Mimicking accented speech as L2 phonological awareness

Abstract

This study investigated Spanish-speaking learners' awareness of a non-distinctive phonetic difference between Spanish and English through a delayed mimicry paradigm. We assessed learners' speech production accuracy through voice onset time (VOT) duration measures in word-initial pre-vocalic /p t k/ in Spanish and English words, and in Spanish words produced with an English accent. In addition, the second language (L2) English words and the English-accented Spanish words were rated, respectively, by first language (L1) English and L1 Spanish listeners on 9-point accentedness scales. Spanish-speaking learners were found to modify their native short-lag laryngeal timing patterns significantly, producing longer VOT durations in L2 English and, crucially, in their production of English-accented Spanish words, than they did in the production of L1 Spanish words. This was taken as evidence of learners having developed tacit phonological awareness of the cross-language VOT difference between Spanish and English voiceless stops.

Brazilian Efl Learners’ Awareness About L2 Phones: Is Mall Pronounced as ‘Mal’?

“…Both, production and perception tasks have been employed to tap into learners' awareness about specific and generic aspects of the L2 phonology. These studies show that language learners possess some non-verbalizable awareness about subphonemic L2 features such as Voice Onset Time (VOT) and glottal stops (MORa; ROCHDI & KIVIsTö-DE sOuza, 2014, KIVIsTö-DE sOuza, 2014FLEGE & HaMMOND, 1982;sHOEMaKER, 2014). Research also indicates that language learners who are more aware of their own L2 productions (BaKER & TROFIMOVICH, 2006) and possess higher awareness about the L2 phonology as a whole (KIVIsTö-DE sOuza, 2015) perceive and produce the L2 more accurately.…”

“…However, several researchers have recognized that awareness about L2 phonology also entails intuitive knowledge which cannot be verbalized (aLVEs, 2009;MORa;ROCHDI & KIVIsTö-DE sOuza, 2014PIsKE, 2008). as such, research on the matter in the L2 must also employ implicit testing methods based on participant's L2 speech performance (perception and production) and sensitivity to acceptable and inacceptable L2 speech patterns.…”

“…Phonological awareness based on non-verbalizable knowledge has been examined in only a handful of studies (MORa;ROCHDI & KIVIsTö-DE sOuza, 2014, KIVIsTö-DE sOuza, 2015BaKER & TROFIMOVICH, 2006;FLEGE & HaMMOND, 1982;sHOEMaKER, 2014). Both, production and perception tasks have been employed to tap into learners' awareness about specific and generic aspects of the L2 phonology.…”

Global foreign accent rating of code-switched and L2-only sentences

“…Although native input paucity makes an accurate acquisition of phonetic categories by foreign language learners very nearly unattainable, developing phonetic awareness of L2 phonetic details by EFL learners at higher levels of proficiency has been previously documented (Mora, Rochdi, Kivistö-de Souza 2014). In contrast, speech of learners at low levels of proficiency, who fully transfer L1 phonetic categories when speaking in L2, could hardly reveal any further short-term L1-interference effects.…”

Impact of self‐reflection and awareness‐raising on novice French learners’ pronunciation

“…Indeed, research has shown that developing phonological awareness is key to fostering different facets of pronunciation, including comprehensibility, perception, intonation, fluency, self‐repairs, and accuracy (Derwing, ; Kennedy & Blanchet, ; Kennedy et al, ; Kennedy & Trofimovich, ; Lee, Jang, & Plonsky, ; Ramírez Verdugo, ; Sturm, ; Venkatagiri & Levis, ; Wrembel, , ). Being phonologically aware “entails [having] not only metalinguistic understanding of L2 phonology, but also ‘implicit knowledge about the phonological system of the target language and its structural properties at the segmental, suprasegmental, and phonotactic levels’” (Mora, Rochdi, & Kivisö‐de Souza, , p. 58, as cited in Derwing, , pp. 339–340).…”