L 2 pronunciation stability How the pronunciation of

L 2 pronunciation stability: How the pronunciation of advanced EFL students is affected by a lack of explicit instruction Gwen Brekelmans Radboud University gwen. brekel@gmail. com PTLC 2015 5 August 2015

Outline Introduction Research question Hypothesis Method Results and discussion Conclusion References

Introduction Prounciation is often neglected in SLA. Important hurdle in L 2 proficiency. Phonetic instruction can benefit L 2 pronunciation. [Gordon, Darcy & Ewert 2013; Kennedy, Blanchet & Trofimovich 2013]. Increased L 1 use may lead to accented L 2 pronunciation [Flege, Frieda & Nozawa 1997]. Pronunciation coaching can help acquire a proficient L 2 pronunciation. Even advanced learners may have difficulty maintaining L 2 pronunciation.

Research question How is the pronunciation of advanced Dutch learners of English affected by a lack of explicit pronunciation instruction? Influence of number of English-taught courses Influence of going abroad

Hypothesis Four ways in which pronunciation can develop: • remain stable • improve to be more RP-like • become more like another variety of English (e. g. GA) [Coupland 2010]. • deteriorate and be more Dutch Hypothesis Overall, pronunciation will become more Dutch. Going abroad and more English-taught courses are beneficial.

Method Participants 12 native Dutch third-year students BA English at Radboud University (RP pronunciation track) No pronunciation teaching in year 3 English-taught courses: year 3: 5 (25 out of 55 ECTS) year 2: 8 (40 out of 50 ECTS) year 1: 11 (55 out of 55 ECTS) 4 participants had spent a term abroad.

Method Materials Recording in three parts: read text (Arthur the Rat) 10 sentences (e. g. The work in the brewery has ruined his shoes) 3 open questions (stay abroad, classes, own pronunciation) Compared to pronunciation exams of year 1 and year 2.

Method Procedure Recorded in language lab Max. 5 participants at a time Setting identical to pronunciation exams Performance in recording had no influence on their class grades.

Method Procedure: analysis Based on features used to grade pronunciation exams, Table 1. Features of RP most difficult for Dutch learners and, therefore, clearest indicators for proficiency [Kamara, personal communication; Collins & Mees 2003, 2008; Gussenhoven & Bremmer 1983]. All features were dealt with in pronunciation classes [Gussenhoven & Broeders 1997]. Per feature, RP-like quality was determined. Compared to previous pronunication. Table 1. Features under investigation in ppn pronunciation

Results and discussion Figure 1 RP-like quality: year 3 (81. 5%) year 2 (81. 9%) year 1 (77. 1%) All differences significant and representing small effects. Task difference: sentences > text > open questions Between y 1 and y 2: t(863) = -28. 4, p <. 001 d = 0. 2 Between y 2 and y 3: t(863) = 12. 7, p <. 001 d = -0. 02 Between y 1 and y 3: t(863) = -27. 8, p <. 001 d = -0. 02

Results and discussion Figure 2 Separate features differ. Three patterns: – only improve – stable all through – improve then decrease Biggest changes: vowels

Results and discussion Figure 3 Two main patterns of change between ppn. Time spent abroad was a positive influence. Number of English-taught courses was not influential. Time spent abroad: β =. 091, t(864) = 2. 504, p =. 012 Number of EN courses: β =. 038, t(864) = 1. 045, p =. 296

Conclusion Effect of stopping explicit pronunciation instruction on advanced EFL learners Pronunciation overall improved then deteriorated. Certain features more robust; individual features develop separately. High value of pronunciation teaching, even for advanced learners. Confirmed original hypothesis Unstable pronunciation. Deteriorates after coaching is stopped. Spending time abroad is a positive influence.

References • Boersma, P. , Weenink, D. 2015. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5. 4. 04, retrieved from http: //praat. org/ • Collins, B. , Mees, I. M. 2003. The phonetics of English and Dutch. Leiden: Brill. • Collins, B. , Mees, I. M. 2008. Practical phonetics and phonology. London: Routledge. • Coupland, N. Accommodation theory. 2010. In: Jaspers, J. , Verschueren, J. , Östman, J. (eds), Society and Language Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. • Flege, J. E. , Frieda, E. M. , Nozawa, T. 1997. Amoung of native-language (L 1) use affects the pronunciation of an L 2. Journal of Phonetics 25, 169 -186. • Gordon, J. , Darcy, I. , Ewert, D. 2013. Pronunciation teaching and learning: Effects of explicit phonetic instruction in the L 2 classroom. In: Levis, J. , Le. Velle, K. (eds), Proc. of the 4 th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference Ames, IA, 197 -206. • Gussenhoven, C. , Bremmer Jr. , R. H. 1983. Voiced fricatives in Dutch: Sources and present-day usage. North-Western European Language Evolution 2, 55 -71. • Gussenhoven, C. , Broeders, A. 1997. English pronunciation for student teachers. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. • Kennedy, S. , Blanchet, J. , Trofimovich, P. 2013. L 2 learners' speech after French phonetics teaching. Proc. PTLC 2013 London, 43 -46. • Re. LANpro. 2014. [Computer program]. Retrieved from http: //relanpro. nl/

Any questions?