Nonnative-Nonnative
Negotiations on Targeted,
Communicative Pronunciation
Tasks
Laura Sicola
sicola@dolphin.upenn.edu
University of Pennsylvania
Graduate School of Education &
English Language Programs
TBLT 2007
1
The Research Gap
Issues in L2 Phonology Issues in SLA & Task(Status-oriented)
based Interaction (Process)
• L1 Transfer
• Instruction
• Learner
Characteristics
• Task Formality
TBLT 2007
• Attention/Noticing
?
• Negotiation & Feedback
• Target Form
Essentialness
• Interaction Requirements
• NS-NNS/NNS-NNS
• Morphosyntactic Forms
typically preselected as
targets
2
L2 Phonology & Task-Based Development?
CHALLENGES
1. Near immediate
establishment of complete
interlanguage phonology
requires ability to “notice
the gap”

2. Lack of perceptual
salience or communicative
value of some forms in
certain contexts (arguably ideal for
form-focused instruction)
3. Less likelihood of “noticing
the hole” BUT: 
TBLT 2007
POSITIVE INDICATORS:
1. Intra-learner variation
shows adult learners
can modify
pronunciation accuracy
to some extent, so…
2. Most targetlike
production = indicator
of linguistic and physical
capability; degree to
which least targetlike
pronunciation should be
able to improve
3. Possibility of “noticing
the snag” (Ask me about this!)

3
NNS-NNS Interaction & Pronunciation:
“But won’t they just sound like each other? ”





NO, and here’s why:
Revised Interaction Hypothesis applicable to all
forms of language, including phonology
NS -NNS negotiations do attend to phonological
form, & learners accurately perceive corrective
nature of pronunciation-oriented feedback
NNS-NNS can provide each other with feedback
signals & modified output
Two NNSs of different L1s accommodate
pronunciation toward more targetlike form
Opportunity to self-correct regardless of
interlocutor’s L1
TBLT 2007
4
Optimal Conditions for Facilitating Attention
to Form in Task-Based Negotiation:

Communication Requirements:
– Must attend to meaning as overarching focus
– Mutually request and provision of uniquely-held
information
– Single mutual goal
– Single possible correct outcome

Level of Target-form involvement:
– To maximize attention to less salient L2 forms, target
form accuracy should be essential for successful task
completion
TBLT 2007
5
Form Essentialness v. Communicative Value:
The missing link in common pronunciation
tasks in research & pedagogy
Highly Communicative
A.
- Open discussion
Useful
but NonEssential
- Role play
- Picture
Description
B.
- Read Aloud (any
kind of text)
- Listen/repeat drills
D.
This study
Essential
C.
- Minimal pair
exercises
Minimally to Non-Communicative
TBLT 2007
6
Research Questions
1. When working together on communicative pronunciation
tasks, can NNSs draw each other’s attention to
targeted phonological forms in ways generally understood
to facilitate SLA?
– Do they provide each other with corrective feedback on
the target form?
– Do they modify their production of the target form?
2. If NNSs do provide each other with corrective feedback that
focuses on the target form, are there specific ways in which
they do so?
3. If NNSs do modify their target form production, do the
modifications result in more targetlike pronunciation?
TBLT 2007
7
Target Form Selection: Theta (/θ/)
Rationale:

Not found in L1 of
any class participant

Not perceptually
salient

all students had
ability to produce it,
but no student had
100% automatized
use
TBLT 2007
NNSs’ Typical Substitutions for theta*
/s/
/t/
Japanese
Korean
Spanish
Korean
Chinese
Russian
Arabic
Chinese
Russian
Arabic
/f/
Chinese
8
Methodology



Setting: University intensive English program,
intermediate pronunciation elective courses
– Weekly language lab meeting (instead of classroom)
Participants: Approx. 34 adults (over 3 classes), overall
intermediate English proficiency
– L1 = Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Spanish, Russian
Materials: Map Task
– Inherent communicative, real-world value
– Controlled discourse to allow maximal opportunity for
attention to target forms
– Requires accurate oral/aural discernment of target
form from other commonly substituted forms
TBLT 2007
9
The Map
TBLT 2007
10
Procedures & Data Collection




Dyads communicated through headsets (no visual
contact, so no gestures, lip-reading, etc.)
– Mixed L1 when possible (primary aim)
– Mixed gender when possible (secondary)
Materials distributed, Teacher read aloud all
directions and all street names, to allow students
opportunity to make pronunciation notes.
Teacher modeled examples w/ volunteer to clarify
procedure, chance for Q&A
Dyads recorded task performance through same
headphones onto lab cassette recorders
TBLT 2007
11
Data Analysis Procedures
Transcription phonemically reflects non-targetlike
pronunciation involving
mispronounced/misperceived street names that
cause a breakdown in communication
 Coding of Corrective Feedback:
– Phonologically Implicit/Explicit
– Negotiation moves as Implicit/Explicit
 Coding of Modified Output:
– Change or no change to target form word or
contrast word
– Result = +/- targetlike

TBLT 2007
12
See excerpts
on next page
Data
Ask to listen!
It’s worth it!

Excerpt #1: Dyad 17, intersection of “Truth Alley and Fateful Way”

Evidence of:
– Explicit Phonological attention to contrast via juxtaposition of
contrasted forms with implicit negotiation moves
– Corrective feedback in the forms of clarification requests,
confirmation checks, segmentation, repetition
– Pushed output/modification yields more targetlike results,
– On-going hypothesis testing in self-correction, likely due to audio &
proprioceptive feedback
– Use of paralinguistic cues such as pausing, target phoneme
gemination and post-target schwa-epenthesis to increase salience of
target form
– Final resolution yielded greater accuracy of both target-form words
by both interlocutors
TBLT 2007
13
Data (2)

Ask to listen!
It’s worth it!
Excerpt #2: Dyad 6, “Mossy or Mothy?” Evidence of (e.g.):
– Feedback (CFB) and Modification strategies included:
Segmentation at word- and phoneme-level; juxtaposition;
paralinguistic cues (intonation, mid-word pausing)
– Metalinguistic feedback (see line 9, “simple.”)
– Result: accurate production, uncertain perception, of target form


Excerpt #3: Dyad 3, “North Man’s Alley” Evidence of (e.g.):
–
–
–
–
CFB = Exp & Imp negotiation moves, Exp & Imp phonological focus
Juxtaposition, pausing, gemination of target sound
Use of task-referential metalinguistic cues (line 8)
Result: accurate production and perception of target form
–
–
–
–
CFB = Exp & imp negotiation moves, exp & imp phonological focus
Segmentation at word- and phoneme-level;
post-form epenthetic schwa (to raise form salience)
Result: Person B – targetlike perception & production; Person A – targetlike
Excerpt #4: Dyad 7, “Truth Alley” Evidence of (e.g.):
perception, nontargetlike production, and unaware of her own inaccuracy.
TBLT 2007
14
Results
RQ1. When working together on communicative pronunciation
tasks, NNSs CAN draw each other’s attention to
targeted phonological forms by providing corrective
feedback and modifying their production of the target
form and/or its contrast.
RQ 2 & 3. There are multiple ways in which NNSs provide each
other with corrective feedback that focuses on the target
form, and modify their production of it. Sometimes these
strategies overlap. Most commonly, they result in more
targetlike perception and/or production of the target form
and/or its contrast.
(See summary chart on attached MS Word File for typology
of feedback and modification strategies.)
TBLT 2007
15
Implications
NNSs can draw each other’s attention to phonological
forms in ways that will push each other toward more
accurate perception and production of the target form.
 Even the most “fossilized” adult learners have the ability
to modify their own pronunciation under the right
conditions.
 Interactive tasks that balance communicative value and
target-form essentialness provide optimal conditions to
direct attentional resources to less-salient phonological
forms, and “re-sensitize” the learner to sound contrasts.
 Even when one interlocutor demonstrates momentary
neuromuscular inability to produce/perceive the target,
interlocutors are able to negotiate their way to a correct
phonetic solution.

TBLT 2007
16
References by Slide Number
4.
Ellis (1999);
Mackey, Gass & McDonough (2000);
Pica et. al (1996), also Gass & Varonis (1989);
Long & Porter (1985);
Jenkins (2000);
5.
Pica, Kanagy & Falodun (1993);
Loschky & Bley-Vroman (1993)
8.
Archibald, 1998;
Avery & Ehrlich, 1992;
Swan & Smith, 1987
TBLT 2007
17