Comprehensibility of conventional and nonconventional expressions in second language French speech

Resumen

This study investigates the effect of conventional and nonconventional expressions on listener comprehensibility. A forty-item comprehensibility test, including conventional expressions, interlanguage attempts, sociopragmatic deviances and alternative grammar constructions produced by French L2 (second language) speakers (N=27) was created. Pronunciation effects were controlled by having a single speaker read aloud the items. Using a 100-point sliding scale, comprehensibility was rated by Quebec French L1 (first language) speakers (N=34). Results showed a significant effect of the four variables on the raters’ scores and a significant difference between them. Conventional expressions were judged the most comprehensible while some alternative grammar constructions seemed not to impose comprehensibility issues. Attempted conventional expressions sharing pragmalinguistics or sociopragmatic resources with the target conventional expression were judged more comprehensible. These findings suggest that comprehensibility can be sensitive to what is familiar and expected by the listener.

Citas

1. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59(4), 755-795. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00525.x
2. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2018) Formulaic language in second language research. In A. Siyanova-Chanturia, & A. Pellicer-Sánchez (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 97-112). Routledge.
3. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Stringer, D. (2017). Unconventional expressions: Productive syntax in the L2 acquisition of formulaic language. Second Language Research, 33(1), 61-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316641725
4. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Su, Y. (2018). The acquisition of conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource in Chinese as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 732-757. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12517
5. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Vellenga. H. E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.01.004
6. Bartning, I., Forsberg Lundell, F., & Hancock, V. (2012). On the role of linguistic contextual factors for morphosyntactic stabilization in high-level L2 French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(2), 243–267. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000046
7. Beaulieu, S., Forsberg-Lundell, F., & Bejarano. J. (2022). Interlocutors’ judgement of Lx conventional expressions: An exploratory study. Intercultural Pragmatics, 19(5), 597-620. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2022-5003
8. Bergeron, A., & Trofimovich, P. (2017). Linguistic dimensions of accentedness and comprehensibility: Exploring task and listener effects in second language French. Foreign Language Annals, 50(3), 547-566. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12285
9. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education.
10. Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr195oa
11. Bygate, M. (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 381-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566
12. Cargile, A. C., & Giles, H. (1998). Language attitudes toward varieties of English: An American Japanese context. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26, 338–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889809365511
13. Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm022
14. Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Saito, K., & Isaacs, T. (2018). Linguistic dimensions of L2 accentedness and comprehensibility vary across speaking tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 443-457. http://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311700016X
15. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42(4), 476-490. http://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480800551X
16. Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2007). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 359-380. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm041
17. Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2002). “They speaked and wrote real good”: Judgements of non-native and native grammar. Language Awareness, 11(2), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410208667048
18. Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgements on different tasks. Language Learning, 45(4), 655-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00282.x
19. Dörnyei, Z., Durow, V., & Zahran, K. (2004). Individual differences and their effects on formulaic sequence acquisition. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (pp. 87-106). John Benjamins.
20. Edmonds, A. (2013). Une approche psycholinguistique des phénomènes phraséologiques : le cas des expressions conventionnelle. Langages, 1(1), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.189.0121
21. Forsberg Lundell, F., Lindqvist, C., & Edmonds, A. (2018). Productive collocation knowledge at advanced CEFR levels: Evidence from the development of a test for advanced L2 French. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(4), 627–649. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2017-0093
22. Hendriks, B. (2010). An experimental study of native speaker perceptions of non-native request modification in e-mails in English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(2), 221-255. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.011
23. Isaacs, T., & Thomson, R. (2013). Rater experience, rating scale length, and judgments of L2 pronunciation: Revisiting research conventions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(2), 135-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2013.769545
24. Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 433-445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00589.x
25. Kang, O., Thomson, R. I., & Moran, M. (2018). Empirical approaches to measuring the intelligibility of different varieties of English in predicting listener comprehension. Language Learning, 68(1), 115-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12270
26. Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 149-169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014868
27. Kecskes, I. (2000). Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances. Links and Letters, 7, 145–161. https://raco.cat/index.php/LinksLetters/article/view/22722.
28. Kecskes, I. (2015). How does pragmatic competence develop in bilinguals? International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(4), 419-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2015.1071018
29. Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich, P. (2008). Intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness of L2 speech: The role of listener experience and semantic context. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(3), 459–489. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.3.459
30. Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich, P. (2019). Comprehensibility: A useful tool to explore listener understanding. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 75(4), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2019-0280
31. McGuire, M., & Larson-Hall, J. (2017). Teaching formulaic sequences in the classroom: Effects on spoken fluency. TESL Canada Journal, 34(3), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v34i3.1271
32. Millar, N. (2011). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 129-148. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq035
33. Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
34. Nguyen, T. T. M. (2008). Criticizing in an L2: Pragmatic strategies used by Vietnamese EFL learners. The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(1), 41-66. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.003
35. Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Boers, F. (2018). Pedagogical approaches to the teaching and learning of formulaic language. In A. Siyanova-Chanturia, & A. Pellicer-Sánchez (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 153-170). Routledge.
36. Prodromou, L. (2007). Bumping into creative idiomaticity. English Today, 23(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078407001046
37. Ruivivar, J,. & Collins, L. (2019). Nonnative accent and the perceived grammaticality of spoken grammar forms. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 5(2), 269-293. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.17039.rui
38. Saito, K. (2020). Multi- or single-word units? The role of collocation use in comprehensible and contextually appropriate second language speech. Language Learning, 70(2), 548-588. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12387
39. Saito, K. (2021). What characterizes comprehensible and native-like pronunciation among English-as-a-second-language speakers? Meta-analyses of phonological, rater, and instructional factors. TESOL Quarterly, 55(3), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3027
40. Saito, K., & Liu, Y. (2021). Roles of collocation in L2 oral proficiency revisited: Different tasks, L1 vs. L2 raters, and cross-sectional vs. longitudinal analyses. Second Language Research, 38(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320988055
41. Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2015). Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(2), 217-240. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000502
42. Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2017). Using listener judgements to investigate linguistic influences on L2 comprehensibility and accentedness: A validation and generalization study. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 439-462. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv047
43. Saito, K., Webb, S., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Lexical profiles of comprehensible second language speech. The role of appropriateness, fluency, variation, sophistication, abstractness, and sense relations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 677-701. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000297
44. Schleef, E. (2013). Glottal replacement of /t/ in two British capitals: Effects of word frequency and morphological compositionality. Language Variation and Change, 25(2), 201-223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394513000094
45. Schmitt, N. (2010). Formulaic language. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual (pp. 117-146). Palgrave Macmillan.
46. Stengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J. (2011). Does chunking foster chunk-uptake? In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. De Rycker (Ed.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 99-117). Mouton de Gruyter.
47. Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Xion, F. (2013). Production of formulaic expressions in L2 Chinese: A developmental investigation in a study abroad context. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 2(1), 23-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2013-0021
48. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91
49. Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., Kennedy, S., & Tsunemoto, A. (2022). Speech comprehensibility. In T.M. Derwing, M.J. Munro, & R. I. Thomson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and speaking (pp. 174-187). Routledge Handbooks.
50. Wood, D. (2015). Fundamentals of formulaic language: An introduction. Bloomsbury.
51. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
52. Wray, A., & Perkins, M. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00015-4.
53. Yi, W. (2018). Statistical sensitivity, cognitive aptitudes, and processing of collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(4), 831-856. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000141