Phonological know that or know how in pursuit

Phonological "know that" or "know how"? - in pursuit of determinants of second language pronunciation attainments Magdalena Wrembel Teacher Training College, UAM, Poznań

Introduction Ø The paper reports on the results of a specially designed training programme; Ø aims at investigating the effectiveness of explicit instruction and the role of theoretical training; Ø expects to demonstrate patterns of change in pronunciation performance on pre-test / post-test measures; Ø seeks to verify the hypothesis that conscious knowledge leads to the formation of mental representations; Ø attempts to account for other variables related to L 2 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 L 2 phonology acc. to Nat. Phon. • L 2 learner - reduced phonological system • only selected processes available • confronted with L 2 subconsciously applies L 1 processes • IF processes L 1 = L 2 positive transfer • IF L 1 L 2 L 1 interference • (lacking L 2 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 L 2 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 L 2 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 – Cool. Edit 96 (22 k. Hz, 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 % 15

PRONUNCIATION PERFORMANCE - control group • • • TOTAL improvement by 13 % LIST by 26 % DIAL by 16 % SPEECH by 6 % PERC by 4. 4 % 16

PRETEST / POSTTEST CHANGE - EXPERIMENTAL VS. CONTROL 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: Ø improvement in overall phonetic accuracy Ø phonological metacompetence - determinant of success • Conscious knowledge of phonological processes facilitates: Ø formation of mental representations Ø self-organisation of the new phonological system • Implications foreign language learning: Ø metalinguistic awareness raising Ø supplementing practical phonetic training with theoretical instruction in phonetics and phonology 20