Percepción y evaluación de la pronunciación del español como L2
Abstract
Resumen
Este estudio se propone analizar y comparar los principales constructos (inteligibilidad, comprensibilidad, acento extranjero, fluidez e irritabilidad) que intervienen en la percepción y evaluación de la pronunciación de una L2. Aunque en la bibliografía pueden encontrarse investigaciones que recogen las relaciones que se establecen entre algunas de estas dimensiones, aún permanece inexplorado el análisis conjunto de todas ellas, y son muy pocos los estudios que han considerado para el español como L2 una dimensión que no fuera el acento extranjero. Con el fin de analizar el papel y la relación que guardan entre sí estas dimensiones, se examinó en relación con cada una de ellas el proceso de evaluación que 44 evaluadores nativos (15 expertos y 29 no expertos) realizaban sobre ocho muestras orales de español como L2. Los resultados reflejan, entre otros datos, que los jueces tienden a sobrevalorar su capacidad para entender las muestras, que la inteligibilidad y la comprensibilidad guardan entre sí una estrecha relación, y que el acento extranjero es el constructo que más marca la diferencia en las valoraciones perceptivas entre jueces expertos y no expertos.
Palabras clave: percepción; evaluación; pronunciación de una L2; inteligibilidad; comprensibilidad; acento extranjero; fluidez; irritabilidad.
Abstract
This study aims to analyze and relate the major constructs (intelligibility, comprehensibility, accentedness, fluency and irritability) operating in the perception and assessment of L2 pronunciation. Although relations between some of these dimensions have been discussed in the literature, it still remains unexplored an overall analysis of all of them. In order to evaluate the role and connections of these dimensions, the oral productions of 8 native English speakers of Spanish were examined for each of the 5 constructs by 29 novice raters and 15 experienced teachers (N=44). Results showed that intelligibility and comprehensibility are strongly correlated, that raters tend to overestimate their ability to understand the speech samples, or that accentedness makes the difference on perceptual evaluations between expert and non-expert raters.
Keywords: perception, assessment; L2 pronunciation; intelligibility; comprehensibility; accentedness; fluency; irritability.
Downloads
References
Barrera Pardo, D. (2004): «Can pronunciation be taught? A review of research and implications for teaching», Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 17, pp. 31-44.
Burda, A.N., Scherz, J.A., Hageman, C.F. y Edwards, H.T. (2003): «Age and understanding speakers with Spanish or Taiwanese accents», Perceptual and Motor Skills 97, 1, pp. 11-20.
Busch, M. (1993): «Using Likert scales in L2 research. A researcher comments», TESOL Quarterly 27,4, pp. 733-736.
Cantero, F. J. (2003): «Fonética y didáctica de la pronunciación», en Mendoza, A. (ed.), Didáctica de la lengua y la literatura, Madrid, Prentice Hall, pp. 545-572.
Chen, H.C. (2011): «Judgments of intelligibility and foreign accent by listeners of different language backgrounds», The Journal of Asia TEFL 8, 4, pp. 61-83.
Derwing, T.M. (2003): «What do ESL students say about their accents?», Canadian modern language review/ La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes 59, 4, pp. 547-567.
—, (2008): «Curriculum issues in teaching pronunciation to second language learners», en Hansen Edwards, J. y Zampini, M. (eds), Phonology and Second Language Acquisition, Ámsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 347-369.
Derwing, T.M. y Munro, M. J. (1997): «Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s», Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 1, pp. 1-16.
—, (2009): «Putting accent in its place: rethinking obstacles to communication», Language Teaching 42, 4, pp. 476-490.
Derwing, T.M., Munro, M.J. y Thomson, R.I. (2007): «A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development», Applied Linguistics 29, 3, pp. 359-380.
Derwing, T. y Rossiter, M. (2004): «Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks», Language Larning 54, 4, pp. 655-679.
Derwing, T.M., Rossiter, M. y Munro, M. (2002): «Teaching native speakers to listen to foreign-accented speech», Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 32, 4, pp. 245-259.
Fayer, J.M. y Krasinski, E. (1987): «Native and nonnative judgments of intelligibility and irritation», Language Learning 37, 3, pp. 313-326.
Field, J. (2005): «Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress», TESOL Quarterly 39, 3, pp. 399-423.
Gallardo del Puerto, F., Gómez Lacabex, E. y García Lecumberri, M.L. (2006): «The assessment of foreign accent by native and non-native judges», Phonetics teaching and learning conference, University College London, pp. 1-4.
Gallego, J.C. (1990): «The intelligibility of three nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants: an analysis of student-reported communication breakdowns», Issues in Applied Linguistics 1, 2, pp. 219-237.
Gass, S. y Varonis, E. (1984): «The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech», Language learning 34, 1, pp. 65-89.
Gil, J. (2007): Fonética para profesores de español: de la teoría a la práctica, Madrid, Arco/Libros.
Hahn, L.D. (2004): «Primary stress and intelligibility: research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals», TESOL Quarterly 38, 2, pp. 201-223.
Instituto Cervantes (2008): Diccionario de términos clave de ELE, Madrid, SGEL, Disponible también en versión electrónica en: <http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/diccio_ele/diccionario/correccion.htm>.
Isaacs, T. (2008): «Towards defining a valid assessment criterion of pronunciation proficiency in graduate students», The Canadian Modern Language Review 4, pp. 555-580.
Isaacs, T. y Trofimovich, P. (2012): «Deconstructing comprehensibility», Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34, 3, pp. 475-505.
Jenkins, J. (2000): «The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals», Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Kang, O. (2010): «Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness», System 38, 2, pp. 301-315.
Kang, O. y Rubin, D.L. (2009): «Reverse linguistic stereotyping: measuring the effect of listener expectations on speech evaluation», Journal of Language and Social Psychology 28, 4, pp. 441-456.
Kennedy, S. y Trofimovich, P. (2008): «Intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness of L2 speech: The role of listener experience and semantic context», The Canadian Modern Language Review 64, 3, pp. 459-489.
Kormos, J. y Dénes, M. (2004): «Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners», System 32, 2, pp. 145-164.
Lennon, P. (1990): «Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach», Language Learning 40, 3, pp. 387-417.
Levis, J.M. (2005): «Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching», TESOL Quarterly 39,3, pp. 369-377.
Lippi-Green, R. (2004): «Language Ideology and language prejudice», en Finegany, E. y Rickford, J. (eds), Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 289-304.
Llisterri, J. (2003): «La evaluación de la pronunciación en la enseñanza del español como segunda lengua», en Reyzabal, M.V. (ed.), Perspectivas teóricas y metodológicas: Lengua de acogida, educación intercultural y contextos inclusivos, Consejería de Educación, Comunidad de Madrid, pp. 547-562.
Llurda, E. (1995): «Native-speaker reactions to nonnative speech: A review», Sintagma 7, pp. 43-51.
Ludwig, J. (1982): «Native-speaker judgments of Second-Language learners’ efforts at communication: A review», The Modern Language Journal 66, 3, pp. 274-283.
Munro, M.J. (2003): «A primer on accent discrimination in the Canadian context», TESL Canada Journal 20, 2, pp. 38-51.
Munro, M.J. y Derwing, T.M. (1994): «Evaluations of foreign accent in extemporaneous and read material», Language Testing 11, 3, pp. 253-266.
—, (1995a): «Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners», Language Learning 45, 1, pp. 73-97.
Munro, M.J. y Derwing, T.M. (1995b): «Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech», Language and Speech 38, 3, pp. 289-306.
—, (1999): «Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and Intelligibility in the speech of second language learners», Language Learning 49, pp. 285-310.
Odisho, E.Y. (2003): Techniques of teaching pronunciation in ESL, bilingual and foreign language classes, Múnich, Lincom Europa.
Piske, T., Mackay, I. y Flege, J. (2001): «Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review», Journal of Phonetics 29, 2, pp. 191-215.
Powell Crocker, L. (2010): Intelligibility of Hindi-accented English: the role of duration and intonation, University of Minnesota.
Rajadurai, J. (2007): «Intelligibility studies: A consideration of empirical and ideological issues», World Englishes 26, 1, pp. 87-98.
Raux, A. y Kawahara, T. (2002): «Automatic intelligibility assessment and diagnosis of critical pronunciation errors for computer-assisted pronunciation learning», ICSLP 1, pp. 737-740.
Riney, T.J. (2005): «Phonetic parameters and perceptual judgments of accent in English by American and Japanese listeners», TESOL Quarterly 39, 3, pp. 441-466.
Santamaría Busto, E. (2013): «Enseñar la competencia fonética», en Ruiz de Zarobe, L. y Ruiz de Zarobe Y. (eds.), Enseñar hoy una lengua extranjera, Berkeley, Portal Editions, pp. 2-66.
Schairer, K.E. (1992): «Native speaker reaction to non native speech», The Modern Language Journal 76, 3, pp. 309-319.
Singleton, D. y Ryan L. (2004); Language acquisition: The age factor, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
Smith, L.E. y Nelson, C.L. (1985): «International intelligibility of English: directions and resources», World Englishes 4, 3, pp. 333-342.
Trofimovich, P. y Isaacs, T. (2012): «Disentangling accent from comprehensibility», Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15, 4, pp. 905-916.
Winters, S. y O’brien, M.G. (2013): «Perceived accentedness and intelligibility: The relative contributions of F0 and duration», Speech Communication 55, 3, pp. 486-507.
