“I Understood you, but there was this Pronunciation Thing…”: L2 Pronunciation Feedback in English/French Tandem Interactions

Abstract

<jats:p>The role of corrective feedback (CF) in L2 development has been the topic of much discussion in SLA literature (see for example Sheen and Ellis 2011 for a recent overview). Researchers have focused their attention on CF provided either by language teachers or by fellow L2 learners, whereas relatively little is known about phonetic feedback offered in a non-institutional setting during peer-to-peer native/non-native interactions as is the case with tandem language learning. Tandem language exchanges represent a special learning environment, as each participant takes turns being the native and the non-native side of the dialogue. Thus, in contrast to the typical L2 learning setting, the hierarchical structure between the participants is fluid: the expert-novice power relationship evolves as the meeting progresses and the conversation switches from one language to the other. In order to see how the distinguishing characteristics of tandem learning (such as solidarity and reciprocity) shape the process of L2 phonetic development in their own specific ways, we collected an English-French Tandem Corpus as part of the SITAF project (Spécificités des Interactions verbales dans le cadre de Tandems linguistiques Anglais-Français), launched at the University of Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3 in October 2012. We gathered linguistic data – both video and audio recorded – from face-to-face conversational exchanges held by 21 pairs of undergraduate students, with each ‘tandem’ consisting of a native speaker of English and a native speaker of French. The dialogues and reading passages were recorded on two occasions separated by a 3-month interval. The present paper offers a preliminary analysis of L2 pronunciation feedback on several renditions of the same text (The North Wind and the Sun), given to the French speakers by their English tandem partners. The passage was produced by each French participant three times: (1) during the ‘monitored’ reading, which was supervised by the English-speaking partner and which led to (2) the ‘second reading’ in the course of the first recording session, and then (3) the ‘final reading’ performed during the second recording session 3 months later. Data analysis will allow us to address the following questions relating to the study of phonetic corrective feedback:&#x0D; - What is corrected by the native-speaking partner (henceforth NS)? Segmental or prosodic errors? Phonemic or allophonic deviations?- What is the corrective strategy adopted by the NS? Is it explicit correction, recast, or elicitation?- What is the learner’s uptake after receiving feedback?We hope that our data brings a valuable and fairly unique contribution to SLA research, helping to establish which errors get corrected and how it may have implications for setting priorities in L2 pronunciation teaching.</jats:p>

Pronunciation in Face-to-Face and Audio-Only Synchronous Computer-Mediated Learner Interactions

“…Matsumoto’s participants often faced intelligibility difficulties due to segmental pronunciation issues (e.g., deletion or substitution of phonemes) but could overcome these problems through accommodation strategies (e.g., requests for clarification, repetition by the speaker or hearer), which allowed for repair. In the context of language tandems (i.e., native speaker [NS]-nonnative speaker [NNS] interactions), Horgues and Scheuer (2014) observed a read-aloud task where English NSs were asked to give feedback to French learners of English. Most corrective feedback given to learners was related to segmentals (95.4%).…”

“…Although the NSs in the tandems admitted that not all pronunciation features were unintelligible, the researchers identified numerous instances in which mispronunciation of segmental features led to lexical confusion or unintelligibility (such as hunger being rendered closer to anger by a French learner of English). While Matsumoto (2011) and Horgues and Scheuer (2014) reported primarily segmental pronunciation issues in interaction, other research has attested to suprasegmental features leading to misunderstandings. In Pickering’s (2009) study of EFL task-based interactions, sentence stress, pitch movement, and relative pitch were shown to affect intelligibility (with misunderstandings potentially resulting in negotiation of meaning), but the frequency of suprasegmental issues relative to other pronunciation features was not considered.…”

“Three months on, I still sound like an Anglophone”: Tales of Success and Failure told by English and French Tandem Partners

“…Partial insight into this matter, meanwhile, can be gleaned from the reading task, where the same text was used in Sessions 1 and 2 (see section Sessions and tasks). Our analysis of the pronunciation uptake in the English task (Horgues & Scheuer, 2014) suggested, rather predictably, a quantitative deterioration over time. Calculated in relation to the CF provided during the first (monitored) reading, the combined amount of total and partial uptake dropped between Session 1 and 2.…”

“…We also analyzed CF in the reading task (two sessions; focus almost exclusively on pronunciation) for comparison. Our analysis of CF in this corpus (quantity, focus, strategies) was presented in previous publications (Horgues & Scheuer, 2014;Horgues & Scheuer, 2018;Scheuer & Horgues, 2020).…”

L’exploitation d’un corpus d’interactions en tandem anglais/français pour mieux comprendre les enjeux de la rétroaction corrective entre pairs

“…Nous nous intéressons ensuite au domaine linguistique concerné par la rétroaction (lexical, grammatical ou morphosyntaxique, phonétique). Nous élargissons ici l'étude des domaines que nous avions débuté dans une étude précédente (Horgues et Scheuer, 2014) qui ne portait que sur les réatroactions correctives d'ordre phonétique car contraintes par la tâche de lecture monitorée du même corpus (parole contrôlée, non spontanée). Notre analyse des stratégies de rétroaction s'inspire également de la typologie proposée pour le domaine de l'enseignement L2 par Lyster et Ranta (1997), Sheen et Ellis (2011) La collecte du corpus d'interactions en tandem filmées n'a concerné que deux séances pour les 21 paires qui s'étaient portées volontaires : la première en tout début de semestre et la seconde en toute fin de semestre (trois mois plus tard).…”