Phonological "know that" or
"know how"?
- in pursuit of determinants of
second language pronunciation
attainments
Magdalena Wrembel
Teacher Training College, UAM,
Poznań
Introduction
 The paper reports on the results of a specially designed
training programme;
 aims at investigating the effectiveness of explicit
instruction and the role of theoretical training;
 expects to demonstrate patterns of change in
pronunciation performance on pre-test / post-test
measures;
 seeks to verify the hypothesis that conscious
knowledge leads to the formation of mental
representations;
 attempts to account for other variables related to L2
pronunciation acquisition.
2
Outline of the presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background studies
Theoretical framework
Rationale and goals
Experimental design
Results of the study
Conclusions  implications for
pronunciation pedagogy
3
Studies on predictors of success
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Purcell & Suter 1980 - futility of instruction
Dickerson 1983 - effectiveness of phonological rules
Champagne et al. 1988 - perceptual training
Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 1990 -formal > natural setting
Elliott 1995 - formal instruction
Gayoso et al. 1999 - meta & phonological training
Stasiak & Szpyra-Kozłowska 2003 - aural
exposure & drilling vs. phonetic instruction
• Waniek-Klimczak 2004 - phonetic universals
• Baran 2004 - field independence
4
"Know how" or "know that" ?
• RATIONALE: need for investigations into the
effectiveness of pronunciation instruction
• ASSUMPTION: pronunciation improves
through gradual monitoring of an acquired
system based on metacompetence
• METACOMPETENCE: conscious knowledge of
the grammar of a language (e.g. phon. &
phon. - metaphonological competence)
• FRAMEWORK: NATURAL PHONOLOGY
– (D. Stampe & P. Donegan, W. U. Dressler)
5
Model of acquisition of L2
phonology acc. to Nat. Phon.
• L2 learner - reduced phonological system
• only selected processes available
• confronted with L2 subconsciously applies L1
processes
• IF processes
L1 = L2
 positive transfer
• IF
L1  L2
 L1 interference
• (lacking L2 processes have to be learnt consciously
as rules)  explicit instruction, metacompetence !
• Successful access to phonological processes
conditioned by sociological, psychological & linguistic
factors
6
Goals of the study
To find correlation between L2
pronunciation attainment & theoretical
training
"know that" > "know how"
To investigate other potential
determinants of pronunciation success
7
Experimental design
•
•
•
•
Participants: 33 first year students
Timing: Oct 2002 - Feb 2003
Course: 50 hours, 15 weeks
Groups:
– control
– experimental
 practical training
 practical + theoretical instruction
• Hypothesis: Metacompetence as a
determinant of L2 pronunciation success
8
Participants - control factors analysis
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Age: 19 - 25 (M: 20;6)
Length of formal exposure: 5 - 13 (M: 9)
First contact with English: 5 - 16 (M: 10;6)
Stay in UK / US - 35%
Lack of previous phonetic training
Formal setting of instruction
Comparable language proficiency
Positive attitude and high motivation (PAI)
9
Instruments and test administration
• Perception tests:
– Oxford Placement Listening Test (Allan 1992)
– Vowel Recognition Test (VRT)
• Production tests:
– LIST - reading a list of 50 words or phrases
– DIAL - reading a dialogue in pairs
– SPEECH - extemporaneously produced
narrative
10
Instruments and test administration
(2)
Task-related variability
Digitally recorded speech samples
– CoolEdit96 (22kHz, 16-bit resolution)
3 judge listeners
– interrater reliability (.93 - .67)
11
Treatment - course content & procedures
• Practical training - exposure & imitation:
– auditory sensitisation and discrimination
– articulatory warm-up
– phonetic drills
– dialogue reading and performing
– speeches and presentations
– teacher correction (audio, visual &
kinaesthetic feedback)
12
Treatment - course content & procedures
(2)
• Theoretical training:
– articulatory descriptions
– C & V systems classification
– contrastive analysis
– theoretical readings and discussions
– visual aids reinforcement
– meta-awareness raising
13
Cycles of practice modes (cf.
Morley 1991)
• Imitative (dependent) speech practice
– pronunciation drills with a model
• Rehearsed (guided) speech practice
– oral script reading & pre-prepared
presentations
• Independent practice
– spontaneous presentations, self-generated
content
14
PRONUNCIATION PERFORMANCE
- experimental group
•
•
•
•
•
TOTAL improvement by 18 %
LIST
by 42 %
DIAL
by 20 %
SPEECH
by 8 %
PERC
by 3 %
TESTS
S.D.
Mean S.D. Chng. Chng.
LIST Pre
Post
DIAL Pre
Post
SPEE Pre
Post
PERC Pre
13.67
36.53
4.33
6.60
4.60
5.80
80.15
t
p
7.32
7.21 -22.87 3.44 -25.74 .00
1.76
1.76 -2.27 .80 -10.99 .00
1.18
1.21 -1.20 .68 -6.87 .00
3.36
Post 83.46 4.61 -3.31 4.59 -2.6
15
.02
PRONUNCIATION PERFORMANCE
- control group
TEST
S.D.
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
19.75
35.69
5.38
6.69
8.13
6.29 -15.94 5.40 -11.81
1.78
1.62 -1.31
.95 -5.55
Pre
Post
PERC Pre
Post
5.63
6.50
81.31
85.75
1.36
1.21
4.38
5.80
LIST
•
•
•
•
•
TOTAL improvement by 13 %
LIST
by 26 %
DIAL
by 16 %
SPEECH
by 6 %
PERC
by 4.4 %
S.D.
Chng. Chng.
Mean
DIAL
SPEE
t
p
.00
.00
-0.88
.62
-5.65
.00
-4.44
4.16
-4.26
.00
16
PRETEST / POSTTEST CHANGE
- EXPERIMENTAL VS. CONTROL
Table 3 T-test - Experimental vs. control group
Variable
LIST
DIALOGUE
SPEECH
PERCEPTION
VRT *
Control Group
N
S.D.
Mean
16
4.59
13.09
16
0.52
1.56
16
0.78
0.59
16
4.16
4.44
16
6.22
52,13
* VRT – Vowel Recognition Test
Experimental Group
N
S.D.
Mean
17
3.28
21.05
17
0.5
2.03
17
0.59
0.79
17
5
2.59
17
12.71
60.56
t
-5.81
-2.63
-0.84
1.15
-2.4
df
31
31
31
31
31
p
.000
.01
.409
.259
.028
17
Correlational analysis of variables
18
Implications for further research
• To replicate the experiment on:
– a larger sample
– a more heterogeneous sample
• To measure the effectiveness of
innovative techniques
• To enhance instruments for measuring
perception
19
Conclusions
• Explicit pronunciation training:
 improvement in overall phonetic accuracy
 phonological metacompetence - determinant of
success
• Conscious knowledge of phonological
processes facilitates:
 formation of mental representations
 self-organisation of the new phonological system
• Implications for foreign language learning:
 metalinguistic awareness raising
 supplementing practical phonetic training with
theoretical instruction in phonetics and phonology20