2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Nederlandse Taalkunde
  4. Volume 26, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 26, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Abstract

In social interaction, foreign language accent and comprehensibility impact how we perceive our conversational partners. In recent years, research interest in these constructs has been on the rise, while many issues remain underexposed. These issues include the relationship between comprehension and accent on the one hand, and background variables of both learner and assessor on the other. Since most research to date has been conducted with highly educated and advanced learners of English as a second or foreign language, we do not know to what extent those results can be generalised to a wider population that includes beginning learners of Dutch as a second language from various educational backgrounds. In addition, little research has been done into the comparability of the judgements of trained and non-trained assessors. In the current study, we compared the judgments of four trained evaluators with the intuitive judgments of 272 non-trained evaluators (first-year students at various Educational Bachelor’s Programmes in Primary Education). The first group of raters evaluated the speaking performance of 116 learners of Dutch as a second language using standardised criteria, the second group used more subjective criteria. The results show that the two groups of evaluators make very similar judgements and that these judgements are mainly related to two background variables: the nature of the NT2 course the learners followed (also an indicator of prior education and cognitive ability) and the level of language proficiency of the course.

© Bart Deygers & Carolien Frijns
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.2.003.DEYG
2021-10-01
2024-11-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13845845/26/2/NEDTAA2021.2.003.DEYG.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.2.003.DEYG&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Andringa, S. & A.Godfroid (2020). Sampling bias and the problem of generalizability in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics40, 134-142.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aryadoust, V., C.Goh & L.Kim (2011). An investigation of differential item functioning in the MELAB listening test. Language Assessment Quarterly8, 361-385.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Champely, S. (2018). Pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis. R package version 1.2-2.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Charlesworth, T. & M.Banaji (2019). Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long- term change and stability from 2007 to 2016. Psychological Science30, 174-192.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Brussels: Council of Europe Language Policy Division.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Croissant, Y. (2018). Mlogit: Multinomial Logit Models. R package version 0.3-0.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Crowther, D. (2020). Rating L2 speaker comprehensibility on monologic vs. interactive tasks: What is the effect of speaking task type?Journal of Second Language Pronunciation6, 96-121.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Crowther, D., P.Trofimovich, T.Isaacs & K.Saito (2015). Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility?The Modern Language Journal99, 80-95.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Derwing, T. & M.Munro (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Derwing, T., M.Rossiter, M.Munro & R.Thomson (2004). Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning54, 655-679.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Deygers, B. (2019). Fairness and social justice in English language assessment. In: X.Gao, F.Davidson & C.Leung (red.), Springer second international handbook of English language teaching. New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Deygers, B. & K.Van Gorp (2015). Determining the scoring validity of a co-constructed CEFR-based rating scale. Language Testing32, 521-541.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Deygers, B., M.Vanbuel & U.Knoch (in review). Can L2 course duration compensate for the impact of demographic and educational background variables on second language writing development?System.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fox, J. & S.Weisberg (2011). An {R} Companion to Applied Regression. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Frijns, C. (2019). De vliegtuigklas. Naar sterk taalonderwijs op de basisschool. Kalmthout: Pelckmans Pro.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gatbonton, E., P.Trofimovich & M.Magid (2005). Learners’ ethnic group affiliation and L2 pronunciation accuracy: A sociolinguistic investigation. TESOL Quarterly39, 489-511.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Harsch, C. & G.Martin (2012). Adapting CEF-descriptors for rating purposes: Validation by a combined rater training and scale revision approach. Assessing Writing17, 228-250.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Henrich, J., S.Heine & A.Norenzayan (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 1-75.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hogan, D. & M.Mallot (2005). Changing racial prejudice through diversity education. Journal of College Student Development46, 115-125.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Isaacs, T. & R.Thomson (2013). Rater experience, rating scale length, and judgments of L2 pronunciation: Revisiting research conventions. Language Assessment Quarterly10, 135-159.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Joaquin, A. & J.Schumann (2013). Exploring the interactional instinct. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kang, O. & D.Rubin (2014). Listener expectations, reverse linguistic stereotyping, and individual background factors in social judgments and oral performance assessment. In: J.Levis & A.Moyer (red.), Social dynamics in second language accent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 239-255.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kurvers, J. (2015). Emerging literacy in adult second-language learners: A synthesis of research findings in the Netherlands. Writing Systems Research7, 58-78.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lambert, W., R.Hodgson, R.Gardner & S.Fillenbaum (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken language. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology60, 44-51.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lave, J. & E.Wenger (1992). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee, N., L.Mikesell, A.Joaquin, A.Mates & J.Schumann (2009). The interactional instinct. The evolution and acquisition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. LeVelle, K. & J.Levis (2014). Understanding the impact of social factors on L2 pronunciation: Insights from learners. In: J.Levis & A.Moyer (red.), 79-118.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Levis, J. & V.Cortes (2008). Minimal pairs in spoken corpora: Implications for pronunciation assessment and teaching. In: C.Chapelle, Y.-R.Chung & J.Xu (red.), Towards adaptive CALL: Natural language processing for diagnostic language assessment. Ames: Iowa State University, 197-208.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Levis, J. & A.Moyer (2014). Social dynamics in second language accent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Linacre, J. (2012). A User’s Guide to FACETS Rasch-Model Computer Programs. <winsteps.com>
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Linacre, M. (2015). Facets (3.71.4) [Computer software]. <winsteps.com>
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lindemann, S. (2002). Listening with an attitude: A model of native-speaker comprehension of non-native speakers in the United States. Language in Society31, 419-441.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Lindemann, S., J.Litzenberg & N.Subtirelu (2014). Problematizing the dependence on L1 norms in pronunciation teaching: Attitudes toward second-language accents. In: J.Levis & A.Moyer (red.), 171-194.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: W.Ritchie & T.Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 413-468.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Lumley, T. (2002). Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: What do they really mean to the raters?Language Testing19, 246-276.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Magez, W. (2007). Cognitieve vaardigheidstest (Covaar) voor anderstalige nieuwkomers e.a. Handleiding. 4. Testinstructies. Centrum Schoolpsychologie KU Leuven Lessius Hogeschool Antwerpen – dept. Toegepaste Psychologie.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Maly, I. (2009). De beschavingsmachine. Wij en de islam. Berchem: EPO.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Marzo, S. & E.Ceuleers (2011). The use of Citétaal among adolescents in Limburg: The role of space appropriation in language variation and change. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development32, 451-464.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Miller, J. (2003). Audible difference: ESL and social identity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. McNamara, T. (2020). The anti-shibboleth: The traumatic character of the shibboleth as silence. Applied Linguistics41, 334-351.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. McNamara, T. & C.Roever (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. McNamara, T., U.Knoch & J.Fan (2019). Fairness, justice, and language assessment: The role of measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Moyer, A. (2014). The social nature of L2 pronunciation. In: A.Moyer & J.Levis (red.), 11-31.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Moyer, A. (2015). Foreign accent. The phenomenon of non-native speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Munro, M. (2008). Foreign accent and speech intelligibility. In: J.Hansen Edwards & M.Zampini (red.), Phonology and second language acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 193-218.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Munro, M. & T.Derwing (1995a). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning45, 73-97.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Munro, M. & T.Derwing (1995b). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech38, 289-306.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Ortega, L. (2008). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Paradis, J. (2018, September7). The L2 acquisition of children from migrant backgrounds: How age, L1, input and cognitive factors shape this process. Münster: EuroSLA.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Pickering, L. & A.Baker (2014). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness. In: A.Moyer & J.Levis (red.), 74-94.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Pinget, A-F, H.Bosker, H.Quené & N.de Jong (2014). Native speakers’ perceptions of fluency and accent in L2 speech. Language Testing31, 349-365.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <www.R-project.org>
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics22, 27-57.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Rocca, L., C.Carlsen & B.Deygers (2019). Linguistic Integration of adult migrants: Requirements and learning opportunities. Report on the 2018 Council of Europe and ALTE survey on language and knowledge of society policies for migrants. Brussels: Council of Europe.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Rüsseler, J., D.Arendt, T.Münte, B.Mohammadi & M.Boltzmann (in review). Literacy affects brain structure – what can we learn for language assessment in low literates?Language Assessment Quarterly.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Saito, K., P.Trofimovich & T.Isaacs (2017). Using listener judgments to investigate linguistic influences on L2 comprehensibility and accentedness: A validation and generalization study. Applied Linguistics38, 439-462.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal100, 231-254.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Sereno, J. & Y.Wang (2007). Behavioral and cortical effects of learning a second language. In: O.-S.Bohn & M.Munro (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 239-258.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Shaw, S. & H.Imam (2013). Assessment of international students through the medium of English: Ensuring validity and fairness in content-based examinations. Language Assessment Quarterly10, 452-475.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics30, 510-532.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Skehan, P. & P.Foster (2001). Cognition and tasks. In: P.Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183-205.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Suzuki, S. & J.Kormos (2020). Linguistic dimensions of comprehensibility and perceived fluency: An investigation of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language argumentative speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition42, 143-167.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Tarone, E. (2010). Second language acquisition by low-literate learners: An understudied population. Language Teaching43, 75-83.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. The Douglas Fir Group (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal100, 19-47.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Unsworth, N. & R.Engle (2007). On the division of short-term and working memory: An examination of simple and complex span and their relation to higher order abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1038-1066.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Vagvoelgyi, R., A.Coldea, T.Dresler, J.Schrader & H.-C.Nuerk (2016). A review about functional illiteracy: Definition, cognitive, linguistic, and numerical aspects. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1617.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Verschueren, K., E.Buyse, V.Germeijs, R, Janssen, W.Magez, D.Van Nijlen, G.Buysse, S.Vangoetsenhoven, T.Arkens & S.Doumen (2011). Evaluatie en aanpassing van de Covaar-II. Faculteit Psychologie en Pedagogische Wetenschappen, KU Leuven. Onderzoeksgroep Schoolpsychologie en Ontwikkelingspsychologie van Kind en Adolescent.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Xi, X. (2010). How do we go about investigating test fairness?Language Testing27, 147-170.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.2.003.DEYG
Loading
Begrijpelijkheid en accent bij beginnende NT2-leerders
NedTaal 26, 195 (2021); https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.2.003.DEYG
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.2.003.DEYG
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.2.003.DEYG
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): comprehensibility; impact of background variables; intuitive judgment; L2 accent; rater behavior

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error