Session 3G

In the field of second language L2 pronunciation research, it is crucial to understand how L2 learners develop their pronunciation skills over time (Derwing & Munro, 2015). On one hand, cross-sectional and longitudinal research evidence points to the influence of several learner internal- and external factors (e.g., aptitude, motivation, emotion, L2 use) that facilitate L2 pronunciation development (see Pennington, 2019 for an overview). On the other hand, studies have looked at whether and to what extent pronunciation instruction helps learners to improve the proficiency in L2 pronunciation (Thomson & Derwing, 2014). Although such evidence suggests that both L2 learners' individual differences (IDs) and pronunciation instruction would exert influence on the rate and ultimate success of phonological acquisition, it is still unclear how and to what extent those two factors serve to reinforce L2 pronunciation performance and development. By combining both cross-sectional and longitudinal research designs, the current study conducted two experiments to answer the following research questions: to what degree L2 learners' various IDs factors can differentially contribute to participants' L2 pronunciation proficiency at the time of the study (Experiment I), and whether the impact of pronunciation instruction can be mediated by those IDs over time (i.e., one month) (Experiment II). To this end, 73 first-year college students at a university in Japan participated in the current study. In Experiment I, 73 speakers' spontaneous speech was holistically analysed by four native judges in terms of accentedness and comprehensibility. Subsequently, their pre-test scores were linked to their IDs in aptitude (LLAMA test: Meara, 2005), and anxiety and motivation (e.g., Baran-Łucarz, 2016), and L2 experience (Freed et al., 2004). In Experiment II, the speakers' pre- and post-test scores after a month-long weekly pronunciation instruction were submitted to a mixed-effects modelling analysis with IDs scores as dependant variables. First, the results of Experiment I demonstrated that recent L2 use outside of university was a strong predictor of higher comprehensibility and accentedness scores. Furthermore, higher accentedness score was also associated with the aptitude and lower anxiety. Second, the results of Experiment II showed that the learners' improvement in comprehensibility and accentedness were predicted by the pronunciation instruction. However, no interaction between instruction effect and IDs was found, suggesting that the IDs do not necessarily affect the amount of the gain from the instruction. Taken together, although certain IDs likely serve to facilitate L2 learners' improvement of pronunciation performance over time, instruction can independently help learners improve their pronunciation skill irrespective of the impact of IDs. The findings in the current study inform L2 teachers of the implications for their effective classroom practice. Baran-Łucarz, M. (2016). Conceptualizing and measuring the construct of pronunciation anxiety: results of a pilot study. In M. Pawlak (Ed.) Classroom-Oriented Research (pp. 39–56). Springer, Cham. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation Fundamentals: Evidence-based Perspectives for L2 Teaching and Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N. S., & Halter, R. H. (2004). The language contact profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 349–356. Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Swansea, UK: Lognostics. Pennington, M. C. (2019). Phonology in language learning. In M. C. Pennington & P. Rogerson-Revell (Eds.), English pronunciation teaching and research (pp. 57–118). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Thomson, R. I., & Derwing, T. M. (2014). The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36, 326–344.

Prediction is essential for all species' skills. Human language is no exception. Most language prediction studies focus on monolinguals, and the few L2 studies primarily examine morphological cues to anticipate suffixes (Grüter et al., 2012), ignoring acoustic cues such as prosody, essential to process words (McQueen, 2005) and sentences (Cutler et al., 1997). Monolinguals use prosody to anticipate suffixes (Söderstrom et al., 2012), but L2 evidence is scant and inconclusive (anticipation: Schremm et al., 2016; no anticipation: Gosselke-Berthelsen et al., 2018; Rehrig, 2017). We employ eye-tracking methodology to investigate whether suprasegmental and segmental prosodic constraints on L2 lexical prediction are language-specific or universal, and whether they depend on phonotactic frequency, proficiency, and working memory (WM). Twenty-five Spanish monolinguals and 38 English beginning and advanced learners of Spanish listened to sentences in Spanish and chose one of two verbs in the screen, using prosodic cues from the verb's first syllable. These cues were suprasegmental (lexical stress: stressed/ unstressed) and segmental (syllabic structure: CVC, CV) (e.g., canta-cantó '(s)he signs/signed'; lava-lavó '(s)he washes/washed'). Lexical stress was selected due to its phonological relevance for syllabification in Spanish, and syllabic structure because the coda reduces lexical competitors. Participants also completed a language background questionnaire, a Spanish proficiency test, and a letter-number sequencing WM test (Weshsler, 1997). Finally, phonotactic frequency was measured following Vitevitch and Luce (2004). The data were downsampled into 10ms bins and the probability of fixating on target verbs was modeled using Bayesian multi-level logistic regression models at critical landmarks during the time course. The results showed that, when controlling for WM, only native speakers and advanced learners fixated on target verbs before hearing the suffix, particularly with CVC syllabic structure. Furthermore, when controlling for lexical stress, higher WM produced more fixations on target verbs for all groups. Also, higher phonotactic frequency produced more fixations on CV target verbs in the natives. In conclusion: (1) suprasegmental integration is part of L1/L2 spoken word recognition (Roll, 2015); (2) natives and non-natives rely more heavily on segmental information (syllabic structure) than suprasegmental information (lexical stress) to predict word endings; (3) lexical stress is language-specific but can be acquired post-puberty (Schremm et al, 2016); (4) phonotactic frequency facilitates L2 lexical prediction in the most probable syllabic combination (i.e., CV); and (5) working memory did not affect L1 or L2 lexical prediction.

The factors that have a positive influence on Second Language Acquisition are a common area of focus for research in classroom contexts. Much less common are investigations into the positive benefits SLA itself may have on learners' cognitive abilities. An increasingly important educational goal is the development of learners' creativity (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015), i.e. their ability to come up with novel, yet appropriate solutions to a given problem, often diverging from conventional thought patterns (Kharkhurin 2009). It has been shown that bilingualism in immersed settings enhances creative abilities (Kharkhurin, 2009), potentially because bilinguals draw upon greater cognitive resources to generate original solutions. However, the question whether instructed SLA also impacts positively on creativity has been rarely explored, with the exception of Lasagabaster (2000). Furthermore, few studies have investigated the extent to which any impact depends on the type of instruction and language learning materials employed. In many educational contexts, the use of literary texts is an important part of the curriculum. In this study, we argue that studying literature benefits not only learners' language development, but also their linguistic and non-linguistic creativity. Literary texts use figurative language, combining lexical items and grammatical structures in novel ways. Exposure to literature may therefore lead to the creation of new metaphorical form-meaning mappings, thus generating new pathways for divergent thinking (Clark & Zyngier 2003). In addition, the potential effects of literary teaching materials on learners' creativity may interact with teaching approaches: 'creative approaches' which elicit imaginative, personal and emotional responses from learners may influence creativity differently from 'functional approaches' which focus on grammar, vocabulary and information-gathering. This study considers the relative benefits for creativity of instructed SLA using (a) either literary or factual texts and (b) 'functional' or 'creative' teaching approaches, across 217 L2-learners of French and 176 L2-learners of German aged 14. Over one school year, learners in 10 classes studied poems in the L2, while another 9 classes (matched for SES) studied factual, semi-authentic L2 texts. Linguistic content, topic area and difficulty level (readability) were matched across the two text-types. Teachers in each text condition then employed 'functional' and 'creative' methods of exploitation within a counter-balanced design, using instructional materials provided by the researchers. Learners' non-linguistic creativity was assessed at three time points through the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults ATTA (Goff & Torrance, 2002), generating scores for fluency, originality, and mental flexibility. Learners also completed a creative writing task in the target language. To isolate the effect of creativity, we used general cognitive performance scores as a covariate. The analyses (mixed-design ANCOVAs) indicated significant increases in general creativity and originality for learners who had studied the literary texts (both languages) but not for those who had read factual texts. Amongst the French learners, only the creative teaching approach lead to increases in ATTA scores. In the writing task, gains were not modulated by text type, but there was considerable individual variability in the teaching approach from which pupils showed greater gains. The implications of these findings for theory and L2-classroom practice will be discussed. Clark, U. & S. Zyngier (2003). Towards a pedagogical stylistics. Language and Literature, 12, 339–351 Dörnyei. Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York: Routledge. Goff, K., & Torrance, P.E. (2002). The Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Kharkhurin, A. V. (2009). The role of bilingualism in creative performance on divergent and invented alien creature test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(1), 95-71. Lasagabaster, D. (2000). The effects of three bilingual education models on linguistic creativity. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 38(3-4), 213-228.