to the Probability
of [u] in the SA Group
Input probability: 0.013 (1.7%)
N ¼ 36/2,119
Probability
% [u]
Level of grammar proficiency
Intermediate
0.68
2
Beginner
0.60
2
Advanced
0.24
1
Range
44
Field of study at AH institution
Spanish as major/minor
0.65
2
Neither
0.40
1
Range
25
Housing conditions
1
Dormitory
[0.59]*
Host family
[0.46]
2
Pronunciation Attitude Inventory
50–52 points
[0.54]
2
42–45 points
[0.45]
1
2
Log likelihood ¼ 173.355; p ¼ 0.009; x /cell ¼ 4.3174
*
N
% Data
19
13
4
39
26
35
19
17
41
59
6
30
28
72
26
10
61
39
Square brackets indicate that the factor group was not selected as statistically significant.
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
correlate to improvements in L2 pronunciation by intermediate students of Spanish
during an AH program. Rather, the key
factor in predicting gains by his participants
was formal instruction of Spanish phones.
The housing conditions of the SA
participants were not selected as having a
significant effect on the dependent variable
within the social factor groups, although
I had expected this factor group to be a
more powerful predictor of [u] use. I had
hypothesized that those students who had
more daily contact with NSs would be more
likely to use the phone, especially when
compared to those students with less
interaction with NSs in the dormitory.
This environment did not facilitate much
interaction with salmantinos, nor did it
promote use of the L2, as the vast majority
of students spoke to one another in English
during the time spent in these living
quarters. In contrast, the homestay certainly
encouraged more contact with salmantinos,
especially in comparison with the dormitory
setting, as students ate most meals with the
host family and had regular interactions
with them. While it is important to recognize, as did Lafford and Collentine (2006),
that interactions and conversations between
host families and students can “vary in
quantity and quality” (p. 116), this type of
living environment is regarded as the
most beneficial for language acquisition in
general. Although GoldVarb X eliminated
this factor group from those having a
significant effect on [u] use, one can still
examine the percentages and observe a
noteworthy trend in the data: 83.3% (30/36)
of the instances of [u] were produced by
those students who had stayed with a host
family, whereas only 16.7% (6/36) of [u]
tokens were realized by those who had
resided in the dormitory setting.
Finally, regarding the stylistic factor
groups, test session was selected as being a
formative predictor of [u] use (range ¼ 51).
This finding is logical, because the amount
of exposure to this particular sound was
much greater after the 6‐week period (0.74)
than before for the SA group (0.23); 8.3%
WINTER 2012
(3/36) of the realizations occurred before
considerable exposure to the phone, and the
remaining realizations occurred after the SA
experience came to an end (91.7%, 33/36).
Within the stylistic factor groups, the type of
task was not found to shape [u] use.
Although GoldVarb X eliminated this factor
group because it did not achieve statistical
significance, if one were to look at the
percentages in the data, one would observe
decisive trends: 86.1% (31/36) of the total
examples of [u] were realized during the
reading of the newspaper articles, whereas
only 13.9% (5/36) were produced during the
open‐ended questions. Therefore, it appears
that formal tasks elicited more of the
dialectal variant than informal, conversational tasks in this data set (see Table 3).
RQ3: Target Versus Nontarget Sounds
Over Time
Responding to my third research question, I
examined how the SA and AH groups
compared over time regarding target versus
nontarget sounds that were produced where
[u] was possible.14 I separated the tokens
corresponding to the “ce” and “ci” digraphs
from the “z” grapheme in order to get a more
accurate picture of exactly how students did
or did not improve over time. When
participants articulated a word containing
the “ce” or “ci” diagraphs, it was coded as a
target sound if they produced [u] or [s] in
these contexts; all other sounds were labeled
as a nontarget realization. Target sounds
with words containing the “z” grapheme
were defined in the same manner: Sounds
were identified as target if they employed [u]
or [s] and nontarget if any other sound was
produced.15 The data from the reading and
open‐ended questions from both the pre‐
and posttests were included in this analysis.
Tables 4 and 5 display the results over time
from the SA group, and Tables 6 and 7
display the results over time from the AH
group.
By examining the target versus nontarget findings from the SA participants, as seen
in Table 4, one can see that the SA group
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
524
525
TABLE 3
GoldVarb X Results of the Contributing Stylistic Factors to the Probability
of [u] in the SA Group
Input probability: 0.010 (1.7%)
N ¼ 36/2,119
Probability
% [u]
Test session
Posttest
0.74
3
Pretest
0.23
0.3
Range
51
Task
2
Text
[0.53]*
Open‐ended interview
[0.40]
1
2
Log likelihood ¼ 169.587; p ¼ 0.000; x /cell ¼ 2.3221
*
N
% Data
33
3
80
20
31
5
54
47
Square brackets indicate that the factor group was not selected as statistically significant.
produced a high rate of nativelike sounds
related to the “ce” and “ci” as graphemes
during both rounds of testing. It is reasonable to attribute this finding to L1 transfer of
/s/ corresponding to the “ce” and “ci”
orthographic sequence in English, as in
“city” [sI.ti] or “cent” [sent]; this direct
overlap of the L1 and L2 phonological
systems facilitated this high percentage of
accuracy, resulting in a “free ride” for
students known as positive transfer
(Major, 2001, p. 3). Yet even with the aid
of the L1 phonological system, some of these
students still produced nontarget sounds
TABLE 4
Relative Frequencies of Native vs. Nonnative Sounds Produced With
Words Containing “ce” and “ci” Digraphs, SA Group
Sounds
produced
(N ¼ 1,755)
Pretest
(N)
Pretest
(%)
Posttest
(N)
Posttest
(%)
Change over
time (%)
783
95.8
905
96.5
þ0.7%
3
0.4
15
1.6
þ1.2%
10
1.2
0
0.0
1.2%
6
0.7
11
1.2
þ0.5%
2
0.2
0
0.0
0.2%
12
1.5
0
0.0
1.5%
0
0.0
7
0.7
þ0.7%
1
0.1
0
0.0
0.1%
Total
817
100
938
100
Native vs. nonnative sounds: statistically significant improvement from pretest
to posttest
Native
sounds
Nonnative
sounds
[s]
[u]
[ks]
[]
[ts]
[k]
[kw]
[z]
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
WINTER 2012
TABLE 5
Relative Frequencies of Native vs. Nonnative Sounds Produced With Words
Containing “z” Grapheme, SA Group
Sounds
produced
(N ¼ 349)
Pretest
(N)
Pretest
(%)
Posttest
(N)
Posttest
(%)
Change over
time (%)
80
51.6
100
51.5
0.1%
0
0.0
18
9.3
þ9.3%
69
44.5
76
39.2
5.3%
4
2.6
0
0.0
2.6%
2
1.3
0
0.0
1.3%
Total
155
100
194
100
Native vs. nonnative sounds: no statistically significant improvement from pretest
to posttest
Native
sounds
Nonnative
sounds
[s]
[u]
[z]
[ts]
[k]
[ks, , ts, k, kw, z] when articulating words
containing the “ce” and “ci” digraphs in
3.7% (30/816) of the cases. After the SA
experience, students reduced the use of
nonnative phones to only two errant sounds
[kw, ] as opposed to six, and increased the
amount of nativelike realizations from
96.2% to 98.1% (Table 4). A chi‐square
test revealed a statistically significant im-
provement over time in the realization of
target sounds versus nontarget sounds by
the SA group in relation to the “ce” and “ci”
digraphs (x2 ¼ 4.395672; p < 0.05).
Table 5 presents the results for target
versus nontarget sounds related to “z” over
time from the SA group. In the pretest data,
the SA participants produced 51.6% target
sounds and 48.4% nontarget sounds. There
TABLE 6
Relative Frequencies of Sounds Produced With Words Containing
“ce” and “ci” Digraphs, AH Group
Sounds
produced
(N ¼ 1,113)
Pretest
(N)
Pretest
(%)
Posttest
(N)
Posttest
(%)
Change over
time (%)
531
98.3
568
99.1
þ0.8%
0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0%
3
0.6
1
0.2
0.4%
0
0.0
1
0.2
þ0.2%
4
0.7
0
0.0
0.7%
2
0.4
3
0.5
þ0.1%
Total
540
100
573
100
Native vs. nonnative sounds: no statistically significant improvement from pretest
to posttest
Native
sounds
Nonnative
sounds
[s]
[u]
[z]
[ks]
[k]
[kw]
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
526
527
TABLE 7
Relative Frequencies of Sounds Produced With Words Containing
“z” Grapheme, AH Group
Sounds
Change
produced Pretest Pretest Posttest Posttest over
(N ¼ 234) (N)
(%)
(N)
(%)
time (%)
Native
[s]
40
39.2
57
43.2
þ4.0%
sounds
[u]
0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0%
Nonnative sounds [z]
62
60.7
75
56.8
3.9%
Total
102
100
132
100
Native vs. nonnative sounds: no statistically significant improvement from pretest
to posttest
were no examples of [u] produced with the
“z” grapheme in the pretest data; all target
sounds were realized with [s]. The main
culprit of nonnnative phones was the voiced
alveolar fricative [z]; the L1 phonological
system seemed to work against SA students
in the case of “z,” as this grapheme
corresponds to /z/ in English, as in “zebra”
[zi:brc]. The L1 system does not overlap in
the L2, hence provoking nonnative pronunciation when primed with the written “z.”
After time abroad, the SA participants only
slightly improved their performance of
target versus nontarget sounds related to
“z”: students produced 60.8% target sounds
versus 39.2% nontarget sounds during the
second round of testing, showing a 9.2%
improvement in the production of native
phones. Not surprisingly, the only errant
sound used with the “z” was [z] (100% of all
nonnative sounds). Although SA students
improved from using target sounds 51.6% of
the time before the SA experience to 60.8%
after the 6 weeks abroad, a chi‐square test
revealed that the SA students did not show a
statistically significant improvement over
time with respect to the “z” grapheme.
The findings from the AH students
results of target versus nontarget sounds
over time in contexts containing “ce” and
“ci” (Table 6) reveal that, similar to the SA
participants, the AH group began with an
extremely high rate of accuracy in the
pretest (98.3%). There was a slight improvement from the pretest to the posttest: AH
students improved 0.8%; thus, they realized
target sounds at a rate of 99.1% during the
posttest. A chi‐square test did not show a
significant improvement from the pretest to
the posttest in the AH group of the nativelike
pronunciation of the “ce” and “ci” digraphs;
this was probably because students had
already mastered the use of nativelike
phones prior to the treatment period and
did not have much room for improvement.
Conversely, the results for target versus
nontarget realizations of words containing
“z” from the AH group showed a much
lower degree of L2 pronunciation accuracy
in these contexts, especially when I compared these findings with those of the SA
group. The pretest AH data showed that this
group produced target sounds (i.e., [s]) with
a rate of 39.2% and nontarget sounds (i.e.,
[z]) at 60.7%. Interestingly, when compared
to the SA group, the AH participants
produced fewer overall target sounds in
the pretest but used less errant phones for
these nontarget realizations (i.e., [k, ts, z]).
After each of the respective 6‐week programs concluded, there was an observed
improvement in the data from both groups:
The AH group showed a 4.0% gain in native
sounds, increasing the accuracy rate to
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
WINTER 2012
43.2% in all “z” contexts, but the SA group
improved 9.2%, increasing the rate of
nativelike phones to 60.8%. The results of
chi‐square tests did not find either of these
improvements to be statistically significant,
yet one can notice the marked difference
between the SA and AH groups, with the SA
group achieving higher rates of nativelike
pronunciation.
Furthermore, for the sake of comparability between the SA and AH groups, I
examined the sounds produced by the SA
participants according to grammar level
placement (Table 8). This way, not only
was it possible to compare the results of the
SA students placing in the advanced grammar proficiency level with those of the AH
students (Table 9), but one can also observe
how the pronunciation of each grammar
proficiency group changed over time in the
SA group.16 Table 8 shows that the beginning‐level SA students overall made noteworthy improvements in reducing the
realization of nonnative phones, especially
in regard to the other sporadically realized
sounds, such as [k, ks, kw, , ts]. They also,
on the whole, reduced the nonnative use of
[z] by substituting the sounds with either [s]
or [u]. The intermediate students likewise
reduced the use of other sounds from the
pretest to the posttest; however, three of the
six SA intermediate students did not reduce
the use of [z] in the possible contexts but
rather increased the use of [z] over time. Yet
TABLE 8
Percent Change of All Sounds Over Time, Individual Participants by
Grammar Proficiency Level, SA Group
Participants (N ¼ 15)
Change
in %
[s]
Change
in %
[u]
Change
in %
[z]
Change
in %
other
B‐1
B‐2
B‐3
B‐4
SA beginning group total
I‐5
I‐6
I‐7
I‐8
I‐9
I‐10
SA intermediate group total
A‐11
A‐12
A‐13
A‐14
A‐15
SA advanced group total
Overall SA total
þ10.2
þ9.8
2.2
þ4.3
þ22.1
þ7.7
3.4
4.6
þ3.7
15.5
9.6
21.7
0.2
5.0
þ13.3
þ8.5
6.5
þ10.1
þ10.5
þ7.4
þ1.4
0 tokens
þ7.5
þ16.3
0 tokens
þ1.2
þ6.0
0 tokens
þ19.1
0 tokens
þ26.3
0 tokens
0 tokens
3.0
0 tokens
0 tokens
3.0
þ39.6
6.1
þ2.5
3.3
10.0
16.9
3.6
þ5.1
1.4
2.0
1.9
þ9.8
þ6.0
þ0.7
þ5.0
8.8
8.5
þ6.5
5.1
16.0
11.5
13.7
þ5.6
1.7
21.3
4.0
2.9
0 tokens
1.7
1.7
0.1
10.4
0.5
0 tokens
1.5
0 tokens
0 tokens
2.0
33.7
Note: Relative frequency totals across the rows may not add to 0 due to rounding.
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
528
529
TABLE 9
Percent Change of All Sounds Over Time, Individual Participants
According to Prior Experience Abroad, AH Group
Participants (N ¼ 10)
Change
in %
[s]
Change
in %
[u]
Change
in %
[z]
Change
in %
other
AH1
AH2
AH3
AH4
AH5
AH6
AH without SA group total
AHSA7
AHSA8
AHSA9
AHSA10
AH with SA group total
Overall AH total
þ0.2
þ6.0
6.3
þ0.7
1.6
þ3.7
þ2.7
þ2.2
0.3
þ1.3
þ1.7
þ4.9
þ7.6
0 tokens
0 tokens
0 tokens
0 tokens
0 tokens
0 tokens
0 tokens
0 tokens
0 tokens
0 tokens
0 tokens
0 tokens
0 tokens
0.2
4.7
þ6.3
1.6
þ1.6
3.7
1.9
2.2
1.1
þ1.3
0.1
2.1
4.4
0 tokens
1.4
0 tokens
þ1.0
0 tokens
0.1
0.5
0 tokens
þ1.4
2.6
1.6
2.8
3.3
Notes: Relative frequency totals across the rows may not add to 0 due to rounding. AH ¼ at‐
home without study abroad experience; AHSA ¼ at‐home with prior study abroad
experience in Spain
the intermediate SA group notably displayed
the highest rate of [u] use after the SA
experience. As for the advanced grammar
students in the SA group, they displayed
gains in targetlike use of [s] and consequently reduced the use of [z] and other
sounds; however, the rate of change was to a
lesser degree than at the other grammar
levels, due to the higher level of accuracy of
L2 pronunciation prior to the SA experience.
Again, no student pertaining to this level
realized [u] after the SA experience ended.
In order to get a clearer picture of the
AH results (Table 9), participants of the AH
group were separated into two subgroups—
those who had previous SA experience and
those who did not—in order to evaluate how
these students compared to one another
within the AH group and how they
compared to the SA advanced grammar
proficiency participants. When comparing
the results from the SA advanced grammar
students with the global findings of the AH
group, similar trends were found regarding
the change of the sounds across time. None
of the SA advanced students or AH students
had produced [u] after the treatment period.
Furthermore, both the SA and AH groups
increased the use of [s], and consequently,
both groups reduced the use of nonnative
phones [z] and others with similar rates.
While these common trends were found, if
one examines the AH subgroups, one may
notice that those students who had studied
abroad displayed greater gains in targetlike
or nativelike sounds, whereas those who had
never participated in this type of learning
context showed a lesser degree of nativelike
sounds at the end of the 6‐week course. One
can surmise, as did Lord (2010), that those
students who had received explicit instruction of L2 phones and who participated in a
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
SA program can be expected to master L2
pronunciation with greater success than
those AH participants without experience
abroad.
Discussion and Conclusion
The main goal of this investigation was to
bring to light whether L2 students acquire a
geographically indexed phoneme and how
the learning context is involved in this
acquisition. As presented in the section on
the first research question, about half of the
SA participants realized the Castilian phone
[u] at least once. Although the sound was
present in the data (N ¼ 36), after reviewing
the findings one can clearly observe that the
use of this particular dialectal feature is rare
and sporadic. Therefore, according to the
results of this analysis of this particular data
set, SA students during a 6‐week program
abroad did not acquire the /u/ as an integral
part of their phonological inventory. In
general terms, it appears that learners do not
automatically or categorically incorporate
this dialectal phoneme simply as a result of
contact with NSs in a SA setting. When they
do realize the sound, a set of specific
linguistic and extralinguistic factors appears
to condition the [u] use (Tables 1, 2, and 3).
While one can detect overall trends in the
data regarding individual and intergroup
variation (Tables 8 and 9), students with
similar linguistic profiles did not always
incorporate this phoneme at similar rates—
if at all—after the 6‐week period.
Although complete acquisition of /u/
was not observed by any student of either
learning context, it should be underscored
that none of the 10 AH participants
produced any examples of [u]; not even
the 4 AH students who had a prior SA
experience realized [u] in L2 speech after
subsequent re‐exposure to the sound and
the process of distinción. The fact that there
was a statistically significant difference
between SA and AH use of [u] and that
only the SA students produced the regional
phone are evidence that the learning context
played a major role in the observed [u]
WINTER 2012
production in the data. Likewise, even
though the AH participants were explicitly
taught the linguistic details of /u/, among
other sounds of the Spanish phonological
system, and were exposed to a speaker who
employed [u] in the vast majority of possible
contexts during their experience, the SA
group had more of an opportunity to hear
the [u] in real‐world contexts and settings
outside of the classroom. Though the SA
context appears to have greatly influenced
the rate of [u] use for the reasons listed
above, it is also imperative to highlight that
the SA students spent more contact hours
with NSs of Spanish in the classroom when
compared to the AH group (120 hours vs.
36.25 hours). Moreover, it is very probable
that the instructors of the SA students placed
a greater emphasis on nativelike pronunciation, as students were there to learn Spanish
as opposed to studying the linguistic system
in an objective manner as in an Introduction
to Hispanic Linguistics course. Therefore, it
appears that exposure to the dialectal phone
in a SA setting, an increased amount of
exposure to NSs in nonacademic contexts,
and more corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation in class could have worked
together in enabling these learners to realize
more examples of [u] and nativelike pronunciation in Spanish.
The infrequent use of this regional
phone is on par with the results of Geeslin
and Gudmestad (2008c), as only 9 of 130
students in their study realized [u]. One
possible reason for the intermittent rates of
[u] in the data could be linked to the fact
that communication with NSs would not be
hindered if this sound were not present in L2
speech; nonnative speakers (NNSs) know
that they will be understood whether they
use seseo or distinción in the corresponding
linguistic contexts. By realizing [u], it is
possible that they gain more acceptance
culturally and socially in the L2 community,
yet their speech is not necessarily perceived
by NSs as being more intelligible with this
dialectal phonemic adjustment. As Munro
(2008) pointed out, reducing nonnative
sounds in L2 speech and encouraging the
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
530
use of perfect, nativelike sounds does not
improve the ultimate goal of NS and NNS
interaction: successful communication. Although there can be negative consequences
of nonnative segmental pronunciation with
NSs—such as reduced acceptability, reduced intelligibility, and negative evaluation
(see Flege, 1988, as cited in Munro, 2008),
Munro stressed that other areas of L2
acquisition should be targeted to facilitate
communication with NSs. As such, because
the students participating in SA programs
are concerned with numerous linguistic and
cultural challenges, having to consciously
incorporate an optional, regional sound may
be too great of a cognitive load, or one that
does not necessarily reward the student with
better communicative outcomes.
Along the same vein, this rationale
also could apply to why positive attitudes
regarding nativelike pronunciation in Spanish, vis‐à‐vis the results of the PAI scores, did
not appear to correspond to the rate of [u]
use. Another possible explanation as to why
no correlation was found between attitudes
on L2 pronunciation and [u] use could be
attributed to the narrow scope of the PAI in
relation to the topic of analysis. Because the
acquisition of dialectal phonemes, such as
/u/, appears to involve a complex array of
social and psychological factors (Geeslin &
Gudmestad, 2008c; Willis et al., 2009), the
PAI in conjunction with a survey on
motivation, social identity, and acculturation could have provided more insights on
this specific phenomenon. In future iterations of this study, or future analyses of
other dialectal phonemes, I recommend
investigating more profoundly the role of
language identity and acculturation, especially as it has been found that higher levels
of acculturation in the L2 community are
positively correlated to L2 acquisition of oral
skills (Hansen, 1995; Jiang, Green, Henley,
& Masten, 2008; Lybeck, 2002). It would
have also been advantageous to incorporate
poststudy triangulation techniques in
order to have access to students’ precise
thoughts on the dialectal variant and to tap
into how psychosocial factors (Geeslin &
531
Gudmestad, 2008c), such as creating and
maintaining one’s social identity, play a role
in the acquisition of /u/.
Although both Geeslin and Gudmestad
(2008c) and the present investigation found
the use of [u] to be an infrequent phenomenon, the results of these studies conflicted
on a few accounts. First, two of the nine
learners who did realize [u] in the latter
study did so in a categorical manner,
indicating that these two participants
acquired /u/ as part of their phonological
inventories; however, no student of any
proficiency level realized [u] in all or even in
most contexts where the sound was possible
in the present investigation. Second, Geeslin
and Gudmestad observed that advanced
students exclusively produced [u] tokens,
whereas only beginning and intermediate
students favored the use of the phone in the
present study; advanced students strongly
disfavored [u] use, and only one student
from this level realized the sound during
the pretest tasks. It remains unclear why
there is a discrepancy between these two
investigations. It could possibly be that these
particular advanced participants in the SA
group did not happen to favor the use of [u].
Another possible explanation is that the
L2 phonological system of these particular
beginning and intermediate students in
the present analysis appeared to be more
receptive, or susceptible, to the restructuring of phonemic categories in order to
accommodate new graphemic‐phonemic
relationships. As most advanced students
had studied the L2 for a longer period than
the beginning and intermediate participants,
perhaps their L2 pronunciation habits—
whether nativelike or nonnative—were
already deeply rooted in their interlanguage,
thus more difficult to change or adapt to the
sounds observed only in the geographical
region. It is also plausible that the advanced
students in the present investigation could
have been focusing on more sophisticated
areas of communicative competence. As
Regan (1995) stated, “[m]any studies find
that advanced learners abroad do not seem
to make major advances on the structural
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
level of their linguistic development, but
rather change in relation to those aspects of
communication which can be termed sociolinguistic competence” (p. 246). It seems
feasible that while advanced students did
not make major adjustments with respect to
their L2 pronunciation performance, they
may have made gains in other ways, such as
acquiring more pragmatic, sociolinguistic,
and cultural knowledge, as opposed to
incorporating new linguistic knowledge
(p. 246).
Another goal of this investigation was
to compare the target and nontarget sounds
produced by the SA and AH groups over
time in those contexts where [u] could be
used. SA students showed statistically
significant improvements in target realizations corresponding to the “ce” and “ci”
digraphs after the time abroad, but not when
articulating words containing the “z” grapheme. The results from the AH group did not
reveal any statistically significant improvements of target vs. nontarget sounds in
either graphemic context after the 6 weeks.
Both groups demonstrated extremely high
levels of mastery of target sounds of “ce” and
“ci” during the pre‐ and posttests, yet both
groups produced low levels of mastery of
target sounds of “z” during the pre‐ and
posttests. In fact, the AH group, which
comprised more advanced speakers, displayed lower levels of target realizations of
“z” as compared to the overall SA group in
the pretest data and lower levels of target
performance in the posttest data. Thus,
especially for L2 students at beginning or
intermediate levels of language proficiency,
the 6‐week experience abroad facilitated
the realization of more nativelike sounds;
however, the results of “z” indicated that
even advanced Spanish students who had
received formal phonetic training and/or
who had participated in a SA experience still
transferred L1 phones in L2 speech at higher
rates. Perhaps this is a sound that language
instructors in either learning context and of
every proficiency level should focus on
when working with students on problematic
areas of L2 pronunciation.
WINTER 2012
Some limitations and potential future
directions of the present study should be
noted. First, it would have been ideal to
incorporate more SA and AH participants in
the analysis, especially because tokens of [u]
were so rarely observed in the data. An even
distribution of proficiency levels of each SA
and AH group would have also facilitated the
ability to make more powerful conclusions
about how the learning context intersects
with L2 pronunciation performance. Likewise, it would be valuable to compare the
findings of semester‐ and year‐long SA and
AH programs with those of this short‐term
experience to identify similarities and differences between programs of different lengths
of time, especially as more than half of
students abroad participate in a short‐term
experience consisting of a summer or
8 weeks or less (Institute of International
Education, 2011). Finally, it would have
been beneficial to have conducted a third
round of testing a few months after the
respective SA and AH experiences with
the goal of determining how time away
from the L2 community affects the retention
of dialectal phones, such as /u/.
To conclude, this exploratory analysis
reveals that a SA context does not guarantee
the acquisition of dialectal phones such as
/u/; however, this type of learning environment can facilitate its use due to the ample
opportunity to hear the sound unique to the
region and the intensive contact with NSs in
the classroom and beyond. This investigation has likewise shown that students
abroad can make greater improvements in
nativelike segmental pronunciation when
compared to those in an AH course. More
hours of language instruction and, accordingly, more time for corrective feedback can
also facilitate greater gains in L2 pronunciation; these trends are especially seen from
beginning and intermediate L2 learners.
Even students enrolled in a traditional on‐
campus course with prior SA experience
showed greater gains in L2 pronunciation
when compared to their classmates who had
never been abroad to study the L2. While it
is not possible to conclude that a SA
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
532
environment automatically enables learners
to acquire regional sounds, the results of the
present investigation do reaffirm the notion
that traveling to another country to study a
L2 can be linguistically beneficial, especially
when considering L2 pronunciation.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank International Studies
Abroad in Salamanca, Spain, for supporting
this project in 2008. I would also like to
acknowledge C. Maurice Cherry, as well as
the three anonymous reviewers, for reading
previous drafts of this article and providing
me with valuable feedback. All remaining
errors are my own.
Notes
1. Other studies have seriously questioned the benefits of a SA context
alone. Allen (2010, p. 468), for example, cautioned researchers and advocates not to assume that a SA context
itself will automatically guarantee linguistic gains. Rather, she concluded
that learners’ motivation and goals and
how they engage with NSs in the
learning context have a larger impact
on language use and gains than the
environment alone.
2. The overall number of American collegiate students abroad in 2008–2009 was
down 0.8% from 2007–2008 (262,416
students); however, in 2009–2010 the
percentage of university studentsabroad
increased 3.9% from the previous year
(International Institute of Education,
2011, p. 2).
3. Out of the 25 most popular destinations
for study abroad in 2009–2010, the
other Spanish‐speaking countries
ranked in the Open Doors 2011 “Fast
Facts” Report were the following: #8,
Mexico, with 7,157 students; #10,
Costa Rica, with 6,262 students; #12,
Argentina, with 4,835 students; #18,
Chile, with 3,115 students; #21, Ecuador, with 2,960 students; and #24, Peru,
533
with 2,316 students (Institute of International Education, 2011, p. 2).
4. According to Spain’s Instituto Nacional
de Estadística [National Statistics
Institute], in 2011 there were 79,495
Spaniards residing in the United States
(Instituto Nacional de Estadística,
2011, n.p.).
5. Variationist analysis refers to examining how the interplay of linguistic,
social, and stylistic factor groups shape
how and when a group of speakers
prefers one form to another. Under
variation theory, linguists maintain that
the variability of a linguistic structure is
not random, but rather is a structured
system within a specific social domain
(Tagliamonte, 2006, p. 5). Preston
(1996) argued that a variationist approach is extremely relevant to SLA
research because it takes into account
the variable nature of natural language
as well as the “social‐psychological
aspects of language” present in the
acquisition of a L2 (p. 1).
6. Caravedo (1992) observed the presence
of /u/ in Cuzco, Perú, as cited by Hualde
(2005).
7. As listed in the section “Data Analysis,”
the linguistic factor groups analyzed
were grapheme, stress of the syllable,
and word position; the social factor
groups analyzed were type of housing,
level of grammar instruction, scores on
the PAI, and field of study; and the
stylistic factor groups analyzed were
task type and test session.
8. Within the SA group, there were 13
NNSs (12 females and 1 male), whose
L1 was English, and two heritage female
speakers of Spanish, whose dominant
language was also English. The two
heritage learners were included in the
analysis because both had very limited
exposure to the language, other than in
the L2 classroom, but were still classified as heritage learners because they
had distant relatives in their respective
families who were native Spanish
speakers. In addition, both learners
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
placed in the lower proficiency levels in
Spanish.
9. The pretest read‐aloud text contained
55 contexts where participants could
have produced [u]: 14 examples of “ce,”
31 examples of “ci,” and 10 examples
of “z.” The posttest read‐aloud text
contained 60 contexts where [u] could
occur: 7 examples of “ce,” 40 examples
of “ci,” and 13 examples of “z.”
10. Both the SA and AH groups took the
PAI during the posttest; the results of
the posttest PAI were not incorporated
in the present investigation.
11. The reason for the odd number of SA
students residing with host families is
because not all of the students enrolled
in the SA program participated in the
study.
12. In variationist analysis, stylistic factor
groups—such as type of task and test
session—are typically separated from
linguistic and social factors, because
they are not entirely viewed as linguistic or social. See Schillings‐Estes (2002)
for a discussion on this topic.
13. Bivariate statistical programs like
ANOVA are designed for controlled
experiments with an even distribution
of tokens; they cannot handle the varied
amount of tokens per cell, or the
amount of cells themselves. While
this program would have been suitable
for the reading task, it could not
consider the variable, uncontrolled
nature of discourse with the open‐
ended interview questions.
14. The terms target and nativelike are used
interchangeably, as well as nontarget
and nonnative.
15. In Tables 5 and 7, one will notice 25
fewer tokens overall (one from each of
the 25 participants), as the context
found in the pretest reading una vez más
“once again” was discarded due to the
likely process of regressive assimilation
and subsequent sonorization of the /s/
of vez más [béz.más]. In this case, the
use of [z] would be considered nativelike; thus these tokens were not
WINTER 2012
included in the corresponding analyses.
16. Because all AH students had to pass an
advanced composition and conversation course before pursuing upper‐level
courses in Spanish, it was assumed that
all of these participants maintained
advanced‐level grammar proficiency.
References
ABC España. (2006, April 19). “Berlusconi
mantiene viva la disputa por los comicios y
pide a los jueces que examinen los votos
impugnados.” Retrieved April 15, 2006, from
http://www.abc.es/abc/pg060418/actualidad/
internacional/europa/200604/18/berlusconi_
disputa_comicios.asp
Abreu, L. (2009). Spanish subject personal
pronoun use by monolinguals, bilinguals and
second language learners (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Florida.
Allen, H. W. (2010). What shapes short‐term
study abroad experiences? A comparative case
study of students’ motives and goals. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 14, 452–470.
Azevedo, M. (2009). Introducción a la lingüística española (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bayley, R. (2002). The quantitative paradigm.
In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schillings‐
Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 117–141). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Caravedo, R. (1992). ¿Restos de la distinción
/s/ /u/ en el español del Perú? Revista de filología
española, LXXII, 639–654.
Carroll, J. B. (1967). Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors near
graduation from college. Foreign Language
Annals, 1, 131–151.
Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2004). Learning
context and its effects on second language
acquisition: Introduction. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26, 227–248.
DeKeyser, R. (1986). From learning to acquisition? Foreign language development in a U.S.
classroom and during a semester abroad
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford
University.
Díaz‐Campos, M. (2004). Context of learning
in the acquisition of Spanish second language
phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 249–273.
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
534
535
Díaz‐Campos, M. (2006). The effect of style in
second language phonology: An analysis of
segmental acquisition in study abroad and
regular‐classroom students. In C. A. Klee & T.
L. Face (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 7th
conference on the acquisition of Spanish and
Portuguese as first and second languages
(pp. 26–39). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
United States institutions of higher education,
Fall 2009 Modern Language Association.
Retrieved June 6, 2011, from http://www.
mla.org/pdf/2009_enrollment_survey.pdf
El nuevo heraldo. (2006, April 18). “Inmigrantes
buscan legitimar su situación en Argentina.”
Retrieved April 13, 2006, from http:// www.
miami.com/mld/elnuevo/14364354.htm
Geeslin, K. L. (2011). Variation in L2 Spanish:
The state of the discipline. Studies in Hispanic
and Lusophone Linguistics, 4, 461–517.
Elliott, A. R. (1995). Foreign language phonology: Field independence, attitude, and the
success of formal instruction in Spanish
pronunciation. Modern Language Journal, 79,
530–542.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse,
communication, and (some) fundamental
concepts in SLA research. Modern Language
Journal, 81, 286–300.
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new”
and “similar” phones in a foreign language:
Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.
Flege, J. E. (1988). The production and
perception of foreign language speech sounds.
In H. Winitz (Ed.), Human communication and
its disorders, a review—1988 (pp. 224–401).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Freed, B. (1990). Language learning in a study
abroad context: The effects of interactive and
non‐interactive out‐of‐class contact on grammatical achievement and oral proficiency. In J.
E. Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics, language teaching
and language acquisition: The interdependence
of theory, practice and research (pp. 459–477).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Freed, B. (1995a). Language learning and
study abroad. In B. Freed (Ed.), Second
language acquisition in a study abroad context
(pp. 3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Freed, B. (1995b). What makes us think that
students who study abroad become fluent? In
B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a
study abroad context (pp. 123–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Geeslin, K. L. (2002). The acquisition of
Spanish copula choice and its relationship to
language change. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24, 419–450.
Geeslin, K. L., García‐Amaya, L., Hasler‐
Barker, M., Henriksen, N., & Killam, J.
(2010). The SLA of direct object pronouns in
a study abroad immersion environment where
use is variable. In C. Borgonovo, M. Español‐
Echevarría & P. Prévost (Eds.), Selected
proceedings of the 12th Hispanic linguistics
symposium (pp. 246–259). Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Geeslin, K. L., & Gudmestad, A. (2008a).
Comparing interview and written elicitation
task in native and non‐native data: Do speakers
do what we think they do? In J. Bruhn de
Garavito (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 10th
Hispanic linguistic symposium (pp. 64–77).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Geeslin, K. L., & Gudmestad, A. (2008b).
Variable subject expression in second‐language Spanish: A comparison of native and
non‐native speakers. In M. Bowles, R. Foote, S.
Perpiñán, & R. Bhatt (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the second language research forum (pp.
69–85). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Geeslin, K. L., & Gudmestad, A. (2008c). The
acquisition of variation in second‐language
Spanish: An agenda for integrating studies of
the L2 sound system. Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 5, 137–157.
Geeslin, K. L., & Guijarro‐Fuentes, P. (2006).
A longitudinal study of copula choice: Following development in variable structures. In N.
Sagarra & J. Toribio (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 9th Hispanic linguistics symposium
(pp. 144–156). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.
Freed, B., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P.
(2004). Context of learning and second
language fluency in French. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26, 275–311.
Ginsberg, R. B., & Miller, L. (2000). What do
they do? Activities of students during study
abroad. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.),
Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor
of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 237–261). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Furman, N., Goldberg, D., & Lusin, N. (2010).
Enrollments in languages other than English in
Gudmestad, A. (2006). L2 variation and
the Spanish subjunctive: Linguistic features
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
predicting mood selection. In C. A. Klee & T.
L. Face (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 7th
conference on the acquisition of Spanish
and Portuguese as first and second languages
(pp. 170–184). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.
Guntermann, G. (1992a). An analysis of
interlanguage development over time: Part I,
por and para. Hispania, 75, 177–187.
Guntermann, G. (1992b). An analysis of
interlanguage development over time: Part II,
ser and estar. Hispania, 75, 1294–1303.
Guy, G. (1993). The quantitative analysis of
linguistic variation. In D. Preston (Ed.),
American dialect research (pp. 223–249).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hansen, D. (1995). A study of the effect of the
acculturation model on second language. In F.
R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J.
Mileham, & R. Weber (Eds.), Second language
acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 305–316).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hualde, J. I. (2005). The sounds of Spanish.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hurtado, L., & Estrada, C. (2010). Factors
influencing the second language acquisition of
Spanish vibrants. Modern Language Journal,
94, 74–86.
Institute of International Education. (2011).
Open Door 2011 “Fast Facts.” Retrieved May
17, 2012, from http://www.iie.org/en/research‐
and‐publications/open‐doors
Instituto Nacional de Estadística [National
Statistics Institute]. (2011). El número de
españoles residentes en el extranjero ha aumentado un 8.2% [The number of Spanish residents
abroad has increased 8.2%]. La Vanguardia
[online]. Retrieved April 27, 2011, from
http://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20110427/
54146227526/el‐numero‐de‐espanoles‐residentes‐
en‐el‐extranjero‐ha‐aumentado‐un‐8‐2.html
Isabelli, C. (2001). Motivation and extended
interaction in the study abroad context: Factors
in the development of Spanish language accuracy
and communication skills (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at
Austin.
Jiang, M., Green, R. J., Henley, T. B., & Masten,
W. G. (2008). Acculturation in relation to the
acquisition of a second language. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30,
481–492.
Labov, W. (1982). Building on empirical
foundations. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel
WINTER 2012
(Eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics
(pp. 17–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lafford, B. (1995). Getting into, through and
out of a survival situation: A comparison of
communicative strategies used by students
studying abroad and “at home.” In B. Freed
(Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study
abroad context (pp. 97–121). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lafford, B. (2006). The effects of study abroad
vs. classroom contexts on Spanish SLA:
Old assumptions, new insights and future
research directions. In C. A. Klee & T. L. Face
(Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 7th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second languages (pp. 1–25).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings
Project.
Lafford, B., & Collentine, J. (2006). The effects
of study abroad and classroom contexts on the
acquisition of Spanish as a second language:
From research to application. In M. Rafael
Salaberry & B. Lafford (Eds.), The art of
teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition
from research to praxis (pp. 103–126). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Lord, G. (2006). Defining the indefinable:
Study abroad and phonological memory abilities. In C. A. Klee & T. L. Face (Eds.), Selected
proceedings of the 7th conference on the
acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first
and second languages (pp. 40–46). Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Lord, G. (2010). The combined effects of
immersion and instruction on second language pronunciation. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 488–503.
Lybeck, K. (2002). Cultural identification and
second language pronunciation of Americans
in Norway. Modern Language Journal, 83, 174–
191.
Magnan, S., & Back, M. (2007). Social
interaction and linguistic gain during study
abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 43–60.
Major, R. (1987). Foreign accent: Recent
research and theory. International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 3,
185–202.
Major, R. (2001). Foreign accent: The ontogeny
and phylogeny of second language phonology.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Martinsen, R. A. (2007). Speaking of culture:
The tango of cultural sensitivity and language
learning in a short‐term study abroad program
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
536
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin.
Martinsen, R. A., Baker, W., Dewey, D. P.,
Bown, J., & Johnson, C. (2010). Exploring
diverse settings for language acquisition and
use: Comparing study abroad, service learning
abroad, and foreign language housing. Applied
Language Learning, 20, 45–69.
Munro, M. (2008). Foreign accent and speech
intelligibility. In J. G. Hansen Edwards & M.
Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language
acquisition (pp. 193–218). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
537
Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. (2004). Context,
contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study
abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 26, 173–199.
Siegel, J. (2003). Social context. In C. J.
Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook
of second language acquisition (pp. 178–223).
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Simões, A. (1996). Phonetics in second
language acquisition: An acoustic study of
fluency in adult learners of Spanish. Hispania,
79, 87–95.
Paolillo, J. (2002). Analyzing linguistic variation: Statistical models and methods. Stanford,
CA: Center for Study of Language and
Information.
Stevens, J. J. (2001). The acquisition of L2
pronunciation in a study abroad context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Southern California.
Preston, D. R. (1996). Variationist perspectives
on second language acquisition. In R. Bayley &
D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 1–46).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. New York: Cambridge.
Tarone, E. (1979). Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning, 29, 181–191.
Tarone, E. (1982). Systematicity and attention
in interlanguage. Language Learning, 32,
69–84.
Regan, V. (1995). The acquisition of sociolinguistic native speech norms: Effects of a year
abroad on second language learners of French.
In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language in a study
abroad context (pp. 245–267). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of
interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics, 4,
142–163.
Salgado‐Robles, F. (2011). The acquisition of
sociolinguistic variation by learners of Spanish
in a study abroad context (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Florida.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society:
The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S., & Smith, E.
(2005). GoldVarb X: A multivariate analysis
application for Macintosh and Windows.
Department of Linguistics, University of
Toronto and Department of Mathematics,
University of Ottawa. Retrieved November
18, 2008, from http://individual.utoronto.ca/
tagliamonte/Goldvarb/GV_index.htm
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M.
(1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of
language change. In W. P. Lehmann & Y.
Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium (pp. 95–188). Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Schillings‐Estes, N. (2002). Investigating stylistic variation. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill,
& N. Schillings‐Estes (Eds.), The handbook of
language variation and change (pp. 375–401).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Schumann, J. H. (1976). Social distance as a
factor in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 26, 135–143.
Schwegler, A., Kempff, J., & Ameal‐Guerra, A.
(2010). Fonética y fonología españolas
(4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Whitley, M. S. (2002). Spanish/English contrasts (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Willis, E., Geeslin, K. L., Henriksen, N. (2009,
October). The acquisition of /u/ by study
abroad learners in León, Spain. Paper presented
at the October 2009 conference of the Hispanic
Linguistics Symposium, San Juan, Puerto
Rico.
Received July 29, 2011
Accepted October 29, 2012
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
WINTER 2012
APPENDIX A
Pretest Speaking Tasks
I. Reading passage. Please read the following passage out loud in as natural a style as possible.
Try to maintain a normal pace without rushing or slowing down too much. Please read the
title and author of each passage.
“Berlusconi mantiene viva la disputa por los comicios y pide a los jueces que examinen los
votos impugnados,” ABC España
El primer ministro, Silvio Berlusconi, ha mantenido viva la disputa sobre el triunfo del
centroizquierda, liderado por Romano Prodi, en las elecciones celebradas la semana
pasada, al hacer un llamamiento a los jueces que examinan los votos impugnados.
El llamamiento ha sido calificado por los allegados de Prodi como una “presión
indebida” a los jueces.
En un comunicado, la coalición de Gobierno que dirige Berlusconi, la Casa de las
Libertades, “llama a la Corte de Casación, suprema garante de la regularidad del proceso
electoral, para que con la exactitud que le es propia, y que en este caso es todavía más
necesaria, lleve a cabo todos los controles necesarios para garantizar el resultado electoral
más allá de cualquier duda razonable.”
La nota acusa además a Prodi por “haberse atribuido un éxito que ha forzado las
instituciones y la política sin haber esperado los resultados oficiales y los respectivos
escrutinios de las Cortes de Apelación y de Casación.”
La Unión, la coalición de centroizquierda, venció las elecciones por un escaso margen de
unos 25.000 votos en el Congreso y de dos escaños en el Senado, según los datos
difundidos por el Ministerio del Interior de Italia. Sin embargo, Berlusconi puso en duda el
triunfo e impugnó parte del escrutinio.
Tras la negativa del primer ministro a reconocer el resultado, el pasado viernes el
Ministerio del Interior indicó que los votos en cuestión eran menos que la diferencia
habida entre ambas coaliciones por lo que, incluso si se atribuían todos ellos a la Casa de
las Libertades, la victoria era de la Unión.
Aún así, la Casa de las Libertades y Berlusconi porfían en lograr el reconocimiento de
irregularidades que cambien el resultado final.
El llamamiento a los magistrados se ha producido poco más tarde de que el primer
ministro celebrara una reunión con destacados miembros de su partido, en la que también
participó el ministro del Interior, Giuseppe Pisanu.
Tras la reunión se ha sabido que Forza Italia, el partido de Berlusconi, prepara un
documento que “podría ser presentado a la Corte de Casación,” según Paolo Guzzanti,
miembro de esa formación.
El documento sería una especie de demanda en la que se denunciarían nuevas
irregularidades.
Por su parte, varios representantes del Olivo, el corazón de la alianza de la Unión, que
dirige Prodi, han hablado de “presión indebida” a los magistrados por parte de la Casa de
las Libertades. “Lo que ha hecho la Casa de las Libertad es una presión indebida en relación
a la independencia absoluta de la Corte de Casación. Una vez más el centroderecha da
pruebas de una grave falta de sentido de las instituciones alimentando la cultura de la
sospecha,” señalaron varios diputados del Olivo.
Se espera que mañana la Corte de Casación haga pública su decisión acerca de las
impugnaciones e irregularidades denunciadas por Berlusconi.
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
538
539
Mientras tanto, Prodi ha mantenido hoy diversos contactos en su despacho con
miembros de la Unión en lo que se interpreta como conversaciones encaminadas a la
formación del nuevo Gobierno. (ABC España, 2006, n.p.)
II. Interview Questions. Please read the following interview questions. When you respond,
please repeat the question before you record your answer. Try to maintain a natural pace and
tone of voice. Take your time between questions, and keep the recorder on throughout the
taping.
A. SA Students’ Questions:
1. ¿Cómo es tu familia? ¿De dónde es? ¿Cómo son los miembros de tu familia? ¿Qué te gusta
hacer en tu familia?
2. ¿En qué carrera/profesión te interesa hacer en el futuro? ¿Por qué te es interesante?
3. ¿Qué tipo de persona eres? ¿Tímido/a? ¿Sociable? ¿Gracioso/a? ¿Estudioso/a? ¿Ambicioso/
a? Etc. Explícame.
4. ¿Cuál es tu cuidad favorita del mundo? ¿Por qué? ¿Viajas mucho?
5. ¿Por qué empezaste a estudiar el español?
6. ¿Por qué quieres estudiar en el extranjero? ¿Qué metas (goals) tienes para tu experiencia?
B. AH Students’ Questions:
1. ¿Cómo es tu familia? ¿De dónde es? ¿Cómo son los miembros de tu familia? ¿Qué te gusta
hacer en tu familia
2. ¿En qué carrera/profesión te interesa hacer en el futuro? ¿Por qué te es interesante?
3. ¿Qué tipo de persona eres? ¿Tímido/a? ¿Sociable? ¿Gracioso/a? ¿Estudioso/a? ¿Ambicioso/
a? Etc. Explícame.
4. ¿Cuál es tu cuidad favorita del mundo? ¿Por qué? ¿Viajas mucho?
5. ¿Por qué empezaste a estudiar el español?
6. ¿Cuáles son tus metas profesionales? ¿Piensas usar el español en tu carrera?
APPENDIX B
Pronunciation Attitude Inventory (PAI) from Elliott (1995, p. 542, reprinted with permission)
Please answer all items using the following response categories:
5 ¼ Always or almost always true of me
4 ¼ Usually true of me
3 ¼ Somewhat true of me
2 ¼ Usually not true of me
1 ¼ Never or almost never true of me
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
WINTER 2012
–>
1. I’d like to sound as native as possible when speaking Spanish.
5
4
3
2
1
2. Acquiring proper pronunciation in Spanish is important to me.
5
4
3
2
1
3. I will never be able to speak Spanish with a good accent.
5
4
3
2
1
4. I believe I can improve my pronunciation skills in Spanish.
5
4
3
2
1
5. I believe more emphasis should be given to proper pronunciation in class.
5
4
3
2
1
6. One of my personal goals is to acquire proper pronunciation skills and preferably be able
to pass as a near‐native speaker of the language.
5
4
3
2
1
7. I try to imitate Spanish speakers as much as possible.
5
4
3
2
1
8. Communicating is much more important than sounding like a native speaker of Spanish.
5
4
3
2
1
9. Good pronunciation skills in Spanish are not as important as learning vocabulary and
grammar.
5
4
3
2
1
10. I want to improve my accent when speaking Spanish.
5
4
3
2
1
11. I’m concerned with my progress in my pronunciation of Spanish.
5
4
3
2
1
12. Sounding like a native speaker is very important to me.
5
4
3
2
1
APPENDIX C
Posttest Speaking Tasks
I. Reading passage. Please read the following passage out loud in as natural a style as possible.
Try to maintain a normal pace without rushing or slowing down too much. Please read the
title and author of each passage.
“Inmigrantes buscan legitimar su situación en Argentina,” El nuevo heraldo
Miles de ciudadanos de países miembros del Mercosur que residen ilegalmente en
Argentina acudieron ayer a distintas legaciones oficiales y consulares con la entrada en
vigor de un programa lanzado por el gobierno argentino para regularizar su situación.
El Plan Nacional de Normalización Documentaria Migratoria apunta a agilizar los
trámites para la obtención de la residencia de los extranjeros nativos de los Estados Parte y
Asociados del Mercosur.
Según cifras del Ministerio del Interior, entre 700,000 y un millón de personas residen
ilegalmente en Argentina, la mayoría procedente de Paraguay, Bolivia, Perú y Chile, que
componen el bloque comercial junto a Uruguay y Brasil.
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
540
541
Muchos ingresan como turistas, pero luego deciden quedarse en el país y suelen ser
contratados para trabajos mal remunerados.
Con la puesta en marcha de la iniciativa, se formaron largas filas en numerosos locales
habilitados a tal efecto por la Dirección Nacional de Inmigraciones en la capital y la
provincia de Buenos Aires.
Idéntico panorama podía observarse en los consulados de Paraguay, Bolivia y Perú, que
aportan la mayor cantidad de inmigrantes a la Argentina, donde se realizan parte de los
trámites de regularización, que son gratuitos.
Según el plan lanzado por el gobierno, los extranjeros podrán iniciar los trámites de
radicación definitiva cuando acrediten ser padre, cónyuge o hijo de argentino nativo o por
opción.
También incluye a los padres, cónyuges o hijos solteros (menores de 21 años) o hijo
discapacitado de residentes permanentes en Argentina.
Por otra parte, aquellos extranjeros que ingresaron al país bajo la categoría “Turista
Mercosur” por un plazo de 90 días podrán acceder a una residencia temporaria por dos
años una vez que acrediten identidad, certificado de carencia de antecedentes penales y
declaración jurada por la que demuestren contar con medios para su subsistencia. Una vez
que inicien la gestión, se les entrega un certificado de residencia precaria que les permitirá
trabajar legalmente.
El gobierno también dispuso el lunes un “procedimiento especial de regularización para
ciudadanos de Bolivia que hayan sido víctimas de explotación laboral en talleres
clandestinos de costura o establecimientos similares”, según la resolución.
Por esta norma, el consultado de Bolivia en Buenos Aires, como “institución social
colaboradora”, ayudará a individualizar a sus connacionales que se encuentren en esa
situación, a facilitarles el acceso a documentación, asistirlos y orientarlos en el trámite
oficial. (El nuevo heraldo, 2006, n.p.)
II. Interview Questions. Please read the following interview questions. When you respond,
please repeat the question before you record your answer. Try to maintain a natural pace and tone
of voice. Take your time between questions, and keep the recorder on throughout the taping.
A. SA Students’ Questions:
1. Dime un poco de tu experiencia en el extranjero. ¿Cuál fue el mejor aspecto del viaje? ¿Por
qué?
2. ¿Cómo es la familia con la que te quedaste? ¿Cómo son estas personas? ¿Amables?
¿Simpáticos? ¿Sociables? Explica tu respuesta.
3. ¿Qué aprendiste durante este verano? ¿Quieres regresar a este lugar? ¿Por qué sí o por qué
no?
4. ¿Vas a incorporar parte de la cultura de este país en tu vida diaria? ¿Cómo es la cultura de
ese país diferente que la cultura estadounidense?
5. ¿Crees que todos los estudiantes que estudian el español deben estudiar en el extranjero?
¿Por qué sí o por qué no?
6. ¿Cuál fue el mejor sitio, experiencia, recuerdo, etc. de todo el viaje y por qué?
B. AH Students’ Questions:
1. Para ti, ¿cuáles fueron los temas interesantes del curso? ¿Por qué?
2. ¿Piensas continuar estudiando la lingüística? ¿Qué clases de español vas a tomar el
semestre/año que viene?
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 45, NO. 4
3. ¿Qué vas a hacer durante la segunda mitad del verano? ¿Vas a viajar? ¿Tomar más clases?
¿Descansar? ¿Trabajar? Explica.
4. ¿Cuándo vas a graduarte de la universidad? ¿Qué piensas hacer después?
5. ¿Por qué es importante estudiar una lengua extranjera? En tu opinión, ¿por qué es
importante saber hablar español?
6. Si pudieras estudiar otra lengua extranjera, ¿cuál sería? ¿Por qué?
19449720, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x by Arizona State University Acq & Analysis, Lib Continuations, Wiley Online Library on [30/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
WINTER 2012
542