Advertisement

Teaching to Suppress Polglish Processes

  • Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk
  • Anna BalasEmail author
  • Geoffrey Schwartz
  • Arkadiusz Rojczyk
  • Magdalena Wrembel
Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

Advanced second language (henceforth L2) learners in a formal setting can suppress many first language (henceforth L1) processes in L2 pronunciation when provided with sufficient exposure to L2 and meta competence (see Sect. 4 for a definition of this term). This paper shows how imitation in L2 teaching can be enhanced on the basis of current phonetic research and how complex allophonic processes such as nasal vocalization and glottal stop insertion can be suppressed using “repair”—a method of providing learners with adequate input, so that they can use the L1 processes to improve L2 pronunciation.

Keywords

Imitation Task Phonemic Category Glottal Stop Second Language Acquisition Phonetic Detail 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers.

This research is supported by a grant to Geoffrey Schwartz, Anna Balas and Arkadiusz Rojczyk from the Polish National Science Center (Narodowe Centrum Nauki). “Sandhi in Second Language Speech,” project #: UMO-2012/05/B/HS2/04036.

References

  1. Babel, M. (2010). Dialect convergence and divergence in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 39, 437-456. Google Scholar
  2. Babel, M. (2012). Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 177-189.Google Scholar
  3. Babel, M., & Bulatov, D. (2012). The role of fundamental frequency in phonetic accommodation. Language and Speech, 55, 231-248.Google Scholar
  4. Bogacka [Balas], A. (2007). Repopulating vowel space. Unpublished PhD thesis, Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University.Google Scholar
  5. Bailly, G. (2003). Close shadowing natural versus synthetic speech. International Journal of Speech Technology, 6, 11-19.Google Scholar
  6. Beebe, L. (1981). Social and situational factors affecting the communicative strategy of dialect code-switching. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 32, 139-149.Google Scholar
  7. Bourhis, R. Y., & Giles, H. (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 119-135). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Davidson, L., & Erker, D. (2014). Hiatus resolution in American English: the case against glide insertion. Language, 90(2), 482-514.Google Scholar
  9. Dilley, L., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Ostendorf, M. (1996). Glottalization of word-initial vowels as a function of prosodic structure. Journal of Phonetics, 24(4), 423-444.Google Scholar
  10. Donegan, P., & Stampe, D. (1979). The study of Natural Phonology. In D. A. Dinnsen (Ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory (pp. 126-173). Bloomington: IUP.Google Scholar
  11. Donegan, P., & Stampe, D. (2009). Hypotheses of Natural Phonology. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(1), 1-31.Google Scholar
  12. Dukiewicz, L., & Sawicka, I. (1995). Fonetyka i fonologia. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Języka Polskiego PAN.Google Scholar
  13. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (2002). Conscious competence of performance as a key to teaching English. In E. Waniek-Klimczak, & P. J. Melia (Eds.), Accents and speech in teaching English phonetics and phonology (pp. 97-106). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  14. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (2003). How learners “repair” second language phonology and whether they may become native speakers. In E. Waniek-Klimczak, & W. Sobkowiak (Eds.), Dydaktyka fonetyki języka obcego. Neofilologia (pp. 31-64). Płock: Zeszyty Naukowe PWSZ w Płocku.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, B. G., & Iverson, P. (2007). Plasticity in vowel perception and production: A study of accent change in young adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 3814-3826.Google Scholar
  16. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). Cognitive dimensions of language transfer. In E. Kellerman, & M. Scharwood Smith (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 49-65). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  17. Flege, J. E., & Davidian, R. D. (1984). Transfer and developmental processes in adult foreign language speech production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 323–347.Google Scholar
  18. Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87-109.Google Scholar
  19. Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (1991). Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  20. Giles, H., & Ogay, T. (2007). Communication Accommodation Theory. In W. Samter, & B. B. Whaley (Eds.), Explaining communication. Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 293-310). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Goldinger, S. (1997). Perception and production in an episodic lexicon. In K. Johnson, & J. W. Mullenix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 33-66). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Goldinger, S. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251-279.Google Scholar
  23. Goldinger, S. (2000). The role of perceptual epsiodes in lexical processing. In A. Cutler, J. M. McQueen, & R. Zondervan (Eds.), Proceedings of SWAP Spoken Word Access Processes (pp. 155-159). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
  24. Goldinger, S., & Azuma, T. (2004). Episodic memory in printed word naming. Psychological Bulleting Review, 11, 716-722.Google Scholar
  25. Gregory, S. W. (1990). Analysis of fundamental frequency reveals covariation in interview partners’ speech. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 237-251.Google Scholar
  26. Gregory, S. W., Dagan, K., & Webster, S. (1997). Evaluating the relation between vocal accommodation in conversational partners’ fundamental frequencies to perception of communication quality. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 23-43.Google Scholar
  27. Gregory, S. W., Green, B. E., Carrothers, R. M., & Dagan, A. (2001). Verifying the primacy of voice fundamental frequency in social status accommodation. Language Communication, 21, 37-60. Google Scholar
  28. Gregory, S. W., & Webster, S. (1996). A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status predictions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1231-1240.Google Scholar
  29. Gregory, S. W., Webster, S., & Huang, G. (1993). Voice pitch and amplitude convergence as a metric of quality in dyadic interviews. Language Communication, 13, 195-217. Google Scholar
  30. Haspelmath, M. (2006). Pre-established categories don’t exist – consequences for language typology and description. Paper presented at the DGfS Annual Conference, February 22-24, Bielefeld Germany.Google Scholar
  31. Hauser, M. D. (1996). The evolution of communication. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Honorof, D., Weihing, N. J., & Fowler, C. A. (2011). Articulatory events are imitated under rapid shadowing. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 18-38.Google Scholar
  33. Jassem, W., & Richter, L. (1989). Neutralization of voicing in Polish obstruents. Journal of Phonetics, 17, 317-325.Google Scholar
  34. Kappes, J., Baumgaertner, A., Peschke, C., & Ziegler, W. (2009). Unintended imitation in nonword repetition. Brain and Language, 111, 140-151.Google Scholar
  35. Keating, P. (1979). A phonetic study of voicing contrast in Polish. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brown University.Google Scholar
  36. Malisz, Z., Żygis, M., & Pompino-Marchal, B. (2013). Rhythmic structure effects on glottalisation: A study of different speech styles in Polish and German. Laboratory Phonology. Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, 4(1), 119-158.Google Scholar
  37. McHugo, G., Lanzetta, J., Sullivan, D., Masters, R., & Englis, B. (1985). Emotional reactions to a political leader’s expressive displays. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1513-1529.Google Scholar
  38. Namy, L., Nygaard, L., & Sauerteig, D. (2002). Gender differences in vocal accommodation: The role of perception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 422-432. Google Scholar
  39. Nagell, K., Olguin, K., & Tomasello, M. (1993). Processes of social learning in tool use in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and human children (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 107, 174-186.Google Scholar
  40. Natale, M. (1975). Convergence of mean vocal intensity in dyadic communication as a function of social desirability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 790-804.Google Scholar
  41. Nielsen, K. (2011). Specificity and abstractness of VOT imitation. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 132-142.Google Scholar
  42. Pardo, J. (2006). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2382-2393.Google Scholar
  43. Pardo, J. S., Cajori Jay, I., & Krauss, R. M. (2010). Conversational role influences speech imitation. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 72, 2254-2264. Google Scholar
  44. Pardo, J. S., Gibbons, R., Suppes, A., & Krauss, R. M. (2012). Phonetic convergence in college roommates. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 190-197.Google Scholar
  45. Polivanov, E. (1932). La perception des sons d’une langue étrangère. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 4, 79-86.Google Scholar
  46. Rojczyk, A. (2012a). Phonetic and phonological mode in second-language speech: VOT imitation. Paper presented at EUROSLA 22 - The 22nd Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association, September 5-8, Poznań Poland.Google Scholar
  47. Rojczyk, A. (2012b). Phonetic imitation of L2 vowels in a rapid shadowing task. In J. Levis, & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4 th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 66-76). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  48. Rojczyk, A., Porzuczek, A., & Bergier, M. (2013). Immediate and distracted imitation in second-language speech: Unreleased plosives in English. Research in Language, 11, 3-18.Google Scholar
  49. Schwartz, G. (2013). Vowel hiatus at Polish word boundaries – phonetic realization and phonological implications. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 49(4), 557-585. Google Scholar
  50. Shockley, K., Sabadini, L., & Fowler, C. A. (2004). Imitation in shadowing words. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 422-429.Google Scholar
  51. Slowiaczek, L., & Dinnsen, D. (1985). On the neutralizing status of Polish word-final devoicing. Journal of Phonetics, 13, 325-341.Google Scholar
  52. Sobkowiak, W. (1991). Metaphonology of English paronomasic puns. Proceedings of the 12 th ICPhS, Aix-en-Provence, 5, 130-133.Google Scholar
  53. Stampe, D. (1972). How I spent my summer vacation. Columbus: Ohio State University Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
  54. Stampe, D. (1969). “The acquisition of phonetic representation”. In R. Binnick et al. (Eds.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 443-454). (Reprinted in Stampe, 1979 (see Stampe, 1973) pp. vii–xxv and B. Lust, & C. Foley (Eds.) (2003) First language acquisition: The essential readings (pp. 307-315). Malden MA: Blackwell.) Google Scholar
  55. Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1939/69). Principles of phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wrembel, M. (2005). Metacompetence-oriented model of phonological acquisition: implications for the teaching and learning of second language pronunciation. Proc. PTLC 2005 London, 1-5.Google Scholar
  57. Young, R. (1988). Variation in the Interlanguage Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 281-302.Google Scholar
  58. Zając, M. (2013). Phonetic imitation of vowel duration in L2 speech. Research in Language, 11, 19-29.Google Scholar
  59. Zając, M., & Rojczyk, A. (2013). Imitation of English vowel duration upon exposure to native and non-native speech. Paper presented at Accents 2013, December 5-7, Łódź Poland.Google Scholar
  60. Zuengler, J. (1982). Applying Accommodation Theory to variable performance data in L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 181-192. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk
    • 1
  • Anna Balas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Geoffrey Schwartz
    • 1
  • Arkadiusz Rojczyk
    • 2
  • Magdalena Wrembel
    • 1
  1. 1.Adam Mickiewicz University in PoznańPoznańPoland
  2. 2.University of SilesiaKatowicePoland

Personalised recommendations