copyright by maría del socorro mayberry 2006

Copyright

by

María del Socorro Mayberry

2006

The Dissertation Committee for María del Socorro Mayberry certifies that

this is the approved version of the following dissertation:

Listening comprehension in the foreign language classroom:

The cognitive receptive processes in the development of Spanish

phonological perception

Committee:

Dale A. Koike, Supervisor

Carlos A. Solé

Orlando R. Kelm

Elaine K. Horwitz

Diane L. Schallert




by

María del Socorro Mayberry, B.A., M.A.

Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Texas at Austin

May, 2006

Dedication

To my husband, Marty; and to my parents, Liba Perales Goita and Rubén Darío

Ramírez Ramírez.

v

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank several people for their contribution toward the

completion of this dissertation. I am deeply grateful to my adviser Dale Koike for

her encouragement and guidance at each step of this work and my graduate

studies. Her support and example have made it possible for me to stay focused on

my goal of reaching the end of what, at first, seemed to be an insurmountable

challenge. It would have been very difficult for me to complete this dissertation

without her wonderful guidance despite the distance. I also thank all the members

of my committee: Carlos Solé, Orlando Kelm, Elaine Horwitz, and Diane

Schallert, who have guided me with invaluable advice during my years of

graduate school. In your classes, you helped me develop a scholarly curiosity; in

personal conversations, you showed me how much you care for your students. I

sincerely thank you all.

Many more people have made it possible to conduct this work. I am

deeply grateful to my good friends and colleagues Ramón Téllez, Miguel Santana,

and Jerome Mwinyelle, who agreed to let me use their classes for my study.

Alissa Melinger at the University of Saarland provided great guidance with the

statistical analysis of the data and taught me how to use SPSS. William Barry, at

the University of Saarland, agreed to read several portions of the dissertation and

gave me the opportunity to have great discussions about our own personal

experiences learning a second and third language. I am deeply grateful for the

moral support I have felt, despite the distance, from my UT friends: Mike and

vi

Darla Hewett, Sowmya Ramachandran, Cindy Thompson and Bill Pierce, Mary

and Todd West, Esra Erdem, Tino Gómez, and Oliver Gómez. We miss the

hikes! Also, I am thankful for the coffee breaks I had with my friends and

colleagues in the Spanish and Portuguese Department: Rocío Ocón-Garrido and

David Anderson; Clarena Larrotta, Laura Rodríguez, Lupita Limage, Ann Jasper,

Regina Faunes, and Luz Becerra. Jerome and Ramón, thanks for showing me that

optimism takes you a long way. Eduard Hoenkamp, thanks for your warm

friendship throughout the years. I would also like to thank the new friends we

have made while living in Germany: Maggie and Thomas Kuznia, Lu and Jitka

Kas, Claudia Verburg, Pia Knoeferle, and Andrea Weber. Your support in this

new environment has been invaluable. I am also in debt to my students, whose

plight in learning Spanish as an L2 reminds me of my own efforts learning ESL.

You are the motivation behind my research.

I am deeply grateful for the best role models anyone could have: my

parents Rubén Darío Ramírez Ramírez and Liba Perales Goitia. I have always

felt your loving guidance in my life. To all the rest of my family: Ruby and Nora,

J.R., and Lulu; Charis and Roberto, Rosarito, Robertito, and Alejandro; Angie and

Aziz, Yasmin and Ahmed; Mom and Dad Mayberry, René, Trellis, Kim and

Chuckie. I love and miss you all!

But above all, I would like to thank my dear husband, Marty. With love,

you have taught me to believe in myself. Thank you for always supporting me in

everything I do. TQM, TM

vii




Publication No._____________

María del Socorro Mayberry, Ph.D.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2006

Supervisor: Dale A. Koike

This dissertation examines how the acquisition of the Spanish

phonological system by English-speakers contributes to the development of

learners’ listening skills. The study addresses theoretical and pedagogical issues

regarding the understanding of the receptive processes from cognitive

perspectives of learning and language comprehension. The investigation departs

from previous research that has examined almost exclusively the development of

higher-level processes of listening comprehension (O'Malley, et al., 1995; Goh,

2000). This approach, however, fails to recognize evidence of the difficulties

novice listeners face at the perceptual and parsing levels of processing (O'Malley,

viii

et al., 1995; Goh, 2000; Field, 2003), and the effect that these low-level

difficulties have in the overall listening task.

The present study explores a learning approach to understand why some

linguistic elements are more difficult to learn than others. Expanding on

Ullman’s Declarative/Procedural model (2001, 2004), it explores the role of the

declarative and procedural learning systems in the development of the phonemic

awareness of L2 sounds (i.e., the perceptual phase) and the rules of L2 lexical

segmentation (i.e., parsing phase). The role of practice in the development of L2

listening skills in the classroom is also examined. The assumption in this study is

that adult learners have a schema of their L1 phonological system (prior

knowledge); therefore, learning the L2 phonological system (new knowledge)

implies identification of L1 knowledge, awareness of L2 input, and a restructuring

of the L1 knowledge structure (McLaughlin, 1990) in a phonological

accommodation process (Gonzalez-Bueno, 1997) that integrates the L2 system.

The results show that regular linguistic elements of the language (e.g.,

Spanish intervocalic /d/ phoneme) are acquired by the procedural learning system,

while idiosyncratic linguistic elements (e.g., /x/ phoneme and L2 segmentation

rules) are dependent on declarative mechanisms such as awareness, practice, and

memorization for acquisition. The findings also indicate that, with an

instructional approach that includes explicit instruction of L2 sounds and lexical

segmentation, learners’ low levels of processing can become more efficient,

allowing them to concentrate on higher levels of processing and facilitating their

overall listening comprehension.

ix

Table of Contents

List of Tables........................................................................................................ xiv

List of Figures ...................................................................................................... xxi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................1 1.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Learning: A cognitive perspective ........................................................... 4

1.2.1 Knowledge representation............................................................ 5 1.2.2 How the ability to use knowledge develops................................. 6 1.2.3 Integration of new knowledge into existing knowledge ............ 10

1.3 Listening comprehension of L2: A cognitive perspective ..................... 14 1.4 Significance of this study ....................................................................... 17 1.5 Input offered to learners: The textbook.................................................. 21 1.6 Overview of subsequent chapters........................................................... 25

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................................................... 26 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 26 2.2 Second Language Acquisition................................................................ 26

2.2.1 The role of attention in SLA ...................................................... 32 2.3 Research in L2 phonology...................................................................... 39

2.3.1 From Transfer to the Communicative Approach ....................... 41 2.3.2 Theories of L2 speech perception: Phonemic categorization..... 43 2.3.3 Theories of spoken-word recognition: Higher level linguistic

contexts....................................................................................... 49 2.3.3.1 Lexical representation ................................................... 52 2.3.3.2 Morphological structure and spoken language

comprehension .................................................................. 53 2.3.3.3 Semantics and prosody in spoken language

comprehension .................................................................. 55 2.3.3.4 Feedback in spoken language comprehension ............... 56

2.4 Research on L2 Spanish phonology ....................................................... 62

x

2.5 Summary and research questions ........................................................... 67

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN.........................................................................73 3.2 Study A................................................................................................... 74

3.2.1 Participants in Study A............................................................... 74 3.2.2 Procedures: Phonological lessons in Study A ............................ 74 3.2.3 Test prompts at the word level for Study A ............................... 79 3.2.4 Test prompts at the sentence level for Study A.......................... 81

3.3 Study B................................................................................................... 82 3.3.1 Participants in Study B............................................................... 82 3.3.2 Procedures: Phonological lessons in Study B ............................ 84 3.3.3 Procedures: Structure of the phonological lessons in Study B... 86 3.3.4 Test prompts for Study B ........................................................... 90

3.4 Study C................................................................................................... 93 3.4.1 Participants in Study C............................................................... 93 3.4.2 Procedures: Phonological lessons in Study C ............................ 95 3.4.3 Test prompts for Study C ........................................................... 97

3.5 Data collection........................................................................................ 99 3.5.1 Materials..................................................................................... 99

3.6 Categorization procedures.................................................................... 102 3.6.1 Spelling considerations ............................................................ 102 3.6.2 Procedures in analysis of segments .......................................... 104 3.6.3 Procedures in analysis of chunks ............................................. 105 3.6.4 Statistical analysis .................................................................... 106

3.7 Summary .............................................................................................. 111

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS................................................................ 113 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 113 4.2 Section 1: Analysis of segments........................................................... 114

4.2.1 Study A: Analysis of segments at word level .......................... 114

xi

4.2.1.1 Intervocalic simple vibrant /r/ ...................................... 115 4.2.1.2 Intervocalic voiced dental fricative /d/......................... 119 4.2.1.3 Voiceless velar fricative /x/......................................... 123 4.2.1.4 Summary of analysis of segments at word level:

Study A............................................................................ 126 4.2.2 Study A: Analysis of segments at sentence level ..................... 130

4.2.2.1 Intervocalic simple vibrant /r/ ...................................... 131 4.2.2.2 Intervocalic voiced dental fricative /d/......................... 135 4.2.2.3 Voiceless velar fricative /x/.......................................... 137 4.2.2.4 Summary of analysis of segments at sentence level:

Study A............................................................................ 139 4.2.2.5 Study A summary......................................................... 142

4.2.3 Study B: Analysis of segments at sentence level ..................... 143 4.2.3.1 Intervocalic simple vibrant /r/ ...................................... 145 4.2.3.2 Intervocalic voiced dental fricative /d/......................... 150 4.2.3.3 Voiceless velar fricative /x/.......................................... 153 4.2.3.4 EXP-2 and EXP-3 results ............................................. 159 4.2.3.4 Study B summary ......................................................... 163 4.2.3.5 Lexical effect................................................................ 165 4.2.3.6 Cognates ....................................................................... 167 4.2.3.7 Summary: Analysis of segments .................................. 170 4.2.3.8 Comparison of Study A and Study B ........................... 172

4.3 Section 2: Analysis of chunks .............................................................. 174 4.3.1 Study B..................................................................................... 176

4.3.1.1 Summary of analysis of ‘chunks’: Study B.................. 182 4.3.2 Study C..................................................................................... 185

4.3.2.1 Summary of analysis of ‘chunks’: Study C................. 187 4.3.2.2 Comparison between Study B and Study C: Analysis

of ‘chunks’....................................................................... 191 4.4 Chapter summary ................................................................................. 195

xii

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUDING REMARKS.............................................................. 197 5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 197 5.2 Answers to Research Questions ........................................................... 197

Listening skills at the perceptual level .............................................. 208 Listening skills at the parsing and utilization phases ........................ 211 Explicit instruction and L2 phonemic awareness.............................. 215 Explicit instruction of parsing ........................................................... 221

5.3 Implications and future research .......................................................... 226 5.3.1 Teaching strategies to L2 listening comprehension ................. 230

5.4 Limitations of Study............................................................................. 237 5.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 238

Appendix A: Research Procedure for Study A ................................................... 240

Appendix B: Research Procedure for Study B.................................................... 246

Appendix C: Research Procedure for Study C.................................................... 251

Appendix D: Cloze Tests for Study C................................................................. 255 A. Pretest ........................................................................................... 255 B. Posttest for Study C ...................................................................... 258 C. Delayed Posttest for Study C........................................................ 261

Appendix E: Background Questionnaire............................................................. 264

Appendix F: Questionnaire about experiences with Listening Exercises ........... 265 A. Study A......................................................................................... 265 B. Study B ......................................................................................... 266 C. Study C ......................................................................................... 269

Appendix G: Scores for Study A - word level .................................................... 272 A. Phoneme /VrV/............................................................................. 272 B. Phoneme /VdV/ ............................................................................ 273 C. Phoneme /x/ .................................................................................. 274

xiii

D. All phonemes together.................................................................. 275

Appendix H: Scores for Study A - sentence level............................................... 276 A. Phoneme /VrV/............................................................................. 276 B. Phoneme /VdV/ ............................................................................ 277 C. Phoneme /x/ .................................................................................. 278 D. All phonemes together.................................................................. 279

Appendix I: Scores for Study B - sentence level ................................................ 280 A. Phoneme /VrV/............................................................................. 280 B. Phoneme /VdV/ ............................................................................ 282 C. Phoneme /x/ .................................................................................. 284 D. All phonemes together.................................................................. 286

Appendix J: Scores for Study B in Recognition of Chunks................................ 288

Appendix K: Scores for Study C in Recognition of Chunks............................... 290

Appendix L: Statistical results for Study A and Study B.................................... 291

All phonemes together ........................................................................................ 291

References ........................................................................................................... 292

Vita.......................................................................................................................312

xiv

List of Tables

Table 3.1. Words used in the Study A pretest. ...................................................... 80

Table 3.2. Words used in the Study A delayed posttest. ....................................... 80

Table 3.3. Words used in the Study A pretest at the sentence level..................... 82

Table 3.4. Words used in the Study A delayed posttest at the sentence level...... 82

Table 3.5 Participants characteristics by group in Study B................................... 84

Table 3.6. Words used in the Study B pretest at the sentence level...................... 92

Table 3.7. Words used in the Study B posttest at the sentence level. ................... 92

Table 3.8. Words used in the Study B delayed posttest at the sentence level....... 92

Table 3.9. Participants’caracteristics by group in Study C. .................................. 94

Table 3.10. Control group. Ranking of individual scores for phoneme /VrV/ at

the word level. ................................................................................ 109

Table 3.11. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects obtained by CON

for the phoneme /r/ at the word level. ............................................ 111

Table 4.1. Words used in the Study A pretest. .................................................... 115

Table 4.2. Words used in the Study A delayed posttest. ..................................... 115

Table 4.3. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /VrV/ at the word level in

Study A........................................................................................... 115

Table 4.4. Mann-Whitney test. Statistical results between subjects for /r/.......... 116

Table 4.5. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for /r/...................... 118

Table 4.6. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /VdV/ at the word level in

Study A........................................................................................... 120

Table 4.7. Mann-Whitney test. Statistical results between subjects for /d/. ........ 120

xv

Table 4.8. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for /d/. .................... 122

Table 4.9. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /x/ at the word level in

Study A........................................................................................... 123

Table 4.10. Mann-Whitney test. Statistical results between subjects for /x/. ...... 123

Table 4.11. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for /x/. .................. 125

Table 4.12. Words used in the Study A pretest at the sentence level................. 130

Table 4.13. Words used in the Study A delayed posttest at the sentence level.. 130

Table 4.14. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /VrV/ at the sentence

level in Study A.............................................................................. 131

Table 4.15. Mann-Whitney test. Statistical results between subjects for /r/. ....... 131

Table 4.16. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for /r/.................... 133

Table 4.17. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /VdV/ at the sentence

level in Study A.............................................................................. 135

Table 4.18. Mann-Whitney test. Statistical results between subjects for /d/. ...... 136

Table 4.19. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for /d/. .................. 136

Table 4.20. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /x/ at the sentence level

in Study A....................................................................................... 137

Table 4.21. Mann-Whitney test. Statistical results between subjects for /x/. ...... 138

Table 4.22. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for /x/. .................. 138

Table 4.23. Words used in the Study B pretest at the sentence level.................. 144

Table 4.24. Words used in the Study B posttest at the sentence level. ............... 144

Table 4.25. Words used in the Study B delayed posttest at the sentence level... 144

xvi

Table 4.26. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /VrV/ at the sentence

level in Study B. ............................................................................. 145

Table 4.27. Kruskal Wallis test. Statistical results between subjects for /r/........ 145

Table 4.28. Friedman test. Statistical results within subjects for /r/. .................. 146

Table 4. 29. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /VdV/ at the sentence

level in Study B. ............................................................................. 150

Table 4.30. Kruskal Wallis test. Statistical results between subjects for /d/. ...... 150

Table 4.31. Friedman test. Statistical results within subjects for /d/. ................. 151

Table 4.32. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /x/ at the sentence level

in Study B....................................................................................... 154

Table 4.33. Kruskal Wallis test. Statistical results between subjects for /x/. ...... 154

Table 4.34. Friedman test. Statistical results within subjects for /x/. ................. 158

Table 4.35. Phonological chunks used in the tests in Study B............................ 176

Table 4.36. Mean and variance per group in recognition of chunks. .................. 177

Table 4.37. Kruskal Wallis test. Statistical results between subjects for

identification of chunks in Study B................................................ 177

Table 4.38. Friedman test. Statistical results within subjects on the chunk

identification task in Study B. ........................................................ 178

Table 4.39. Chunks used in Study C tests. .......................................................... 185

Table 4.40. Mean and variance per group in recognition of chunks in Study C. 186

Table 4.41. Mann-Whitney U test. Statistical results between subjects for

identification of chunks in Study C................................................ 187

xvii

Table 4.42. Friedman test. Statistical results within subjects on the chunk

identification task in Study C. ........................................................ 187

Table 5.1. Difference within subjects at the word level. Study A....................... 216

Table 5.2. Difference within subjects at the sentence level. Study A. ................ 216

Table 5.3. Difference within subjects at the sentence level. Study B. ................ 217

Table G.1. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. Phoneme /VrV/. .... 272

Table G.2. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /VrV/. ............ 272

Table G.3. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. Phoneme /VdV/ at

the word level in Study A............................................................... 273

Table G.4. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /VdV/ at the

word level in Study A..................................................................... 273

Table G.5. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. Phoneme /x/ at the

word level in Study A..................................................................... 274

Table G.6. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /x/ at the word

level in Study A.............................................................................. 274

Table G.7. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. All phonemes

together at the word level in Study A............................................. 275

Table G.8. Scores for learners in the Control Group. All phonemes together

at the word level in Study A........................................................... 275

Table H.1. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. Phoneme /VrV/. ... 276

Table H.2. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /VrV/. ............ 276

Table H.3. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. Phoneme /VdV/ at

the sentence level in Study A. ........................................................ 277

xviii

Table H.4. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /VdV/ at the

sentence level in Study A. .............................................................. 277

Table H.5. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. Phoneme /x/ at the


Table H.6. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /x/ at the


Table H.7. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. All phonemes

together at the sentence level in Study A. ...................................... 279

Table H.8. Scores for learners in the Control Group. All phonemes together

at the word sentence in Study A..................................................... 279

Table I.1. Scores for learners in EXP-1, full-treatment group. Phoneme /VrV/.280

Table I.2. Scores for learners in EXP-2, full-treatment group. Phoneme /VrV/.280

Table I.3. Scores for learners in EXP-3, partial-treatment group. Phoneme

/VrV/ at the sentence level in Study B. .......................................... 281

Table I.4. Scores for the Control Group. Phoneme /VrV/ at the sentence level

in Study B....................................................................................... 281

Table I.5. Scores for learners in EXP-1, full-treatment group. Phoneme /VdV/

at the sentence level in Study B ..................................................... 282

Table I.6. Scores for learners in EXP-2, full-treatment group. Phoneme /VdV/

in Study B....................................................................................... 282

Table I.7. Scores for learners in EXP-3, partial-treatment group.

Phoneme/VdV/ at the sentence level in Study B............................ 283

xix

Table I.8. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /VdV/ at the

sentence level in Study B. .............................................................. 283

Table I.9. Scores for learners in EXP-1, full-treatment group. Phoneme /x/ at

the sentence level in Study B. ........................................................ 284

Table I.10. Scores for learners in EXP-2, full-treatment group. Phoneme /x/ at

the sentence level in Study B. ........................................................ 284

Table I.11. Scores for learners in EXP-3, partial-treatment group. Phoneme/x/

at the sentence level in Study B. .................................................... 285

Table I.12. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /x/ at the


Table I.13. Scores for learners in the EXP-1. All phonemes together at the


Table I.14. Scores for learners in EXP-2. All phonemes together at the


Table I.15. Scores for learners in EXP-3. All phonemes together at the


Table I.16. Scores for the Control Group. All phonemes together at the


Table J.1. Scores for learners in EXP-1, full-treatment group. Recognition of

chunks in Study B. ......................................................................... 288

Table J.2. Scores for learners in EXP-2, full-treatment group. Recognition of

chunks in Study B. ......................................................................... 288

xx

Table J.3. Scores for learners in EXP-3, partial-treatment group. Recognition

of chunks in Study B. ..................................................................... 289

Table J.4. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Recognition of chunks in

Study B. .......................................................................................... 289

Table K.1. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. ................................ 290

Table K.2. Scores for learners in the Control Group. ......................................... 290

Table L.1. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for all phonemes

together at the word level in Study A............................................. 291

Table L.2. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for all phonemes

together at the sentence level in Study A. ...................................... 291

Table L.3. Friedman test. Statistical results within subjects for all phonemes

together at the sentence level in Study B. ...................................... 291

xxi

List of Figures

Figure 5.1: Phonemic awareness development of Spanish /d/, /r/, and /x/ in

the interlanguage continuum. ......................................................... 202

Figure 5.2: Phonemic awareness development of Spanish /d/, /r/, and /x/ in

the interlanguage continuum with respect to the declarative and

procedural learning systems. .......................................................... 210

1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 OVERVIEW

In the communicative environment of today’s second language1 (L2)

classroom that is intended to promote negotiation of meaning and interaction,

little has been done to understand how the cognitive processes involved in the

acquisition of L2 phonology contribute to the development of L2 aural

comprehension. Although L2 phonology has been extensively recognized in

studies of L2 acquisition (Lado, 1957; Stockwell and Bowen, 1965; Eckman,

1977; Eckman and Elreyes, 2003; Borden, 1980; Major, 1986, 2001; Leather and

James, 1991), most of this research deals mainly with the acquisition and

development of speech production. Few studies analyze the receptive processes

(perception) involved in phonological acquisition (Scholes, 1967; Flege, 1981,

1987a, 1987b, 1995, 1999; Best and Strange, 1992; Rochet, 1995; Brown, 2000),

and still fewer examine the development of L2 listening comprehension

(O’Malley et al., 1995; Goh, 2000; Field, 2000, 2003).

Many of the studies on L2 phonological receptive processes address two

main areas of research. One area of research includes studies that examine the

1 Gass and Selinker (2001) define the term foreign language learning as the learning of a second language in a classroom setting that takes place in a country where the native language of learners is spoken (e.g., learning Spanish in the USA); therefore it is different from second language or naturalistic learning. Since many researchers use these terms interchangeably, however, the term Second Language (L2) will be used in this dissertation to encompass both terms for the sake of simplicity.

2

lower-level contexts of L2 comprehension, in particular the perceptual level, in

which the continuous signal of speech is mapped onto sequences of consonants

and vowels on L2 listening (Hancin-Bhatt, 1994a, 1994b; Flege, 1981, 1987a,

1987b, 1995, 1999; Best, 1995; Kuhl and Iverson, 1995; Maye, 2000; Brown,

2000). The other area of research focuses on high-levels of comprehension in

which understanding is based on top-down processes. In this view, learners rely

on real world knowledge and meaning-based processing for the understanding of

oral input despite evidence that shows that listeners in the early stages of

acquisition have more difficulties with low-level processing such as sound-to-

script and word-referent automatization, as well as limited short-term memory

capacity (Goh, 2000; Field, 2003). This emphasis on high-level processes is the

approach to listening comprehension found in the L2 classroom. In fact, the

General Descriptions for Listening of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines

(Omaggio Hadley, 1993, cited in Lee and VanPatten, 1995) confirm that a top-

down approach is followed in the evaluation of listening comprehension skills.

The guidelines for the classification of Novice-Low, for instance, show that

listeners’ proficiency is described in terms of the ability to recognize words, at the

very least:

Novice-Low Understanding is limited to occasional words, such as cognates, borrowed words, and high-frequency social conventions. Essentially no ability to comprehend even short utterances. (Omaggio Hadley, 1993, pp. 504-506, cited in Lee and VanPatten, 1995, pp. 80-81).

The rest of the guidelines follow the same high-level processing approach

that focuses on recognition of words, phrases and “longer stretches of connected

discourse” (Lee and VanPatten, 1995, pp. 80-81) but they do not mention

3

anything regarding lower levels of recognition. The usefulness of encouraging L2

learners to bring world knowledge to their listening experience has been duly

recognized. Field (2003), however, argues that the current approach to listening

comprehension fails to understand the “fact that many high-level breakdowns of

communication originate in low-level processes” (p. 325). This state of affairs,

then, has left a gap in the literature in understanding the listening comprehension

skills learners have after the obligatory two years of university-level instruction

and the difficulties facing L2 listeners when processing speech. Furthermore,

understanding how these low-level processes affect higher-level linguistic context

(e.g., speech segmentation, the role of prosody, syntax, and lexicon, as well as the

role of context and socio-phonetic aspects of a language) is an area that remains

unexplored in the field of SLA, particularly in the context of the L2 classroom.

This dissertation has three goals: (1) to describe the listening

comprehension skills learners have in their fourth semester of studying Spanish at

the university level; (2) to propose a treatment that is based on metalinguistic

instruction of the Spanish phonological system aimed at hastening the

development of learners’ listening skills; and (3) to account for learners’

development before and after the treatment in terms of cognitive processes.

In particular, this work examines the abilities and difficulties learners have

in processing a small set of Spanish phonemes and segmenting streams of speech

into recognizable words or phrases, referred to as phonological 'chunks'. It is

shown that learners in the fourth semester of university-level Spanish language

study face difficulties understanding even basic language spoken at typical

4

conversation rates by native speakers. Their interlanguage (IL)2 has not

developed the resources for effective listening comprehension that depends on

efficient processing of oral input at the prelexical (i.e., sounds) and lexical levels

(i.e., beyond sounds), and efficient use of attention and memory resources.

Therefore, the purpose of this dissertation is to examine the cognitive

receptive processes involved in the development of L2 Spanish listening skills.

This dissertation adopts the signal-based approach proposed by Field (2003) that

considers speech as a physical phenomenon in an attempt to understand how the

Spanish language is perceived by non-native listeners, and why learners have

difficulties processing it. Field (2003) argues that understanding that the signal is

processed through several levels, including auditory-phonetic, phonemic, syllabic,

lexical, syntactic, semantic, propositional, pragmatic, and interpretive levels, is

useful because at any of these stages the communication can fail.

The purpose of this chapter is to present the cognitive framework used in

this dissertation, which draws from a wide body of literature drawing from both

L1 and L2 learning and listening comprehension.

1.2 LEARNING: A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE

Following current psychological and linguistic theories, several cognitive

and psycholinguistic models of L2 acquisition have been developed that seek to

answer the following questions with respect to learning: how new knowledge is

initially represented; how the ability to use this knowledge develops; and how 2 Interlanguage is a system of abstract linguistic rules, incomplete and unstable, which learners revise continuously in the process of acquiring the target language (Ellis, 1990).

5

new knowledge is integrated into the learner’s existing cognitive system (Ellis,

1990).

1.2.1 Knowledge representation

Weinstein and Mayer (1986), cited in Ellis (1990), describe the

representation of new knowledge in terms of general cognition where the learner

first selects from the environment the particular features to pay attention to and

transfers them to short-term memory. Acquisition of some or all of these features

occurs when the learner transfers the information into long-term memory for

storage. The concept of knowledge representation from an information-

processing perspective assumes L2 acquisition, or language acquisition in general,

is like any other type of learning. Ellis (1994), for example, describes knowledge

representation as a continuum between implicit knowledge and explicit

knowledge. Implicit knowledge is the acquisition of knowledge that occurs

naturally without “conscious operation,” while explicit knowledge involves the

learner’s more conscious participation in making and testing hypotheses. Ellis

(1994) states that learners use both kinds of knowledge in production, although

native speakers are assumed to rely less on explicit knowledge than on implicit

knowledge. Other researchers also agree that with practice, exposure, and drills,

explicit knowledge can become implicit knowledge (Bialystok, 1978; Sharwood-

Smith, 1981).

6

1.2.2 How the ability to use knowledge develops

Two cognitive approaches have addressed the question of how the ability

to use knowledge develops. One account considers the distinction between

analysis and control of knowledge and the other between declarative and

procedural processes. Both approaches are based on the assumption that learners

have limited information-processing abilities and, therefore, need to access certain

kinds of knowledge rapidly and easily.

The analysis and control framework suggested by Bialystok and

Sharwood-Smith (1985) and Bialystok (1994) assumes “an orderly mental world,

consisting of (mental) representations and processes that constitute operations on

those representations” (Bialystok, 1994, p.158). Three distinct stages of

representations are identified in this approach: conceptual, formal, and symbolic.

Conceptual representations are based on meanings; that is, knowledge of the

world that includes ordinary thought and communication. For example, the words

dog and bone are connected through meaning and their relation derives from a

conceptual representation. Conceptual representations evolve into formal

categories as the structure of these meanings becomes more articulated; therefore,

the relation between dog and cat, since they are taxonomically associated, comes

from a formal representation. Symbolic representations, however, are organized

around the systems of categories for referring to these meanings. For example,

the symbolic relation between dog, cat, and bone arises from the fact that they are

all nouns. According to Bialystok’s (1994) model, the development of these

representations is the basis of language proficiency, while L2 acquisition is built

7

around the analyzed knowledge the learner has created during the process of L1

acquisition. Specifically, the acquisition and use of L2 are based on the two

cognitive components of analysis of knowledge and control of processing. The

process of analysis pertains to the degree to which learners are aware of the

structure of their linguistic knowledge, although Bialystok emphasizes that the

extent of analyticity is not linked to consciousness. Therefore, analysis of

knowledge characterizes how organized the knowledge is and how it is connected

to other knowledge. Control is the process of selective attention to a particular

mental representation that occurs in real time (Bialystok, 1994, p. 160); thus, the

speed and efficiency with which that knowledge (mental representation) is

accessed is the basis for fluency or automaticity. Automatization is defined as

“the degree of routinized control one has over linguistic knowledge” (Gass and

Selinker, 2001, p. 451). The need for the control process is more obvious in

situations where there is conflict, such as in early stages of language acquisition,

or where there is ambiguity, in which case several mental representations may be

activated.

More recently, Ullman (2001, 2004) has suggested the

declarative/procedural (DP) model, a neurocognitive framework based also on a

dual system that is especially helpful for studying the differences in mental

representation and processing of language in L1 and L2. The DP model claims

that the declarative and procedural memory systems are involved in the learning,

8

representation, and processing of lexicon3 and grammar. The roles of these two

memory systems, however, appear to be different in L1 and L2.

Ullman (2001) states that “in the native language (L1) the mental lexicon

and the mental grammar are posited to each rely on one of the two memory

systems” (p. 117). The declarative system is involved with the processing of the

idiosyncratic word-specific information found in the mental lexicon in, for

instance, irregular past tenses and idiomatic phrases (Ullman, 2001, 2004). The

information learned through this system requires memorization and, because of its

associative memory that makes information accessible to multiple mental

systems, the declarative mechanism accounts for stored knowledge about words

(e.g., sounds, meanings, and other memorized information). Furthermore, due to

this associative binding of information, the declarative memory system is also

important for the rapid learning of arbitrarily-related information, it is sensitive to

input frequency and phonological similarity, and it may be consciously

(explicitly) recollected. The procedural memory system accounts for processing

of the regularities found in language that are captured by the rules of grammar,

such as the rule for regular past tense formation in English (e.g., concatenation of

a verb stem and -ed suffix), which allows the productive computation of past

tenses from new words (e.g., fax + -ed --> faxed) and interpretation of the

meaning of novel forms (e.g., blick + -ed --> blicked). The symbolic computation

of rules (i.e., grammar) is said to be independent of input frequency (Ullman,

2001; Brovetto and Ullman, 2005). Furthermore, the procedural mechanism is

3 Ullman (2004) uses the term (mental) lexicon to refer to “a repository of stored information.”

9

commonly referred to as an “implicit memory system” (Ullman, 2004) because

both the learning process and the knowledge itself are generally unavailable to

conscious access. Learning in the procedural system is gradual; it occurs on an

ongoing basis during multiple presentations of stimuli and responses and is not

influenced by other mental systems, unlike the fast learning and associative

binding of information of the declarative system. Ullman (2004) states that “the

rules apply quickly and automatically, in that the response is triggered by the

stimulus rather than being under conscious control” (p 237). The symbol

manipulation of information of the procedural system occurs across grammatical

sub-domains, including syntax, non-lexical semantics, morphology, and

phonology. Ullman (2001) assumes that the procedural system may be important

in the learning and computations of sequential and hierarchical structures like that

used in building grammatical structures.

There is growing evidence, however, that the role of the two memory

systems tends to be somewhat different in L2, especially in those languages

learned after late childhood or puberty (Ullman, 2001). Linguistic forms that are

computed grammatically through procedural mechanisms in the L1 are more

dependent on declarative memory in the L2. This shift to declarative processes,

however, is not absolute and appears to be a function both of age of exposure and

practice:

Moreover, the strong practice effects of procedural memory learning lead to the prediction that, in addition to age of exposure, an increasing amount of experience (i.e., practice) with a language should lead to better learning of grammatical rules in procedural memory, which in turn should result in higher proficiency in the language. (Ullman, 2001, p. 118)

10

1.2.3 Integration of new knowledge into existing knowledge

Next, the question of how new knowledge (L2) is integrated into the

learner's existing cognitive system (L1) is addressed. This issue has been

examined through schema theory (Anderson, 1977; Rumelhart and Ortony,

1977), a framework in which the role of prior knowledge (L1) is assumed to be a

key element in learning. In Schema Theory, schemata (Rumelhart, 1980) are

defined as cognitive knowledge structures that are formulated through experience.

They contain information (e.g., generic abstract knowledge and specific

attributes) about a given concept as well as a network of interrelationships among

the attributes associated with that concept (Rumelhart and Ortony, 1977; Taylor

and Crocker, 1981; Hastie, 1981; Fiske and Taylor, 1984). The existing

knowledge has a key role in the perception and selection of incoming information,

in the organization of such information in memory, as well as in the eventual

utilization of this information (Fiske and Taylor, 1984). Schemata may operate in

a bottom-up fashion, where meaning is derived from the linguistic characteristics

of input (low-level processing), or in a top-down manner, which makes effective

use of schematic knowledge to derive meaning (high-level processing). Once an

exemplar within schemata is prompted, “connections between the new text

meaning and existing knowledge occur through spreading activation in which

knowledge in long term memory is activated to the degree that is related to the

new meanings in short-term memory” (O’Malley et al., 1995, p. 142). Within this

framework, then, learning involves the integration of the new information into the

11

existing system and the restructuring of the knowledge structure (Anderson,

1977; Rumelhart and Ortony, 1977; Schallert, 1982 and 1987). According to

Schallert and Martin (2003), learning is explained as a process in which learners

are active agents that “construct” meaning by building and reorganizing

knowledge structures based on their existing experiences (prior knowledge) and

whatever situation is encountered (new knowledge). Thus, restructuring is

fundamental in learning (Gass, 1988; Gass and Selinker, 2001) and in L2

acquisition (McLaughlin, 1990). According to Gass and Selinker (2001), the

result of restructuring is observed in what is known as a U-shaped curve, which

refers to three stages of linguistic use: in a first stage, the learners’ production is

error-free; in stage two, learners’ production deviates from target language usage

norms; in stage three, production conforms again to target language norms. As

evidence of this restructuring, Gass and Selinker cite an example from Lightbown

(1983) of French learners of English (in sixth, seventh, and eighth grade) and their

use of -ing in English. While the sixth graders used the progressive -ing correctly,

the seventh graders did not. Lightbown hypothesized that the learners may begin

with only one rule (present progressive), which they perceive as equivalent to the

simple present in French in the absence of any other forms with which to compare

it; therefore, by seventh grade they overgeneralize the present progressive rule to

contexts where the simple present would have been appropriate. After an

introduction of the simple present, besides learning this new form, learners have

to adjust their information about the present progressive and redefine its limits.

Lightbown concludes that the decline in use and accuracy is evidence of the

12

confusion and subsequent readjustment and restructuring of the progressive form.

Assuming eventual target-like knowledge, it takes some time for learners to

restructure their L2 knowledge to incorporate appropriate use of present

progressive and simple present, resulting in the U-shaped behavior. Gass and

Selinker (2001) add that the destabilization that occurs with restructuring is “at

the base of language change” (p.216).

Awareness also seems to play a role in the reorganization process and

facilitates learning. Gass and Varonis (1994) state, for instance, that the

connection of the two systems of L1 (prior) and L2 (new) knowledge and the

awareness of a mismatch between them triggers a modification of the learner's

interlanguage system. Moreover, O’Malley and Chamot (1993) (cited in Iskold,

2003) assert L2 acquisition requires learners’ involvement and argue that in order

to acquire new information through L2, learners need first to identify their prior

knowledge (e.g., what they already know, whether a few words in the L2 or

concepts in their L1) rather than trying to construct new schemata out of

unfamiliar concepts or language rules. Traditionally, however, the roles of

consciousness, awareness, and attention have been explained in terms of L2 input

in the literature of L2 acquisition. Schmidt (1990), for example, claims that the

learner must bring consciousness to bear on a particular aspect of L2 before this

aspect may be acquired, and Tomlin and Villa (1994) have argued that learning

involves directing one’s attention to help sort out L2 input for further processing.

In the context of this dissertation, Rutherford and Sharwood-Smith’s (1985)

notion of consciousness raising, which involves directing learners’ attention to

13

L2 linguistic form and “aims to facilitate acquisition” (Ellis, 1990, pp. 15-16), is

expanded to include instruction that focuses learners’ attention to L1 linguistic

form (e.g., prior knowledge) as well, in order to use it as an ‘anchor’ into which

the new knowledge is integrated.

In sum, a cognitive framework of learning is useful to the study of

acquisition of L2 phonology and its relationship to the development of L2

listening skills. It makes predictions about the difficulties presented to L2

listeners at all levels of processing, including difficulties that originate in low

levels of processing (e.g., features, phonemes, morphemes). For instance,

Ullman’s DP Model (2001, 2004) predicts that some information (e.g., some L2

sounds and lexical segmentation rules) is more difficult than others to learn.

Sounds that appear regularly in certain contexts (e.g., a regular verbal morpheme)

are predicted to be acquired through a procedural mechanism. On the other hand,

information that appears more “idiosyncratically” would need to be acquired

through a declarative system that may require awareness, frequency and

memorization. Thus, this cognitive approach predicts that the elements of

language that are learned by the explicit (declarative) system in the L2 are

responsive to the kind of practice found in the L2 classroom. Furthermore, a

cognitive approach to learning brings out the importance of how awareness and

consciousness of L1 phonological system (prior knowledge) may facilitate the

integration of the L2 phonological system (new knowledge) into learners’

phonological knowledge structures (schema).

14

The next section presents a cognitive approach to language comprehension

proposed by Anderson (2000) that includes several processing stages.

1.3 LISTENING COMPREHENSION OF L2: A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE

Anderson (2000) proposes a cognitive framework of language

comprehension involved in listening that consists of three phases of processing

(perception, parsing, and utilization) in which perception is the lowest level. The

three processes are interrelated and recursive; therefore, during a single listening

event they “may flow one into the other, recycle, and may be modified based on

what occurred in prior or subsequent processes” (O’Malley et al., 1995, p. 140).

Perception, parsing and utilization can happen concurrently or they may partially

overlap as “Listeners can be making inferences from the first part of a sentence

while they are already perceiving a later part” (Anderson, 2000, p. 389).

During perceptual processing, attention is focused on oral input and

sounds are retained in echoic memory, a mechanism that is characterized by

capacity limitations that prevent specific word sequences from being retained

longer than a few seconds. Another characteristic of echoic memory is that the

new information that the listener attends to replaces the former information

almost immediately (O’Malley et al., 1995). It is also during the perceptual level

of processing that an analysis of features occurs and contributes to how phonemes

are generated and identified (Anderson, 2000). The process of parsing involves

the transformation of words into mental representations of the combined meaning

of these words; these representations are retained in short-term memory. Speech

15

segmentation of the oral input into recognizable words occurs during the stage of

parsing. The ability to segment utterances depends on learners’ knowledge of the

language, general knowledge of the topic, and how information is presented.

O’Malley et al., (1995) argues that, although the principal clue for segmentation

is meaning (via top-down processing), “L2 listeners may have difficulties in

understanding language spoken at typical conversation rates by native speakers if

they are unfamiliar with the rules of segmentation, even though they may

understand individual words when heard separately” (p. 141).

The process of utilization entails a higher level of processing than those

found at the perceptual and parsing levels. During the stage of utilization, the

mental representation is related to existing knowledge in order to form

meaningful associations that are stored in long-term memory. Current studies

(O’Malley et al., 1995; Goh, 2000) that are discussed within Anderson’s three-

phase model suggest that effective listeners use top-down and bottom-up

processes, while ineffective listeners rely on bottom-up processes. Furthermore,

in a comparison of learners with different listening abilities, Goh (2000) found

that low-ability learners have more difficulties with low-level processing

(perceptual and parsing) such as sound-script and word-referent processes not

being automatized, as well as lexical segmentation, both of which result in little or

no mental capacity available for higher level processing.

Anderson’s framework (2000) is useful in this dissertation because it gives

a global view of the processes involved in listening comprehension as a cognitive

event, from the moment oral text is heard by the listener until the moment a

16

mental representation is formed and related to existing knowledge. It offers

insights into why and where the listening comprehension breaks down. For

instance, the model predicts that, because capacity limitations prevent information

from being retained longer than a few seconds at the perceptual stage, learners

who have difficulties with listening comprehension are overwhelmed by

prelexical difficulties (i.e., processing and identification of phonemes). Also,

unfamiliarity with segmentation rules in the L2 hinders learners’ ability to extract

and recognize familiar words out of the auditory input before new information

replaces the information in short-term memory. In other words, Anderson’s

model suggests that, because language learners are faced with limited short-term

memory capacity regardless of proficiency (Call, 1985, cited in Goh, 2000), their

perceptual and parsing processing needs to be as efficient as possible before their

existing knowledge can be accessed in higher levels of processing (i.e.,

utilization).

This framework is also useful to study bottom-up and top-down

processing at each of the three levels processing (perceptual, parsing, and

utilization). As mentioned earlier, bottom-up processes entail how information

from the oral stimulus is recognized, while top-down processes refer to the

processing of how context (i.e., high-level general knowledge) contributes to the

interpretations of the low-level perceptual units (Anderson, 2000). Current

research that focuses on listening comprehension within this model, however, has

explored mainly bottom-up and top-down processes at the level of utilization

(higher levels of processing). O’Malley et al. (1995) and Goh (2000), for

17

instance, have been successful in identifying learning strategies that could help

learners to engage in top-down processing (also referred to as listening for

meaning) at the utilization stage but have failed to provide an understanding of

the difficulties learners face at the perceptual (i.e., features, sounds, and

morphemes) and parsing levels of processing.

This dissertation proposes to fill this gap; namely, to provide a description

of the abilities and difficulties learners in the fourth semester of Spanish

instruction in the university context have at low levels of listening comprehension

from a cognitive perspective.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS STUDY

The previous sections have provided a theoretical context for the study of

the development and acquisition of L2 listening skills. These issues involve

understanding the processes behind language learning and decoding oral input, for

which cognitive models of learning and listening comprehension are needed.

For instance, the language comprehension model discussed in this

dissertation (Anderson, 2000) is useful because it proposes a differentiation of

listening comprehension into three processing stages (perception, parsing, and

utilization), which facilitates identifying where in the L2 listening process a break

in communication can occur. Furthermore, the model incorporates some ideas

found in learning approaches regarding mental representations and the integration

of L2 and L1 knowledge during the L2 listening comprehension process, as well

as the flow of information (top-down and bottom-up). As mentioned earlier,

18

Anderson’s model has been applied to the study of the development of listening

comprehension at the utilization phase (O’Malley et al., 1995; Goh, 2000). This

study proposes to report on the cognitive processes involved at the perceptual and

parsing levels. Furthermore, some of the processing phases in Anderson’s

framework are consistent with the processes found in spoken-word recognition

models4 that offer insights on the low-levels of processing oral input (e.g., lexical

segmentation and morphological structures). The research on spoken-word

recognition, however, has focused mainly on L1 or L2 listening processes among

advanced L2 learners. This dissertation proposes to report on the cognitive

processes involved in L2 listening comprehension of learners in the fourth

semester of university instruction in Spanish.

Learning models are useful to this study because they examine the role of

prior knowledge in the acquisition and development of L2 listening skills. A

learning approach also helps understand why some elements in a language are

harder to learn to identify than others, and how awareness and practice have a role

in the development of L2 listening skills in the classroom. In particular, this

dissertation expands on Ullman’s DP model (2001, 2004) because it explores the

role of the declarative and procedural learning systems in the acquisition of the

phonemic awareness of L2 sounds (i.e., the perceptual phase) and the rules of

lexical segmentation (i.e., parsing phase).

Within this overall cognitive framework, it is claimed that the

identification of learners’ existing knowledge is particularly important for the

4 Models of spoken-word recognition are reviewed in Chapter 2.

19

development of listening comprehension in L2. The assumption in this

dissertation, then, is that adult learners have a schema of their L1 phonological

system from prior knowledge; therefore, learning the new knowledge of the L2

phonological system implies identification of L1 knowledge, awareness of L2

input, and a restructuring of the L1 knowledge structure (McLaughlin, 1990) in a

phonological accommodation process (González-Bueno, 1997) that integrates the

L2 phonological system.

Following Richgels (2001), this study makes a distinction between

phonological, phonemic, and phonic awareness. Richgels (2001) states that

phonological awareness involves awareness of anything related to language,

including the sounds of words, syllables, and phonemes as well as intonation

patterns. For example, the word duck is emphasized differently in a statement

like I saw a duck, in a question like Who saw a duck?, and in a mandate like

Watch out for that duck!5 Phonemic awareness, however, is a subcategory of

phonological awareness because it involves only sounds of phonemes. Phonics

concerns sound to script (i.e., phoneme-letter) correspondences to aid word

identification. For instance, it is only in phonics, and not in phonemic awareness,

that the spelling of /d/ with a <d> and /k/ with <ck> is an issue in the case of the

word duck (Richgels, 2001).

It is important to note here that phonological awareness (as well as

phonemic awareness and phonics) has been extensively researched and is

currently recognized as a critical factor in children’s success in L1 reading (Mayo

5 Examples adapted from Richgels (2001). The underlined represents the word with emphasis.

20

et al., 2003; see also Pullen, et al., 2003 for an overview of the literature

pertaining to phonological awareness and literacy). Morais and Kolinsky (1994)

also suggests there is a relationship between phonological awareness and

perception.6 Yet, the development of L2 phonological awareness and its relation

to L2 listening comprehension among adult learners has not been duly researched.

This dissertation proposes to fill this gap.

As seen in the above sections, the study of listening comprehension

involves the study of a number of processing levels. Therefore, the focus inquiry

in this dissertation is narrowed to the listening comprehension processes at two

levels: the perceptual and parsing phases in Anderson’s (2000) framework. At the

perceptual level, the phonemic awareness of three Spanish phonemes (/d/ and /r/

in intervocalic position, and /x/) is studied here and an assessment of how learners

perceive these L2 sounds in terms of a sound to script relationship is provided.

That is, this dissertation describes what specific orthographic symbols learners

use to represent the L2 sounds they hear in Spanish since their dictations suggest

learners perceive L1 and L2 sounds not only at a phonemic level, but at an

orthographic level as well. Therefore, three levels of representation are used:

phonemes are represented between diagonals (e.g., phoneme /d/); allophones are

written inside square brackets (e.g., fricative [δ]); for spelling or orthographic

representation the less than and greater than symbols are used (e.g., <d>).

In a discussion of the data that focuses on the parsing level of listening

comprehension, this dissertation addresses the role of grammatical information in

6 “The acquisition of phonemic awareness may elicit supplementary and perhaps more efficient procedures to cope with spoken words” (Morais and Kolinsky, 1994, p. 295).

21

the process of sentence comprehension of a small set of homophonous7 phrases

(chunks).

1.5 INPUT OFFERED TO LEARNERS: THE TEXTBOOK

In order to understand the development of the phonemic awareness of the

three L2 phonemes studied in this dissertation, an analysis of the input presented

to learners during the two years of Spanish instruction at the University of Texas

is presented next. The Spanish /d/ phoneme in intervocalic position is a segment

that occurs early and frequently. A review of the first 8 chapters of the textbook

Puntos de Partida8 shows that 115 words contain an intervocalic /d/. More

importantly, this segment appears in 40 adjectives with the form of the regular

past participle morpheme -ado or -ido (e.g., encantado ‘pleased’, estado ‘state’,

casado ‘married’, cansado ‘tired’, vestido ‘dress’, nublado ‘cloudy’, etc.). There

were also 14 adjectives and nouns that resemble the past participle morpheme

(e.g., delgado ‘thin’ morado ‘purple’, anaranjado ‘orange’, rápido ‘fast’,

ensalada ‘salad’ nada ‘nothing’ etc.). Thus, by the time learners are introduced to

the regular past participle as a grammatical feature, toward the end of the second

semester, they already had seen and heard this morpheme often. It is

hypothesized that the presentation in the classroom of the regular past participle

as a grammatical feature of Spanish serves to bring to learners’ attention a

7 The term homophonous is used by Field (2003) to describe words and phrases that become phonologically identical in connected speech. Therefore, the listener needs to use syntactic context to disthinguish them. 8 At the University of Texas at Austin, the first semester of Spanish covers material from the preliminary chapter Ante Todo to Chapter 7. The information presented here was taken from the 6th edition of Puntos de Partida (Knorre et al., 2001).

22

phoneme that is frequently used, although instruction does not focus on describing

the characteristics of the /d/ phoneme as a voiced, dental, and fricative sound in

intervocalic position. The explicit instruction of a grammatical feature, however,

strengthens the sound-to-script relationship as it helps to form an association

between frequently used morphemes (e.g., regular past participle -ado/-ido) and

the fricative allophone of the /d/ phoneme in intervocalic position. In this

dissertation, a morpheme-phoneme association is understood as a proceduralizing

mechanism called a morphological effect that facilitates recognition of a sound

in listening exercises.9 Another morpheme containing an intervocalic /d/ that

occurs frequently in the first semester, although not in as many words as the past

participle, is the nominal morpheme -dad that is found in only 8 words that are

also cognates of English words (universidad ‘university’, ciudad ‘city’,

nacionalidad ‘nationality’, actividad ‘activity’, tranquilidad ‘tranquility’,

especialidad ‘specialty’, humanidades ‘humanities’, dignidad ‘dignity’).

The intervocalic /r/ also occurs frequently in the vocabulary of the first 8

chapters of the textbook Puntos de Partida. This segment was found in 150

words, although an analysis of the vocabulary shows that the morphemes in which

it occurs are not as numerous as the morphemes that contain the /d/ segment. The

nominal morpheme -ero, for example, was found in 9 words (e.g., compañero 9 This view of the morphological effect differs from the notion found in studies that research how morphological information facilitates the production and perception of a word. These studies, for instance, considered the effect of different types of morphological complexity such as inflection (e.g., the difference between the singular noun flower and the plural flowers is inflectional), derivation (e.g., difference between the noun closeness and the adverb closely), and compounding (e.g., the difference between the noun flower and the compound flowerpot) in lexical production (Zwitserlood, 2004; Zwitserlood, et al., 2000, Zwitserlood, et al., under review; Roelofs and Baayen, 2002; Bird, et al., 2003) and perception (Monsell and Caramazza, 1985; Zwitserlood, et al., 1993).

23

‘mate’, consejero ‘advisor’, extranjero ‘foreigner’, soltero ‘single’, maletero

‘porter’, pasajero ‘passenger’, reportero ‘reporter’, camarero ‘waiter’,

aventurero ‘adventurer’). Also, 16 words were found that resemble this

morpheme (e.g., cartera ‘wallet’, sombrero ‘hat’, bañera ‘bathtub’, etc.). Despite

the apparent frequency of the /r/ segment, however, this nominal morpheme is

never presented as a grammatical feature to learners. The morpheme for the

preterite in the third person plural (i.e., -eron as in comieron ‘they ate’) is the first

bound morpheme with an intervocalic /r/ that is presented to learners as a

grammatical feature, and this presentation does not occur until the end of the first

semester. The next morpheme associated to a grammatical feature is not shown to

learners until the future and the conditional are taught in the third semester (e.g.,

comerá ‘he will eat’, and comería ‘he would eat’). These frequencies suggest

that the /r/ in intervocalic position is a phoneme that may be acquired by the

influence of both the declarative and the procedural learning systems proposed by

Ullman (2001, 2004).

In the case of the /x/ segment, only 41 words were found that contain this

phoneme. And one morpheme, the nominal morpheme -aje, was found in only 5

words (e.g., pasaje ‘passage’, equipaje ‘luggage’, traje ‘suit’, viaje ‘trip’, garaje

‘garage’). The lack of morphemes containing the /x/ phoneme in a regular

manner suggest that the /x/ phoneme is an idiosyncratic sound, in the sense

described by Ullman’s DP model (2001, 2004). Therefore, it is hypothesized that

the developmental awareness of L2 /x/ depends on declarative mechanisms in

which consciousness raising and practice are needed for acquisition.

24

In addition, it was found that the 6th edition of Puntos de Partida (Knorre

et al., 2001) includes several sections with explicit information regarding some of

the linguistic elements addressed in this dissertation. The emphasis of these

sections, however, as suggested by their title Pronunciación ‘Pronunciation’, is

solely on production processes. For instance, in the section Diphthongs and

Linking found on pp. 37 and 38 in Chapter 1, even though exercise C focuses on

the linking tendency (sinalefa) of Spanish, the instructions for the exercise do not

even mention the possible listening difficulties learners may face due to linking:

“C. Frases. Practice saying each phrase as if it were one long word, pronounced

without a pause” (p. 38). Furthermore, although the sections that include

information on the targeted phonemes on this study (e.g., the flap /r/ is on pp.

165-166; the fricative /d/ segment in intervocalic position, on p. 198; and the /x/

phoneme, on pp. 227-228) bring to learners’ attention specific details of how

these Spanish sounds are produced, learners in this study indicated not being

aware of this linguistic information found in the book. Therefore, it is

questionable whether these details are used by instructors at all. Furthermore,

even if one were to assume that the sections are used in the classroom, the

explanations fail to address the possibility of misunderstanding in listening

exercises due to the differences between English and Spanish phonemes. For

instance, the explanation of the two vibrant phonemes /r/ and /rr/ is given as

follows:

Spanish has two r sounds, one of which is called a flap, the other a trill. The rapid pronunciation of tt and dd in the English words Betty and ladder produces a sound similar to the Spanish flap r: The tongue touches the alveolar ridge (behind the upper teeth) once... (Knorre et al., 2001, p. 165)

25

This central argument of this study is that learners need to be aware, not

only of how the L2 sounds are produced, but how they affect (mis)understanding

in listening tasks.

1.6 OVERVIEW OF SUBSEQUENT CHAPTERS

There are five chapters in this dissertation. Chapter Two provides an

overview of the literature relevant to the study of second language phonological

acquisition. Chapter Three describes the methodology that was followed to

collect the data used in this dissertation. It also describes the learners and

instructors who participated in this study. Chapter Four presents an analysis of

the data and results collected for this dissertation. Chapter Five answers the

research questions proposed in this chapter, discusses implications of the research

for the field, and presents conclusions, limitations of the study, and suggestions

for future research.

26

CHAPTER 2

Review of Literature

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Considering that the previous chapter demonstrated the need for research

in receptive processes involved in the acquisition of listening comprehension

skills of spoken Spanish by L2 learners, this chapter provides an overview of the

existing literature in the fields of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), L2

Phonological Acquisition, and specifically Spanish L2 Phonological Acquisition.

The section on Second Language Acquisition research reviews general research in

the field of SLA as well as the literature on the cognitive approaches to SLA. The

L2 Phonological Acquisition section focuses on studies that address receptive

processes such as phonemic categorization and spoken-word recognition; as such,

this section is lengthy because it draws from several distinct domains (L2

phonological acquisition, speech perception, word recognition, and

segmentation). The last section covers research done particularly in the area of

L2 Spanish phonology.

2.2 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Although the field of SLA goes back about 40 years, most of the research

during the earlier years emphasized language teaching, while there was only a

secondary interest on language learning derived mostly from pedagogical

concerns. Moreover, the approach to L2 learning in the 1950’s and 1960’s relied

27

on behaviorism and structuralist theories. While behaviorism, a general theory of

learning, explained learning as a process of habit-formation and described it in

terms of stimulus-response associations, structuralist theories described language

rigorously as a set of formal patterns without reference to meaning (Ellis, 1990).

From the behaviorist perspective, the acquisition of an L2 was viewed

merely as a matter of overcoming obstacles presented by the structural patterns

from L1 (Lado, 1957). In the last 25 years, however, studies of SLA began to

focus on understanding the nature of language learning (Gass and Selinker, 2001)

and to emphasize the internal mental processing the learner undergoes as an active

participant in the language learning process. As a result of Chomsky's (1959)

attack on the adequacy of behaviorism to explain linguistic abilities and in

contrast to the previous language methods that were based on repetition and

imitation, two opposite views about the nature of classroom L2 learning emerged:

the cognitive anti-method and the cognitive code method. The cognitive anti-

method (Newmark and Reibel, 1968) was precursor to the theories proposed a

decade later by Krashen that stressed the centrality of the learner in the language

learning process and proposed reproducing the learning conditions of L1

acquisition in the L2 classroom environment. Also, since the cognitive anti-

method assumed that L2 learning in the classroom was equal to L1 acquisition,

there was no direct attempt to teach linguistic forms. On the other hand, the

cognitive code method, as described by Chastain (1971), stressed the importance

of conscious analysis of the linguistic code and of opportunities for meaningful

and creative language practice as essential to the learning process.

28

Research during the 1960’s and 1970’s continued to study a more

cognitive approach to language learning. The aim of the empirical research of

that time was to establish to what extent L2 learning was different from L1; in

particular, as a result of L1 transfer and age. For example, the morpheme order

studies (Dulay and Burt, 1974) were based on research initially done on child

language acquisition by Brown (1973); their goal was to verify empirically the

claims of similar process of acquisition in L1 and L2 (i.e., L1 = L2 Hypothesis).

Dulay and Burt found that results from two groups of children (Spanish and

Chinese) showed that developmental factors for L2 acquisition were independent

of L1 background. Other studies (Larsen-Freeman, 1975; Hakuta, 1974, 1976),

however, produced different accuracy orders that raised doubts about the invariant

"natural order" of acquisition suggested by the morpheme order studies and

provided evidence favoring the role of L1. Subsequent researchers (Wagner-

Gough and Hatch, 1975) have also challenged the format performance analysis

studies, like that of Dulay and Burt, which determined the correct use of a specific

grammatical feature in obligatory contexts but ignored others in which the learner

overgeneralized rules. Regardless of the flaws of their methodology, performance

analysis investigations used in longitudinal studies of individual L2 learners

(Cazden et al., 1975; Wode, 1976; Meisel et al., 1981) provided a description of

the series of stages through which the L2 learners pass "en route to the full target

language system" (Ellis, 1990).

The high degree of variability observed in learners at these different

developmental stages was the object of interest of several researchers (Cancino et

29

al., 1978; Wagner-Gough, 1975) and became associated with the theory of

interlanguage (IL). The analysis of these inconsistent form-function mappings

has helped to reveal the inner logic by which learners build their mental grammar.

Huebner (1979; 1983), for example, studied the different stages of development

through which an uninstructed Hmong-speaking adult passed in the acquisition of

the English L2 article system. His study shows how the form-function

distribution of the English article system was acquired after an initial systematic

variability in the way the learner marked nouns.

An important premise in IL theory is the claim that IL development

reflects the processes of cognitive learning strategies (Cancino et al., 1974; Cook,

1985) as well as communication strategies (Tarone et al., 1976). The implications

of this mentalist view of language learning correspond with proposals of a

naturalistic L2 classroom learning that facilitates a natural process of acquisition

rather than works against it (Corder, 1976). As mentioned earlier, these ideas

echoed implications derived from Newmark and Reibel's (1968) research in

which classroom teaching was to be devoted exclusively to communication

without attempts at teaching linguistic form.

The Monitor Model (MM) proposed by Krashen (1981; 1982; 1985;

Krashen and Terrell, 1984), emerged amidst this period of IL research and

proposals for a naturalistic L2 learning. The MM centered around the

controversial distinction between two independent ways of developing knowledge

of an L2: learning (a conscious knowledge of an L2) and acquisition (a

subconscious process similar, if not identical, to the process used in the

30

acquisition of L1). The functions of these two systems are also assumed to be

different: while the acquired knowledge is concerned with the production of

language (the learner focuses on meaning, not on form), the learned knowledge is

concerned with "monitoring" the learner's production. Therefore, according to

Krashen's model, the goal of language teaching is to facilitate acquisition by

providing comprehensible input to learners with a very restricted use of grammar

teaching. Since the model also assumes a natural order of acquisition, the

teaching of grammar is assumed ineffective to affect the natural order.

Critics of Krashen's views address several issues. Ellis (1990) notices that

although the model was constructed with the L2 classroom in mind, it was

developed to account for results of studies of naturalistic L2 acquisition. Ellis

(1990) and Gass and Selinker (2001) argue that the MM is far too restrictive since

learners are capable of using metalinguistic knowledge10 in learning more than

Krashen supposes. Gass and Selinker (2001), for example, question Krashen's

claims that learners develop two independent systems to internalize information

that have different functions. In particular, they refute the concept of a Monitor

and its unique association to learned language:

In fact, the only function of learned knowledge is to edit utterances. Thus, the Monitor can only be used in production; it is useless in comprehension. How, then, do learners in a classroom setting in which only the NL [native language] is used ever comprehend the L2, as for all intents an purposes, they have no acquired system? (Gass and Selinker, 2001, p. 204)

10 Metalinguistic knowledge, as defined in Gass and Selinker (2001), is “What one knows (or thinks one knows) about the language. It is to be differentiated from what one does in using language” (p. 456).

31

Furthermore, because production is supposed to be initiated through the

acquired system, Gass and Selinker (2001) wonder how those learners in a formal

setting, in which only the L1 is used, can ever generate utterances. To support

their arguments against restricting the Monitor's function to production, they cite

the following anecdote by Gregg (1984) that describes how learned knowledge

can be used in decoding (perception), contrary to the predictions of the MM:

The other day while listening to the radio, I heard the announcer announce wagunaa no kageki, kamigami no kasoware. Knowing that kageki = ‘opera’ and that kami = either ‘god’ or ‘hair’ or ‘paper,’ and knowing that there is a (fairly unproductive) rule in Japanese for pluralizing by reduplication, I concluded that kamigami must be the plural of kami ‘god,’ and that therefore wagunaa must be Wagner and kasoware must mean ‘twilight,’ and that I was in danger of hearing Die Gotterdammerung. (Gregg, 1984, pp.82-83)

Gregg reported that he had never used the reduplication rule productively;

therefore, he concluded he had used learned knowledge, not acquired knowledge,

consciously and quickly enough to turn off the radio (cited in Gass and Selinker,

2001, p. 204).

One of the main criticisms of the MM is that several of the hypotheses are

unfalsifiable due to the vagueness of his claims and inadequate definition of

concepts. Schmidt (1990), for example, argues against the lack of an adequate

definition of the adjective "unconscious", while Gass and Selinker (2001)

addressed the lack of specificity regarding a definition of levels of knowledge.

They also argue that the MM does not explain how contextual information aids in

the actual acquisition of a linguistic rule.

Although Krashen's Monitor Model has been the object of a great deal of

criticism, researchers (Ellis, 1990; Gass and Selinker, 2001) have acknowledged

32

Krashen has contributed to the field of SLA by drawing attention to the research

of unexplored areas. As seen in Chapter 1, cognitive accounts of L2 learning

have motivated research in a wide range of fields (e.g., psychology, linguistics,

education, sociology, cognition) that seek to explore the relationship between

learning and linguistic theories and the development of cognitive and

psycholinguistic models of learning and listening comprehension (e.g., Ullman’s

declarative/procedural model, 2001, 2004; Bialystok’s analysis and control

model, 1994; Anderson’s language comprehension model, 2000).

The role of attention, in particular, has been a central issue explored in

many studies of SLA amidst the debate between conscious and unconscious

learning. The findings of some of this research are examined in the next section.

2.2.1 The role of attention in SLA

The role of attention and its importance in input processing have been

addressed frequently in cognitive approaches to SLA together with the concepts

of awareness and consciousness, which were discussed in the previous chapter.

The linguistic data that is actually processed from the input and becomes

converted into data that can be internalized and integrated into the learner’s

developing interlanguage system is known as intake (VanPatten, 2002a;

Batstone, 2002; Gass and Selinker, 2001). Schmidt (1990) claims that for L2

input to be usable to served as intake it must first be noticed. Therefore,

noticing, or conscious awareness, is necessary for second language acquisition,

33

and the learner must bring consciousness to apply on a particular aspect of L2

before this aspect may be acquired.

Awareness, then, is central to the concept of noticing in Schmidt’ view,

which is a strong position that is not supported by all researchers (Gass, 1997;

Tomlin and Villa, 1994; Gass et al., 2003). For example, Tomlin and Villa

(1994) also identify attention as an important factor in learning by claiming that

directing one’s attention helps learners sort out L2 input for further processing.

Nevertheless, they present a “fine-grained analysis of attention” based on Posner

and Petersen’s (1990) work that includes three principal components: alertness,

orientation, and detection. Out of these three elements, Tomlin and Villa argue

that detection, the cognitive registration of sensory stimuli, is the more critical

component for SLA (and more critical than noticing) because “detection is the

process by which particular exemplars are registered in memory and therefore

could be made accessible to whatever the key processes are for learning, such as

hypothesis formation and testing” (p. 192-193). Although awareness plays a

potential support role by heightening the chances of detection, however, Tomlin

and Villa emphasize that detection does not require awareness and they support

this claim by reviewing a semantic priming study by Marcel (1983) that shows

that people can cognitively process words yet be unaware of those words. Gass

(1997), too, finds in several studies from cognitive psychology and from SLA

(Carr and Curran, 1994; Gass 1979a, 1979b; Eckman et al., 1988) evidence that

learning can take place without awareness of what is being learned. She asserts

that although this evidence is not intended to suggest that attention and awareness

34

are not important in language learning processes, it implies that other factors are

also important. Some of these factors involve, for instance, certain grammatical

features or vocabulary that can be manipulated by teachers to have attention

drawn to them, which therefore increases the probability that they will be noticed

(Gass, 1997, p. 16).

Gass (1988, 1997; Gass and Selinker, 2001) describes a model of SLA in

which other factors like frequency, affect, and prior knowledge, together with

attention, are important in determining how input is processed. The first stage

involves the concept of apperceived input,11 which is the level at which some

information in the input is related to some prior experience preparing it for further

analysis. The subsequent analysis of the input, which may range from semantic

analysis to detailed structural analysis, occurs at the stage of comprehended input.

Gass claims that the level of analysis achieved at this stage is important for input

to become intake or not. Prior knowledge also plays a role because it is at this

level where the psycholinguistic processing of comparing new information to

existing internalized grammatical rules takes place. Matching the input against

existing knowledge could result in either (a) integration of information into a

learner’s knowledge system (the fourth stage in Gass’s (1997) model), (b)

storage of information for further processing (a delayed or incubation period), or

(c) nonuse. Gass (1997) states that the fifth stage, output, can be described as an

overt manifestation of the process, with output serving as a means for hypothesis

testing.

11 Gass’s (1997) apperceived input corresponds to Schmidt’s (1990) concept of noticing.

35

An assumption in Gass’ model that is shared by others (VanPatten 1989,

2002abc) is that of attention as a limited capacity system for processing

information. Although this view has been challenged (DeKeyser et al., 2002),

there is a general agreement among researchers (VanPatten 1989, 2002abc; Gass,

1997; Gass et al., 2003; Tomlin and Villa, 1994) that L2 learners need a

mechanism to help them sort out the overwhelming amount of input available to

them. VanPatten (1989), for example, examines the role of consciousness in

input processing and concludes that learners, at least in the early and intermediate

stages of learning, cannot attend to form and meaning at the same time. These

assumptions are captured in VanPatten’s (1996, 2000, 2002a) model of input

processing (IP) in L2 acquisition that describes which linguistic data in the input

are attended to during on-line comprehension and which are not. The IP model

consists of the following principles (for the complete model with principles and

corollaries see VanPatten, 2002a, p. 758):

P1. Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form.

P2. For learners to process form that is not meaningful, they must be able to process informational or communicative content at no (or little) cost to attention.

P3. Learners possess a default strategy that assigns the role of agent (or subject) to the first noun (phrase) they encounter in a sentence/utterance. This is called the first-noun strategy.

P4. Learners process elements in sentence/utterance initial position first.

Insights on IP provided the theoretical foundations for the development of

Processing Instruction (PI), an approach to instruction of grammatical form in

which the goal is to help learners in making form-meaning connections during IP

36

(VanPatten, 1996, 2002a; VanPatten and Cadierno, 1993; Lee and VanPatten,

1995). According to VanPatten (2002a), the most salient characteristic of PI is its

use of a type of input that pushes learners away from traditional “nonoptimal

processing strategies” (p. 764). For example, according to Principle 1, VanPatten

claims that in the sentence Ayer mis amigos me llamaron para invitarme al cine

‘Yesterday my friends called me to invite me to the movies’, the lexical item ayer

‘yesterday’ is processed first and clues learners about the “pastness” of the

sentence, which mitigates the processing of the verb third-person plural inflection

-aron. In the same manner, the plurality expressed in the subject mis amigos ‘my

friends’ mitigates the processing of the plurality found in the verb inflection.

Moreover, if a sentence is uttered with the object pronoun in preverbal position as

lo ve la niña ‘the girl sees him’, according to the first-noun principle described in

VanPatten (2002a) learners misinterpret the object pronoun lo ‘him’ as the

subject/agent of the sentence, thus leading to the incorrect interpretation “he sees

the girl.” The purpose of PI, then, is to manipulate learners’ attention and input

data (structured input) during IP to help learners focus and process form.

Criticism of VanPatten’s claims question the validity of the concept of

attention as a limited-capacity, single resource model (DeKeyser et al., 2002).

DeKeyser and colleagues cite contemporary interference models (Neumann,

1996; Robinson, in press) in which attentional resource capacity is assumed to be

unlimited:

Such unlimited-capacity interference models specify “mechanisms” causing breakdowns in performance and processing, arguing that increasing the number of stimuli and response alternatives or the similarity

37

between them will sometimes lead to confusion, reducing performance efficiency. (DeKeyser et al., 2002, p. 807)

Another perspective on attentional constraints on performance and

processing was proposed by Wickens (1984, cited in DeKeyser et al., 2002) as an

answer to the observation that sometimes the human mind can run two tasks

concurrently, and sometimes it can not. Wickens’ model identified a multiple,

task-differentiated attentional pool of resources, in which breakdowns in

performance are the result of competition for resources from the same pool during

processing. Tomlin and Villa (1994) agree and argue that because attention is

involved in processing information as well as in the performance of whole tasks,

instead of a limited sensory input capacity system, the important issue pertains to

the limitations in the human mind’s ability to carry out multiple tasks at one time

(p. 188). Moreover, although they cite Posner and Snyder (1975), who conclude

that the human mind can run two tasks simultaneously if at least one of them is

automatic, Tomlin and Villa find this distinction between controlled and

automatic processes still too coarse “because it is sometimes possible for one to

process simultaneously two attention-demanding tasks if the tasks are somehow

compatible” (p. 189).

While debate in the area of processing and capacity limitations continues,

other studies explore the ideas behind PI. VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), for

example, focus on whether the first-noun principle could be altered through

manipulated instruction on object pronouns. Their results show that learners

trained with the PI approach improved in their ability to correctly interpret SVO

(subject-verb-object) and OVS (object-verb-subject) sentences and to use object

38

pronouns correctly as objects and not subjects in a sentence-level output task.

Learners trained using a traditional approach improved only on the production

test, while the control group did not improve in either test. Some studies

(Cadierno, 1995; Benati, 2001; Cheng, 2002) claim to have generalized the results

in VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) to other structures, although other researchers

question the design, operationalization, and replication methodology of the same

studies (Salaberry, 1997; DeKeyser et al., 2002) as well as the validity of the PI

approach (Batstone, 2002), at least in the initial stages of learning.

Another approach that measures the role of attention in input processing is

that found in Gass et al. (2003) that explores the degree to which attention affects

different areas of language and how this differential influence interacts with

language proficiency. The parts of language considered in their study included

lexicon, morphosyntax, and syntax. Their results show that the greatest effect of

the [+ focused attention] condition was noted in syntax, not in lexicon, contrary to

their expectations. Based on these findings, the authors conclude that focused

attention seems to be better utilized in more complex areas like syntax: “With

more complex rules of grammar, internal devices are insufficient for learning, and

focused attention (or, in their context, explicit grammar instruction) may be a

necessary crutch” (p. 528). The results for the role of proficiency show a

diminished role for focused attention, although a large effect size was observed

for more advance learners. According to Gass et al., (2003), this finding suggests

more advanced learners may be ready to benefit from attention focused on

complex structures.

39

In sum, this section presented discussion on the development of the field

of SLA following the criticisms of behaviorist theories of language teaching, and

outlined the development of cognitive approaches to language learning in the

recognition of the language learner as an active participant in the learning process.

Discussion of the empirical research that established the extent of the differences

between L1 and L2 acquisition processes in this chapter centered on the value of

performance analysis studies that highlighted the stages of L2 acquisition and the

variability associated with Interlanguage theory. Proposals for a naturalistic

environment to language learning were also reviewed, principally the Monitor

Model that, regardless of its flaws, spurred the field into new areas of research.

The role of attention in the integration of new knowledge to an existing cognitive

system was also explored.

2.3 RESEARCH IN L2 PHONOLOGY

The importance of L2 phonology has been extensively recognized in

studies of Second Language Acquisition (SLA); however, the main focus of

research has been the acquisition of production skills, a situation that reflects what

is happening in the L2 classroom where learners are encouraged to speak as much

as possible. In fact, the issue of adult’s accented speech in a L2 as compared to

the near-native or native-like L2 production of children has been the object of

much research in SLA (e.g., Lado, 1957; Stockwell and Bowen, 1965; Lenneberg,

1967; Eckman, 1977; Eckman and Elreyes, 2003; Major, 2001).

40

A consequence of this emphasis on studying learners’ production has been

that phonological receptive processes and the development of listening skills have

not been studied adequately and therefore are not well understood by researchers

or L2/FL teachers. With some exceptions, most of the studies on how the

comprehension of spoken language develops have been conducted by

psycholinguists, phoneticians and, in general, by scientists involved in phonetic

and acoustic laboratories. Miller and Eimas (1995), for example, review an

extensive body of research that concentrates on the mapping from the acoustic

signal to phonemic categories (i.e., speech perception), and the mapping from

acoustic signal onto lexical representations (i.e., word recognition). They observe

that both domains are considered in terms of rather distinct literatures, although

they are closely intertwined and share many of the same issues. Moreover,

whether investigating speech production or perception, most of the studies under

the label “phonological acquisition” focus on phonemic acquisition relevant for

lexical contrast in the two languages (Khattab, 2004). Although this research has

provided insights into the lower level contexts of L2 comprehension where

listeners map the continuous signal of speech onto sequences of consonants and

vowels that form spoken language, understanding how these low level processes

affect higher level linguistic context (e.g., speech segmentation; the role of

prosody, syntax, and lexicon; the role of context and socio-phonetic aspects of a

language) is an area that remain unexplored in the field of SLA, particularly in the

context of the L2 classroom.

41

The section that follows is divided in three sub-sections. The first

includes an overview of the current state of affairs in the L2 classroom in which a

form of a Communicative Approach to Teaching (CAT) is commonly used. In

the second section, studies that approach receptive processes at the low level of

processing are presented; in particular, phonemic categorization. Next, research

that focuses on the higher level linguistic context of spoken-word recognition

(i.e., studies in lexical segmentation, contextual cues, and processing cues) is

reviewed. These cognitive and psycholinguistic models of spoken-word

recognition seek to understand how the different levels of speech processing

affect listening comprehension.

2.3.1 From Transfer to the Communicative Approach

The notion of transfer has a long history. In 1953, Weinreich wrote of

“interference” when he detailed transfer in languages in contact12 at the

segmental, phonotactic, and prosodic level, all of which are phonological

structures associated with production skills. Soon after, Lado's (1957) main

proposal of phonological transfer predicted learners’ difficulties in the L2 based

on their L1. Other contrastive phonologies followed, such as that of Stockwell and

Bowen (1965), which provided a contrastive analysis of the English and Spanish

phonological systems and a detailed hierarchy of difficulty “especially as it

related to errors in pronunciation” (p. viii).

12 According to Major (2001), language contact situations are another type of SLA.

42

Eventually, the fundamental transfer principle of the CA was criticized

and discredited (Whitman, 1970; Nemser, 1971; Kohler, 1971; Whitman and

Jackson, 1972; James, 1986) and other approaches emerged (as seen in the

previous section on “Second Language Acquisition”) that sought to explain the

learners’ linguistic competence embedded in Chomsky’s views of language

(1959). Applied linguists soon began to perceive Chomsky’s views as too

narrow, however, and recommendations for a "natural method" in the classroom

were justified as a realization “that the real goal of language teaching should be

communicative competence, not just linguistic competence" (Ellis, 1990, p.56).

In the 1970s, the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach to

language learning became very popular (Chowdhury, 2003). This student-

centered, rather than teacher-centered, language method emphasizes the use of

authentic language use through interactions that are significant to the learners

(Chowdhury, 2003; Olivares, 2002). Chowdhury (2003) claims it to be one of

the most practiced language teaching methods in the world today, although Garant

(2003) observes current research may be shifting away from earlier trends toward

a CLT approach. Moreover, several recent studies propose a review of the

implementation of the CLT approach in societies where the teacher-centered basis

of teaching is the culturally and socially sanctioned method (Chowdhury, 2000,

2003; Edge, 1996). The CLT approach and the changing views regarding the

nature of language learning have inspired methods in the L2 classroom that are

still in use today. Because the focus is on meaning and fluency, learners do much

of the speaking in the communicative classroom and the input they receive from

43

the instructor is not “extensive” (Wheat, 2001, p. 2). This situation, in turn,

promotes an environment in which opportunities to develop listening skills are

scarce, despite the fact that even in native language situations listening is the most

frequently used language skill (Oxford, 1993). Also, while the other three

language skills of speaking, writing, and reading are directly taught in the

communicative classroom, L2 and FL teachers often ignore the listening

(receptive) skill and expect learners to develop this skill without help (Mendelson,

1984).

This emphasis on production in the L2 classroom may explain the

proliferation of phonological studies and theories that centered on learners’

production of L2, at the same time overlooking the importance of receptive

processes (particularly listening skills).

2.3.2 Theories of L2 speech perception: Phonemic categorization

Regarding theories of Speech Perception, the notion of phonemic

categorization has been amply researched. In L1 it is well established that

infants acquire the segmental categories of their L1 during the first year of life

(Peperkamp and Dupoux, in press). In L2, there is much evidence that suggests

that L1 phonemic categorization becomes the basis from which beginning L2

learners categorize L2 sounds (Reeder, 1997). Empirical research has been done

that demonstrates that L1 phonemic categorization affects the perception of both

vowels and consonants (Scholes, 1967; Flege, 1987a, 1987b, 1995, 1999;

Aoyama et al., 2004). In addition, the ability to discriminate L2 phonetic

44

segments has been shown to be related to the perceived phonetic similarity

between L1 sounds and L2 sounds (Best, 1995; Flege, 1995; Kuhl and Iverson,

1995; Aoyoma et al., 2004). In particular, similarity between the L1 and L2

present more difficulties for L2 learners than any perceived differences.

In his Speech Learning Model (SLM), Flege’s (1987a, 1995) “equivalence

classification” hypothesis explains why a perceived similarity between L1 and L2

poses difficulties for L2 learners: “According to this hypothesis, a learner projects

L1 phonetic categories onto the L2 whenever the sounds are judged by the learner

to be equivalent, with new phonetic categories being formed only when the

learner perceives the sounds as different” (Reeder, 1997, p. 46). The hypothesis

has been corroborated by several studies. For example, Flege (1987b) found

English speakers learning French have more success acquiring the French high

front rounded [ü], which does not have a counterpart in English, than they do the

French high back rounded [u], which does have a counterpart in English, although

it is not quite identical. A study by Major and Kim (1996) also supports the

“equivalence classification” hypothesis, showing there is no difference in the

perception and production of dissimilar segments by both beginners and advanced

learners because they are acquired very quickly in the learning process, but the

recognition and production of similar sounds is dependent on L2 learning

experience. More recently, Aoyama et al. (2004) researched the learnability of

English /r/ and English /l/ by native Japanese speakers. Their results show more

improvement for /r/ than for /l/ in both perception and production modalities,

regardless of evidence showing that /r/ is a more difficult consonant to produce by

45

children learning English as their L1 (Snow, 1963). These findings support the

predictions that English /r/ will be more easily acquired by native Japanese

speakers since English /r/ is perceptually more dissimilar from Japanese /ſ/ than

English /l/ (Aoyama et al., 2004).

Maye (2000) argues that Best’s (1994; Best et al., 1988) Perceptual

Assimilation Model (PAM) also provides evidence of how the perception of

phonemic contrast in L1 psychologically influences speech perception of non-

native contrasts. PAM makes predictions about how well learners discriminate

non-native contrasts based on the assimilation of the foreign sounds to native

sounds. According to the model, there are four ways in which this assimilation

may occur. One is the “single category” assimilation, in which the L2 sounds are

perceived as two variants of the same L1 phoneme. An example of this kind of

assimilation is the previously mentioned English /r/~/l/ contrast, which, to

Japanese speakers, sounds like variants of the same Japanese phoneme /ſ/. This

assimilation is predicted by the model to be the most difficult contrast to

discriminate. In the “opposing category” assimilation type, the two contrasting

L2 sounds are perceived as corresponding to two L1 sounds. An example of this

type cited by Maye (2000) is the Hindi /th/~/dh/ contrast that English speakers

perceived as corresponding to the English /t/~/d/ distinction. This kind of

assimilations is predicted to be easily discriminated. Another kind of assimilation

is the “category-goodness” in which one of the two L2 segments assimilates more

to the L1 sound because it is perceived as a better match than the other sound.

Maye (2000) provides an example of this type of assimilation from the Farsi

46

contrast /g/~/G/. While Farsi /g/ is perceived by English speakers as a better

exemplar of the English /g/, the sound /G/ is perceived as a less typical English

/g/. Although this kind of assimilation is predicted to be discriminated by PAM, it

is not as easily discriminated as an opposing-category contrast. The last

possibility in this model are the “nonassimilated” sounds, which means some

contrasts are not perceived in relation to the L1 phonemic system. The perception

of the Zulu click consonants by English speakers provides an example of

nonassimilated sounds; discrimination of this type of contrasts is predicted not to

be a problem since they are not affected by the L1 phonemic system.

Maye (2000) explains the formation of native and non-native sound

categories in terms of the distribution-based hypothesis, an account in which

speech perception is assumed to be shaped by the native language sounds directly,

based on the distribution of phonetic exemplars produced by speakers of a

language. Thus, in a language containing /p/ and /b/ as two different phonemes,

there may be phonetic variation in the actual production of tokens of these two

phonemes, with some overlap between the two categories.

However, in a given phonetic environment the exemplars of a particular phoneme will presumably cluster together along one or more acoustic dimensions, and these clusters can be used to differentiate the sounds which are used contrastively in a language. (Maye, 2000, p. 31)

A different view is the minimal-pair based hypothesis, which assumes that

the native phonemes are acquired when infants learn that a phonetic contrast can

differentiate the meaning of two words. In Maye’s study, English speakers were

trained to discriminate the pair [d]~[ th], which are perceived by English speakers

but do not represent a phonemic contrast in their L1 because they never occur in

47

the same environment. Thus, while unaspirated /t/ occurs only in English after /s/,

voiced /d/ never does. Therefore, although this contrast can still be discriminated

by native English speakers, it is not readily distinguished (i.e., if the initial

consonant /s/ is removed from the word stay, English speakers report that the

word they hear is day).13 Learners in Maye’s study were assigned to one of two

groups that were trained either with a monomodal distribution (e.g., stimuli from

the center of the continuum [d]~[ th] were presented four times as often as the

endpoints) or with a bimodal distribution (e.g., stimuli near the endpoints of the

continuum were presented most frequently). Participants were told that the

purpose of the study was for them to learn the sounds of a new language they had

never heard before. The results show the bimodal group performed better in a

discrimination task that tested discrimination of the end-point stimuli. Since

learners were not trained in minimal pairs and did not receive information about

the meanings of words, Maye argues that her findings support a distribution-based

hypothesis in phonetic categoric formation since the only difference between the

two groups was the distributional frequency of sounds they heard during training.

Another model of L2 speech perception and phonological acquisition that

focuses on studying acquisition of segments is Hancin-Bhatt's (1994a, b) Feature

Competition Model (FCM). The FCM advances the idea that "feature

prominence" in the L1 system will affect listener's perception of new L2 sounds

and will guide how the L2 sounds are mapped onto existing L1 categories. More

recently, Brown's (2000) theory of phonological interference provides a model of

13 Example from Pegg and Werker (1997) as cited in Maye (2000).

48

speech perception based on the theory of Feature Geometry (Clements, 1985;

Sagey, 1986) in which each phoneme has a unique structural representation that

consists of distinctive features organized into a systematic hierarchy of

constituents. Thus, Brown answers the question of why learners perceive L2

sounds in terms of their L1 phonemic categories by proposing that the internal

sub-components of phonemes (i.e., distinctive features), not the phonemes of an

L1, are what constrain perception of L2 sounds.

Comprehending spoken language (L1, L2, etc.) implies more than being

able to identify sounds (phonemes) that make up the acoustic signal; yet, as the

review of the literature shows in this section, most of the models of L2 speech

perception and phonological acquisition have remained focused on studying

acquisition of segments. The next section presents a body of literature that

covers inquiries that go beyond the perception of the acoustic signal and its

mapping onto phonemic categories. Research on the comprehension of spoken

language focuses on the effects of higher level linguistic contexts in overall

perception. This framework offers a detailed picture of the cognitive processes

involved in listening because it recognizes that there are mental representations of

linguistic elements at each of the processing stages of features, sounds,

morphemes, words, and utterances. Furthermore, there is a wealth of evidence

from studies within spoken-word recognition models that demonstrates that all

different levels of speech processing contribute to listening comprehension.

49

2.3.3 Theories of spoken-word recognition: Higher level linguistic contexts

The issue of spoken-word recognition has been approached from a

cognitive perspective that assumes several levels of information processing by

which the listener converts acoustic input into meaning (Cutler and Clifton,

1999). Listening to spoken language begins when an auditory input is presented

to the ear and the listener first has to isolate speech from any other auditory input

reaching the ear at the same time. Miller and Eimas’ (1995) review of several

studies provide evidence that a higher level context (e.g., from the word or

sentence) combines with the acoustic signal and affects categorization, and even

that the lexical-level and the sentential-level effect may be qualitatively different.

They also acknowledge, however, that the precise nature of the processes that

produce these effects is inconclusive and controversial.

According to most models of spoken word recognition in L1, the decoding

process is a two-stage process involving a prelexical and a lexical stage

(McQueen et al., 2003). In the prelexical stage, which is consistent with the

perceptual level in Anderson’s (2000) language comprehension model reviewed

in Chapter 1, the listener turns the speech signal into an abstract representation.

The lexical stage overlaps with the parsing and utilization stages of a language

comprehension framework (Anderson, 2000). Before word processing begins,

listeners must first find and recognize the constituent parts that compose the

spoken message out of the continuous stream that is speech. Because each

phonetic segment is produced in a coarticulated fashion and not sequentially, one

at a time, the production of each segment is affected by the previous and

50

subsequent segment. The continuous nature of spoken speech make it impossible

to divide the speech stream into discrete acoustic segments that correspond in a

one-to-one fashion to phonetic segments (Miller and Eimas, 1995). This problem

of segmentation is one of the issues addressed by studies of perception in a

higher level linguistic context.

Another concern is the classification of these discrete units into a

linguistic representation that provides the basis for accessing the lexicon (Norris

and Cutler, 1985). Coarticulation and other phonological assimilations may cross

word boundaries; therefore, segmentation of the continuous acoustic signal

involves using explicit clues in the utterance in order to determine word and

syntactic boundaries that help in word recognition and utterance interpretation.

Although there is no agreement about the form these representational structures

take (e.g., from phonetic features and underspecified phonological features, to

phonetic segments, morae, and syllables), researchers agree that the segmental

representational strategy seems to be affected in part by listeners’ L1 (Miller and

Eimas, 1995). For example, there is evidence that languages fall into rhythmic

classes14 and listeners rely on prosodic cues (e.g., rhythm) of their L1 when

segmenting speech (Cutler et al., 2003). Sanders et al., (2002) compare

segmental strategies used by native English speakers and native Spanish and

native Japanese late-learners of English in a task requiring localization of a

phoneme in running speech. Because in a typical pattern in English a strong

stress falls on the first syllable of a word and is followed by a weaker stress on the

14 English and Dutch have a stress-based rhythm; and Spanish and French have a syllable-based rhythm; while Japanese has a mora-based rhythm.

51

remaining syllables, native English “listeners can assume that strongly stress

syllables are likely to be word initial and unstressed syllables are likely to be word

medial” (p. 520). Although the native Spanish and native Japanese late-learners

of English showed they learned English stress pattern as a segmentation cue,

however, their reliance upon this cue depended on the stress pattern characteristic

of their L1. In a comprehensive review of the literature in spoken word

recognition, Cutler and Clifton (1999) also found experimental evidence of the

role of the syllable (Mehler et al., 1981; Zwitserlood et al., 1993) and stress

(Cutler and Norris, 1988) in segmentation. After reviewing several studies in

which segmentation units appear to differ across languages, they conclude that a

universal strategy in segmentation exploits the rhythmic structure of speech input,

which is consistent with the evidence of stress-based segmentation in English

(Cutler and Norris, 1988), syllabic-segmentation in French (Segui et al., 1981;

Peretz et al., 1996), Spanish (Bradley et al., 1993), and Catalan (Sebastian-Gallés

et al., 1992), and moraic segmentation in Japanese (Otake et al., 1993; Otake et

al., 1996).

Sanders et al. (2002) also explore how other subsystems of language (e.g.,

lexical and syntactic cues) contribute to the segmentation process in a L2. Their

results show that late-learners use lexical information to the same extent as native

English-speakers, although they did not employ syntactic information in a manner

similar to that of native English-speakers. They conclude that these findings

suggest that L2 experience affects the different subsystems of language in

different ways. In other words, while lexical and semantic systems, as well as

52

lexical stress, can change to reflect native proficiency, other subsystems like the

syntax may be more developmentally constrained.

Another important aspect in the study of perception at higher levels is

addressed by Dijkstra (2003): how bilinguals process lexical storage and retrieval

in different contexts (e.g., isolated words or words embedded in sentences). The

findings show that when English-Dutch bilinguals were presented with

ambiguous words, the associated representation in both languages became

activated. When the words were embedded in sentences, however, lexical

retrieval was more directly affected by the syntactic, lexical, and semantic aspects

of the linguistic context.

2.3.3.1 Lexical representation

Activating lexical representations is a complex process that requires more

than just matching the incoming acoustic signal to the stored word representations

in the listener’s mental lexicon. The fact that there is a repertoire of an average of

30-40 phonemes to form words (Maddieson, 1984) appears to increase the

difficulties of word identification for listeners15 since, due to the amount of

embedding found in the vocabulary, words are not highly distinctive. Cutler and

Clifton (1999) cite studies of the perception of incrementally presented words that

have confirmed that identification of short words is a problem in English

(Grosjean, 1985; Bard et al., 1988). Luce (1986) has reported that more than one-

15 For instance, an English word like steak contains possible pronunciations of stay and take and ache. It resembles state and snake and stack, it occurs embedded within possible pronunciations of mistake or first acre, and so on (Cutler and Clifton, 1999).

53

third of short words could not be reliably identified until after their offset (i.e., the

context that comes after the end of the word). For instance, with the pair cap and

captain taken from Davis et al. (1997), recognition of the monosyllable from the

longer competitor is delayed until information arriving after the end of the

syllable cap is heard. Current research has also provided evidence that lexical

access involves continuous activation of multiple candidate words (Marslen-

Wilson, 1987, 1990; McQueen et al., 1994; McClelland and Elman, 1986; Norris,

1994) and subsequent competition between words during word recognition

(Goldinger et al., 1989; McQueen et al., 1994). Furthermore, activation of lexical

representation occurs based on whatever information is available to the listener,

including segmental and suprasegmental, as well as morphological and semantic

information. Among L2 listeners, influence of L1 phonemic categories adds to

the lexical activation of competing candidates. Weber and Cutler (2004), for

instance, found that lexical competition is greater among L2 than L1 listeners

because “non-native listeners’ phonetic discrimination difficulties cause

inappropriate competitor activation” (p. 18).

2.3.3.2 Morphological structure and spoken language comprehension

The role of morphological structure in word recognition has also been

studied in spoken-word recognition models from two perspectives. Some models

(e.g., Caramazza et al., 1988; Marslen-Wilson et al., 1994) assume stored lexical

representations consist of stems stored as the head of an entry together with the

affixes with which they may combine; thus, the word count would be stored as the

54

head together with the prefixes dis-, mis-, vis-, de-, and the suffixes -s, -ed, -er, -

able, etc. Other models (Schriefers et al. 1991; Baayen et al., 1997), however,

propose that full forms are separately represented and are linked with related

forms; in such models, words like count, counts, discount, counter, and

unaccountability are all stored forms that are linked to a common node.16

Marslen-Wilson (2001) studied the lexical systems of a small sample of languages

(Mandarin Chinese, Arabic, and Polish) in the context of English derivational

morphology (e.g., concatenation of a base form, a root or a stem, with one or

more derivational affixes) and found that there are differences in lexical

representations. For example, there is evidence that English is a partially

decompositional and combinatorial system in which, although the unit of

representation is the morpheme, there are also whole-form representations of

complex words as is the case with compound words (Marslen-Wilson, 2001).

Mandarin Chinese, however, has no derivational morphology, and compounding

is its only productive means of word-formation. Therefore, in Mandarin there are

separate lexical representations for compounds and for the words that make up

these compounds. Thus, compounds are represented as separate lexical entries,

and not as combinations of their constituent morphemes. Marslen-Wilson

concludes that these differences in lexical representation indicate that a unitary

model of spoken word access may not be possible across languages.

16 These examples were taken from Cutler & Clifton (1999).

55

2.3.3.3 Semantics and prosody in spoken language comprehension

Other information retrieved from the lexicon that has been investigated is

the issue of semantics, although most research on precisely what becomes

available in word meaning retrieval has more frequently been based on written

input rather than spoken input (Cutler and Clifton, 1999). Research on the role of

lexical ambiguity has produced evidence that all meanings of an ambiguous

spoken word are potentially available and may be simultaneously activated

irrespective of relative frequency or contextual probability (Whitney et al., 1985).

Once the words and their meanings have been identified, a semantic interpretation

of an utterance must be determined, a process that is guided by the "language

user's knowledge of the structure of his or her language, together with specific

structural information made available by the particular words in a sentence"

(Cutler and Clifton, 1999, p. 141). Evidence that grammatical information is

used in listening comprehension comes from studies in which verb

subcategorization information (i.e., how many arguments does a verb require) was

shown to be available early in the process of sentence comprehension. For

example, Marslen-Wilson et al., (1988), Tyler (1989), and Jennings et al., (1997)

found that sentences that violate subcategorization (e.g., He slept the guitar) are

difficult to process. The role of prosody in sentence comprehension has also

been studied since it can help in resolving lexical and syntactic ambiguities; for

instance, sentences like 'Whenever the guard checks ^ the door ^ is locked' can be

disambiguated by placing an intonational phrase boundary at one of the points

marked with a carat (Frazier, 1979). While a phrase like 'We already have to

56

repair the TIRE of the BICYCLE that we bought yesterday' can be disambiguated

by placing the pitch accent in one of the two nouns that are in capital letters to

indicate which noun is modified by the relative clause 'that we bought yesterday'

(Schafer et al., 1996).

2.3.3.4 Feedback in spoken language comprehension

In the spoken-word recognition system that has been described here and

that includes several levels of processing, it is assumed that the information that

passes through the system flows in one direction: from sounds to words (bottom-

up). A central debate in the study of spoken-word recognition is whether or not

there is feedback from the word recognition stage to earlier acoustic and

phonemic processing. At one extreme of this debate are interactive models like

TRACE17 (McClelland and Elman, 1986) that propose that the speech recognition

system includes also a top-down flow of information where the output of the

lexical stage is fed back to earlier prelexical stages of processing and aids in

phoneme identification. McQueen et al., (2003) refer to this kind of feedback as

perceptual (on-line) feedback, where “feedback from a specific lexical item can

affect the perceptual analysis of the prelexical units currently providing the input

to the word.” Thus, in TRACE there are both bottom-up and top-down flows of

information. In the bottom-up process, word representations are activated when

their constituent phonemes become activated; in the top-down flow, information

17 The model is called TRACE because “the network of units forms a dynamic processing structure called ‘the Trace,’ which serves at once as the perceptual processing mechanism and as the system’s working memory” (McClelland and Elman, 1986, p. 1).

57

from the word activation is fed back to the prelexical stage and modulates the

activation of those phoneme representations. The implicit assumption of this kind

of interactive models is, according to Norris et al. (2000), that this perceptual

feedback improves word recognition. The opposite view held by autonomous

models like Race (Cutler and Norris, 1979), however, assumes that the prelexical

and lexical levels are completely independent; top-down feedback is not required

for, and may even hinder, speech recognition (Norris et al., 2000). McQueen et al.

(2003), for instance, argue that “feedback can never improve recognition of a

given word at the time that the word is heard (if the prelexical level operates

optimally,18 the same word will be recognized whether there is feedback or not)”

(p. 267). They add that, although lexical information can sometimes improve

phoneme identification (“especially when the input consists entirely of words”),

top-down activation can also distort the prelexical representation of the speech

input when the input is degraded, as in the case of noise in the input or

mispronunciations. For example, if the input contained the word phoneme and the

middle /n/ could not be distinguished clearly by the phonemic level alone,

feedback from the lexical level could improve the activation of the /n/ in order to

boost its recognition. If the input contained, instead, the nonword phomeme, a

strong lexical effect would impair performance since the mispronunciation of the

medial /m/ would be overlooked; the system would settle on a medial /n/, and the

medial /m/ would be lost from the prelexical stage (Norris et al., 2000).

18 Italics added.

58

An integrated approach of these two extremes is found in the Merge

Model proposed by Norris et al. (2000), in which there is a third level of

processing ─the phoneme decision level─ besides the prelexical and lexical levels

of previous models. In the Merge Model, perceptual processing occurs in the

prelexical stage and is a source of continuous information (in a strictly bottom-up

fashion) to the lexical level, while activation of compatible lexical candidates

occurs in the lexical level. The two levels, however, are assumed to be

independent; there is no feedback from the lexical level to the prelexical stage

and, instead, information from the two processes is continuously integrated in the

phoneme decision units that are responsible for deciding which phonemes are

actually present in the input.

These phoneme decision units are thus directly susceptible to facilitatory influences from the lexicon, and by virtue of competition between decision units, to inhibitory effects also. 19 (Norris et al., 2000, p. 312)

The perceptual processing task (e.g., prelexical stage) and the phonemic

decision task are performed by different processes in the Merge Model (McQueen

et al., 2003) in order to prevent the perceptual feedback, also known as the lexical

biasing effect, that occurs in interactive models like TRACE (McClelland and

Elman, 1986). In addition, the phonemic decision units in Merge guarantee that

the information that was actually present in the input will not be ‘forever’

overwritten in the prelexical level by lexical effect; instead, the information

remains at the prelexical level and “act[s] as a kind of memory buffer for the

19 Two kinds of mechanisms are recognized in recognition processes: ‘facilitation’, when there is a match between information in the acoustic signal and the stored phonological knowledge; and ‘inhibition’, when there is a mismatch.

59

speech that has just been heard” (p. 267). To illustrate with the previous example

of the nonword phomeme, the prelexical level keeps track of the phonemic

information (e.g., including the medial /m/), while possible candidates are

activated in the lexical level (e.g., the word phoneme). Information from the

prelexical and lexical levels are ‘merged’ at the phonemic decision level, not at

the prelexical level as is the case with TRACE. That is, lexical information does

not affect the prelexical stage directly. Instead, activation of several word

candidates is initiated by partial information, and it is in the decision units where

lexical information works to facilitate the appropriate candidate and inhibit

inappropriate ones (for a complete description of the Merge Model see Norris et

al., 2000; McQueen et al., 2003).

Lexical effects are explained in the Merge Model without resorting to the

issue of feedback from the lexical stage to the prelexical stage. For example,

when the input contains real words, lexical involvement occurs because activation

at the lexical level increases the activation of the constituent phonemes of those

words at the decision stage. When the input contains nonwords (e.g., phomeme),

however, lexical effects may arise because words that sound similar (e.g.,

phoneme) to those nonwords are activated and again can bias the activation at the

decision units (McQueen et al., 2003).20 Furthermore, after reviewing several

studies, McQueen et al. conclude that lexical effects tend to be stronger when the

speech signal is degraded (e.g., if the word phoneme is pronounced as /?onim/

20 The study by McQueen et al., (2003) was designed with two sets of pairs of Dutch words and nonwords. In one set, the initial target consonant was a fricative varying in place of articulation from [f] to [s] like in flauw (dull) - slauw. In the second set, contained nonwords and Dutch words in which the target consonant, [f] or [s], was the final segment in the word as in jaf - jas (coat).

60

where /?/ is slightly closer to /v/ than /f/); otherwise, “listeners tend to rely on the

speech signal in phonetic categorization, rather than stored knowledge”

(McQueen et al., 2003, p. 262).

Furthermore, they recognize another type of feedback, referred to as

feedback for learning by McQueen et al. (2003), in which lexical knowledge may

influence perceptual categorization:

That is, lexical feedback need not have the immediate and specific effect on prelexical processing it does in TRACE, but might have the longer-term and more general effect of retuning prelexical processing. (p. 261)

According to Norris et al. (in press), it is feedback for learning that, over

time, enables adult listeners to adjust to the changes of the phonetic categories of

a language community. It is assumed that these adjustments involve reference to

lexical meaning, as the following example illustrates (Scott and Cutler, 1984,

cited in Norris et al., in press). In British English, an intervocalic /t/ is likely to be

released (so, in a word like total both instances of /t/ would be the same), while in

American English the intervocalic /t/ would be realized as a flap (so that the two

instances of /t/ are produced differently). Although British speakers would

normally have difficulties identifying the American intervocalic /t/, those native

speakers of British English who moved to the United States learn to treat it as

American listeners do:

...we assume that they have learned to do this by recognizing that their American interlocutors intended to utter words such as total, writer, cotton, or computing, rather than new, unknown words containing a new, unfamiliar phoneme. (Norris et al., in press, p. 2)

Although the Merge Model is based on L1 spoken word recognition, its

relevance to understanding L2 speech comprehension is by no means diminished.

61

As mentioned above, Weber and Cutler (2004) have provided evidence that

lexical competition occurs also in the non-native spoken-word recognition. The

competition is even greater for non-native than for native listeners because lexical

competition in non-native listeners includes the activation of word competitors

found in both languages. It was found, for example, that when an English noun

(e.g., kitten) is heard by Dutch participants, there is activation of Dutch words

(e.g., kist ‘chest’), whose onset overlaps phonemically with the onset of the

English word (i.e., initial segments /ki/) (see Weber and Cutler, 2004). These

studies of spoken-word recognition in a L2, however, have been focused on

understanding comprehension among advanced learners and they have not been

implemented beyond the word-level processing.

The section presented an overview of research on L2 phonology. Studies

that approach receptive processes at the level of phonemes (i.e., low level of

perception) and spoken-word recognition (i.e., high level linguistic context) were

reviewed. Models of spoken-word recognition, in particular, are useful in this

dissertation because they provide evidence of how the different levels of speech

processing affect listening comprehension. They make predictions as to how the

cognitive processes involved in the decoding of speech contribute to the

difficulties L2 learners face when they are listening to Spanish, including at lower

levels of processing. This framework, for instance, predicts that a breakdown in

communication can originate at prelexical levels (e.g., L1 transfer at the phonemic

level when a L2 listener interprets a Spanish /x/ for an orthographic <h> as in

English) or at higher stages of processing (e.g., difficulties understanding the

62

spoken message because of a failure to use segmentation clues derived from prior

syntactic and semantic knowledge, in the recognition of words in connected

speech). Furthermore, it also predicts a strong biasing lexical effect that, due to a

sub-optimal processing of the prelexical level and learners’ underdeveloped

vocabulary, may facilitate the activation of words that are not present in the

input.

2.4 RESEARCH ON L2 SPANISH PHONOLOGY

As seen earlier, L2 phonology has been explained by several models and

hypotheses that focus on speech production. Research on L2 Spanish

phonological acquisition reflects a similar bias toward speech production,

particularly in studies that address the acquisition of phonology by bilinguals and

children (e.g., the relationship between the two languages being acquired in the

acquisition of prosodic structures and contrast productions). There are, however,

a few noteworthy studies that focus on the effects of instruction in the L2

classroom as well on the perception and production of Spanish stop consonants by

English speaking learners.

Some studies on bilingualism assume that the two languages of the

bilingual child develop as two different systems (Kehoe et al., 2001; Kehoe,

2002; Lleó, 2002; Lleó and Kehoe, 2002) and explore the interaction of the two

language systems in the acquisition of prosodic structures. Kehoe (2002) and

Lleó (2002), for instance, suggest that the L1 and L2 systems interact along

markedness constraints. In a comparison of the vowel length contrast production

63

of monolingual children (three German speakers and two Spanish speakers) to the

production of three bilingual German-Spanish children, Kehoe’s (2002) results

show that bilingual children acquire the vowel length contrast in their German

productions later than monolingual German-speaking children, whereas their

production of Spanish vowels was similar to monolingual Spanish-speaking

children. Kehoe claims that these findings suggest that the two vowel systems of

bilinguals interact in a way consistent with the Markedness Differential

Hypothesis (Eckman, 1977) that predicts that unmarked forms are learned before

marked forms. The vowel inventory of German is larger than that of Spanish and

also displays opposition between long and short vowels. Thus, Kehoe’s study

indicates that the more marked system of German vowels is more difficult to

acquire than the unmarked system of Spanish vowels.

Although they also address the interaction of two language systems in

Quichua-Spanish bilinguals, Guion et al. (2000) interpret their findings in terms

of a single system hypothesis “which proposes that bilinguals have a single

phonological system in which the L1 and L2 phonetic systems reside” (p. 28).

Their study shows a differential effect of L1 use on L2 versus L1 production,

which suggests that the greater L1 (Quichua) use, the stronger the foreign accent

in the pronunciation of L2 (Spanish) sentences, whereas L1 use had no effect on

the perceived accent of L1 sentences. “Since L1 and L2 use are presumably

inversely correlated, we can infer that L2 use does not affect perceived accent in

L1” (p. 36). According to Guion et al. (2000), this finding suggests an asymmetry

in how the two sound systems of a bilingual may influence one another, although

64

they caution that, to validate this asymmetrical effect, their results must be

replicated.

Kohnert & Bates (2002) examine lexical comprehension and cognitive

processes in Spanish-English bilingual children who develop both languages

sequentially as opposed to bilinguals who develop both languages simultaneously.

Developmental changes in lexical comprehension skills were analyzed in single-

language (Spanish or English) and mixed-language (Spanish and English)

processing conditions. Participants were 100 early sequential bilinguals (20 at

each of five different age levels: 5-7, 8-10, 11-13, 14-16, and adults) who had

learned Spanish as a first language at home, with formal English beginning at 5

years. Kohnert and Bates state that, although it has been demonstrated that there

is transition from having dominance in the home language (L1) to a greater

strength in the community language (L2), it was not clear at what point the L2

becomes stronger since most of the studies have been done with adult subjects

(Altarriba, 1992; Bahrick et al., 1994; Heredia, 1995; Hernandez et al., 1996;

Hernandez and Kohnert, 1998; Kohnert et al., 1998) or with single participants

(Bolonyai, 1998). The results in this study suggest that, although younger

participants have a comparable performance in both languages, by middle

childhood English becomes the dominant language. Kohnert and Bates (2002)

compare these findings to data from earlier work that looked at lexical production

in similar populations (Kohnert et al., 1999) and found a difference in lexical

skills across modalities (e.g., lexical comprehension vs lexical production). In

other words, while there were processing decrements associated with language

65

switching during lexical production that vary as a function of age (e.g., cognitive

development), the same processing costs were not found for mixed-language

processing in the comprehension study. The authors conclude that the shift to L2

dominance in comprehension occurs earlier than in production.

There has been little research on Spanish L2 phonological acquisition in

the classroom and, as mentioned earlier, the focus has been on learners’

pronunciation. Wheat (2001), for example, studied whether formal phonological

instruction of the phonemes trill /r/, /r/, and /s/ can affect the pronunciation of

beginning Spanish L2 learners. Training in her study involved raising learners’

awareness following a contrastive approach (e.g., learners’ attention was drawn to

the differences among the phonetic forms of trill /r/, /r/, and /s/ in English and

Spanish). Although Wheat cautions against drawing any definite conclusion from

this study due to several methodological limitations (e.g., there were only two

groups of five adult learners), results show the pronunciation of learners in the

experimental group improved as a result of instruction, particularly in the

production of the phoneme /s/. She concludes that, since beginner L2 learners

cannot focus on both form and meaning simultaneously (VanPatten, 1989),

pronunciation of certain phonemes (trill /r/, /r/, and /s/) cannot be expected to

improve without explicit instruction.

Also focusing on Spanish L2 learners’ pronunciation, Reeder (1998) did a

cross-sectional study that sought to provide acoustical detail of the acquisition of

L2 Spanish phonology by adult English speaking learners at different levels of

proficiency. His research addressed the acquisition of the Spanish vowels /a/, /e/,

66

/i/, /o/, /u/ (in stressed and unstressed contexts), as well as the stop consonants /p/,

/t/, /k/, the trill /r/, and the sibilant /s/. The results show that L2 phonological

acquisition depends on the presence or absence of similar or equivalent sounds in

the L1, supporting the SLM (Flege 1987a, 1995), discussed above, and the

Developmental Model (DM) (Wode, 1995). Both models predict that learners

have more difficulty producing sounds that are similar but different in the L1 and

L2. For instance, the study shows that the sound /s/, which is equivalent in L1

(English) and L2 (Spanish), was produced accurately by learners at all levels. For

similar but different sounds (e.g., stop consonants /p/, /t/, /k/), however, L1

transfer was more evident in the earlier stages of acquisition, although

interference diminished as experience with the L2 increased. The trill /r/, an L2

sound not found in English, was the most difficult sound to acquire although

eventually learners showed a complete or near acquisition. The findings

regarding the acquisition of the Spanish vowel system also support the prediction

of the SLM and DM. Reeder argues that, since the stressed Spanish vowels have

English counterparts and the production of unstressed vowels is different in

English and Spanish, L1 transfer among beginners motivates accurate production

of stressed vowels and inaccurate production of unstressed vowels observed in the

data. Moreover, learners with more experience are able to create a new

perceptual category (according to the SLM’s predictions) or alter an existing

category (according to DM’s), which is what Reeder found among advanced

learners.

67

Zampini’s (1998) study is among the few that consider the relationship

between production and perception of L2 Spanish sounds by adult English

learners. This research compares learners’ production of the Spanish bilabial

stops /p/ and /b/ in a sentence context to the learners’ perceptual boundaries of

these consonants with regard to voice onset time (VOT). Zampini’s data do not

show a strong correlation between learners’ perceptual capabilities and

production. Moreover, although the correlation results for Spanish /p/ show that

accurate production precedes accurate perception, the correlations for Spanish /b/

were more varied. For example, the data do not support either prediction that

production precedes perception or that perception precedes production. Zampini

draws two possible conclusions: (1) the perception and production processes may

act independently during certain stages of acquisition; and (2) the acquisition of

production and perception processes depends on the different phonemes being

acquired.

2.5 SUMMARY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This chapter presented cognitive approaches to language learning in the

recognition of the language learner as an active participant in the learning process.

In the middle of the debate in the area of input processing and memory capacity

limitations (VanPatten, 1996; 2002a; Gass and Selinker, 2001; DeKeyser et al.,

2002), the role of attention in the integration of new knowledge to an existing

cognitive system was also explored.

68

In the section that focuses on L2 phonology, the lack of literature that

explores the processes involved in receptive processes (e.g., listening

comprehension) in the L2 classroom was addressed. First, an overview outlined

the current state of affairs in the L2 classroom and its focus on a Communicative

Approach to Teaching. Despite claims that this approach is the most practiced

language teaching method today, evidence was presented that the classroom

environment lacks opportunities to develop listening skills. This section also

explored L2 speech perception, including a discussion on the notion of phonemic

categorization as addressed in the Perceptual Assimilation Model and in the

Speech Learning Model. It also examined research that covers the area of

comprehension of spoken language at higher levels of linguistic context, in

particular the segmentation of speech signal and the role of morphological

structure, semantics, and feedback in spoken language comprehension.

A review of the research focused specifically on L2 Spanish phonology

showed a lack of studies that address the particulars of speech perception. Also,

the few studies concerned with L2 speech processing deal mainly with acquisition

by bilingual children, while there is little research on the L2 speech processing in

the L2 classroom. This dissertation, with its focus on the perception of sounds

and linking processes that are considered important in facilitating comprehension,

proposes to fill a gap in the study of L2 Spanish listening comprehension

research.

This dissertation addresses the following research questions:

69

1. What listening comprehension skills do learners in the fourth

semester of university Spanish instruction display at the perceptual level

(Anderson, 2000), particularly with regard to the recognition (phonemic

awareness) of the Spanish phonemes /d/ and /r/ in intervocalic position, and

/x/?

At the prelexical level, it is hypothesized that learners will tend to rely on

prelexical information based on their L1 phonemic system and map the L2 sounds

that are in the acoustic signal to graphemes found in their L1. Thus, for example,

when the input contains any of the three Spanish phonemes addressed in this

dissertation, learners’ mental representations will be as follows: the fricative

dental voiced sound [δ] will be mapped to English grapheme <th>; the

representation for the sound of a simple vibrant [r] in intervocalic position will be

mapped to American English flap corresponding to the graphemes <d> or <t>,

and the sound of a fricative velar [x] will be mapped to English grapheme <h>

(Barrutia and Schwegler, 1994).

2. After four semesters of university Spanish instruction, to what

extent is the learner able to segment streams of speech in order to

differentiate homophonous phrases (e.g., ha sido versus has ido) when

listening to speech spoken at a normal speech rate?

When listening to L2 at a normal speech rate, it is predicted that learners

will be unable to segment streams of speech into recognizable words or phrases

because they are unable to use the grammatical or semantic context in order to

70

differentiate between homophonous phrases (referred to as phonological 'chunks'

in this dissertation) in order to form meaningful associations.

3. What developmental and cognitive explanations can be offered for

the listening skills observed in fourth semester learners?

It is hypothesized that learners at this level are still operating under the

schema of their L1 phonological system. At the prelexical level, they are not

aware of some differences between L1 and L2 sounds. At the lexical and

postlexical levels, they are not aware that in order to determine word boundaries

in a language (L1 or L2), the continuous nature of the acoustic signal requires use

of explicit resources provided by the context (e.g., grammatical and semantic

cues).

Moreover, it is predicted that learners in the fourth semester of university

Spanish attempt to use prelexical and lexical information when processing

acoustic signals. Processing problems at the prelexical level, however, prevent

learners from utilizing information derived from higher stages of processing that

would help in word recognition and utterance interpretation.

4. Does explicit phonological instruction help learners improve their

phonemic awareness of the Spanish phonemes /r/, /d/, and /x/ and their

abilities to segment speech?

Although the sounds investigated in this dissertation either exist in the

phonetic inventory of English speakers, as is the case of the fricative dental

71

voiced [δ] and the simple vibrant [r], or have an articulation very similar in

English (as is the case of the fricative velar [x] found in Latin American

Spanish21), the sound-to-script mapping is different in Spanish and in English, as

mentioned previously. Cognitive models of learning predict that, because adult

L2 listeners rely on declarative mechanism for learning, they may respond to a

treatment that includes making them conscious of the differences and similarities

of the L1 and L2 systems and practice. The phonological instruction (described in

Chapter 3) followed in this study aims to make learners aware of the distinction

between L1 and L2 sounds in order to facilitate a phonological accommodation

process that incorporates knowledge of L2 sounds. Therefore, it is predicted that

a training consisting of (1) a comparison of the English and Spanish phonemic

representation of sounds studied in this dissertation (fricative dental voiced [δ],

simple vibrant [r], and fricative velar [x]) and their corresponding orthographic

representations, and (2) a dictation of words and sentences that reinforces the

sound-to-script relationships in Spanish, will improve learners’ phonemic

awareness of the Spanish phonemes /d/ and /r/ in intervocalic position, and /x/.

The treatment also is focused on making learners conscious of the

disambiguating role of context. To that end, it is predicted that phonological

lessons that focus on linking and phonological processes such as reduction22 in

21 See Barrutia and Schwegler, 1994. 22 In Spanish, when two identical sounds are together, native speakers tend to reduce them to one sound in speech. This phonological solution is common also across word boundaries as in the following examples: a ninguna atiende [a-nin-gu-na-tien-de], las sombras [la-som-bras], and mi hijo [mi-xo]. The linking of contiguous sounds also occurs with different vowels across word boundaries as in me alegro [mea-le-gro]. This phonological process is called sinalefa (see Quilis and Fernández, 1996; Barrutia and Schwegler, 1994).

72

Spanish will help learners to use grammatical and semantic context to distinguish

homophonous phrases.

5. Does explicit instruction of the L2 phonological system facilitate

listening comprehension?

It is predicted that phonemic awareness of the sounds studied in this

dissertation will make the prelexical processes more efficient and facilitate the

overall listening comprehension process by minimizing the breaks in

communication that originate in low levels of processing.

Furthermore, it is predicted that learners’ knowledge of the

disambiguating role of grammatical and semantic context will facilitate learners’

listening comprehension and, by encouraging learners to attend to context, will

promote higher levels of processing.

73

CHAPTER 3

Research Design

To answer the research questions of this investigation, three sets of data

were gathered, which are labeled Study A, Study B, and Study C. The data were

collected from groups of learners taking a fourth-semester university Spanish

language course at the University of Texas at Austin. The central goal of this

work is to examine the extent to which learners of Spanish can identify and

translate Spanish phonemes and segment streams of speech into recognizable

words or phrases. The data in Study A were important to address the question

regarding learners’ phonemic awareness. The number of words in the tests

containing the target phoneme and the level of difficulties of the words, however,

were not controlled, as seen in the section ‘Test’ later in this chapter. In Study B,

an effort was made to have a similar number of tokens per phoneme and to use

words that were similar in length, so the level of difficulty of the target words was

comparable in the different tests. Also, because the lessons for Study A relied on

a contrast approach to compare the target phonemes in English and Spanish,

Study B was designed to help learners ground the Spanish sounds in a meaningful

manner by using visual input (pictures). The data in Study B were also the

primary basis for addressing the question regarding learners’ abilities to segment

streams of speech. The listening tasks in Study B, however, exceeded the

listening proficiency of the learners participating in this study because the

74

majority of them were unable to extract the targeted phrases out of the input

stream. Therefore, in Study C, the tests materials were designed as a cloze test in

order to narrow the demands on the parsing tasks.

Although the author of this dissertation gave the phonological

explanations to the experimental groups during the training sessions, the

instructors of the classes that participated in these studies were in charge of the

dictations involved in the treatments and in the tests.

3.2 STUDY A

3.2.1 Participants in Study A

Two groups of learners participated in Study A, an experimental group

and a control group. Learners in the experimental group were taught by the

researcher of this study, a native Spanish speaker from Mexico. The experimental

group included only 29 learners who were present in class during the five days

(days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8) in which a new phonological lesson was taught and during

at least 14 of the 17 days on which the study was conducted. The control group

was taught by a male native Spanish speaker from Mexico and included 15

learners.

Since Study A was intended as a pilot study, no background questionnaire

was collected from any participant in the experimental or control groups.

3.2.2 Procedures: Phonological lessons in Study A

Study A took place over 17 days of classes during a three-month period.

Fourth-semester Spanish classes at the University of Texas at Austin meet every

75

other day three times per week for 50 minutes. For the most part, the study took

place every class meeting for about 10 to 15 minutes in duration, except for those

days assigned for tests, compositions, and a week-long vacation. The complete

research procedure for Study A appears in Appendix A.

In the first six days of Study A, instruction and practice focused on the

allophonic variations of the Spanish target phonemes. The content of the lessons

where a new phoneme was presented was distributed as follows:

Day 1. Phonemes /t, d/, intervocalic /d/ and intervocalic / r/

Day 3. Orthographic representation of <b,v> for Spanish /b/

Day 5. Differences between orthographic <h, j>

On each of these days, before the phonological lesson, learners were given

part 1 of the pre-test, consisting of a dictation of words containing the target

phonemes.

As seen in Chapter 1, one of the assumptions of this dissertation is that

directing learners’ attention to L1 and L2 linguistic form facilitates acquisition.

Therefore, on the day a new phoneme was presented, the phonological lessons

consisted of four parts: contrast of target sounds in Spanish and English,

reinforcing contrast, dictation of words, and feedback. For instance, the first

lesson, which included instruction on phonemes /t, d/, intervocalic sounds /d/ and

/ r/, was structured as follows:

(1) Contrast of sounds: the researcher asked learners to notice the

pronunciation of the intervocalic Spanish flap /r/ which sounds more like the

double t in English words like “butter”, and “better”, or like the double d in words

76

like “ladder”. Also, learners were asked, “Where do you place your tongue when

you say the Spanish word todo?” When they answered that they place their

tongue on the alveolar ridge, they were told this position is used to produce the

Spanish flap /r/ and the native Spanish speaker probably would misunderstand

their pronunciation of todo ‘everything’ as toro ‘bull’. They also learned that the

Spanish intervocalic /d/ (and the /t/) of the word todo has a sound and a position

closer to the English voiced /th/ in words like ‘there’.

(2) Reinforcing contrast: learners were told that if they heard something

that they thought was a double t or a double d, they should think of a single <r> in

Spanish. If they heard something they thought was a th, they should think of a

<d> in Spanish. The researcher showed learners minimal pairs to reinforce this

information (caro ‘expensive’ vs carro ‘car’; pera ‘pear’ vs perra ‘female dog’

mira ‘look!’ vs mirra ‘myrrh’)

(3) Dictation of words: During the first six days of Study A, learners heard

several listening exercises of words that focused on the perception of the target

phonemes. For instance, on day 1, the dictation of the words darte, tito, tardes,

torta, dito, todas, hada, cada, seda, cara, pared, raro, pera, ira, aro23 focused on

practicing the perception of phonemes /t, d/, /d/ and / r/ in intervocalic position.

(4) Feedback: learners wrote on the board the words and/or sentences of

the dictation and the researcher pronounced each of the words as they were

written on the board and also as they were supposed to be written. For example,

if a learner wrote on the board addo (sic) instead of the word aro ‘loop’, the

23 Translation of words: ‘to give you’, ‘Tito’, ‘evenings’, ‘cake’, ‘ditto’, ‘everyone’, ‘fairy’, ‘each’, ‘silk’, ‘face’, ‘wall’, ‘strange’, ‘pear’, ‘irate’, ‘loop’.

77

researcher then pronounced first what the student had written addo followed by

the word aro for the learners to hear the difference.

The lessons that focused on segmentation consisted of two parts

(instruction on word-syllabification and linking in Spanish) that were distributed

as follows:

Day 7. Word-syllabification in Spanish

Day 8. Linking at the sentence level in Spanish. Part 2 of the pretest,

consisting of a dictation of sentences, was given to learners before the

phonological lesson of linking.

Instruction on word-syllabification in Spanish included an explanation of

the tendency of Spanish syllables to end in a vowel (CV)24 as in the following

words: ju-ra-do ‘jury’; do-te ‘dowry’, ju-go ‘juice’, o-va-ción ‘ovation’. The

researcher also mentioned that in the case of two consonants together in Spanish,

the consonants are usually divided among two different syllables (C-C) as in the

word bur-lar-se ‘to make fun of’, except when the second consonant is an [r]

(e.g., tres ‘three’ and creo ‘I believe’). In the case of three consonants together,

the segments are divided as (CC-C) like in the cluster <ns-t> of the word ins-tan-

te ‘instant’.25 Participants then learned that this tendency of the language is

carried across word boundaries (sinalefa) in Spanish.26 For example, the sentence

24 C = consonant; V = vowel. 25 The process of syllabification and linking in Spanish involves other rules and exceptions. The information provided to learners at this level, however, was sufficient considering the purpose of this study (to make learners aware of linking processes across word-boundaries in Spanish). 26 Recall from Chapter 2, that sinalefa refers to the linking of contiguous vowels across word boundaries as in me alegro [mea-le-gro] (see Quilis and Fernández, 1996; Barrutia and Schwegler, 1994).

78

va a llover otra vez ‘it is going to rain again’ would be linked by a Spanish

speaker as <va-llo-ve-ro-tra-vez>.

The next 5 days of instruction consisted of dictations that allowed learners

to practice the discrimination of the target phonemes and linking in speech. Some

learners were asked to write the words and sentences on the blackboard, and the

instructor gave immediate feedback to the group by pronouncing what the

learners had written and comparing it to the target phonemes and phrases. By

making learners aware of the differences between the sounds and phrases

represented by what they had written on the board and the Spanish target

segments, the phonological accommodation process mentioned earlier was

presumably facilitated (González-Bueno, 1997). In the last 4 days of Study A,

learners practiced with exercises designed as multiple choice tests. They heard

short passages with vocabulary presumed to be familiar to learners, except for one

word, which contained the target phonemes. The purpose of these exercises was

threefold: (1) to provide learners with more practice listening to words containing

the target phonemes; (2) to emphasize the importance of context in order to

encourage learners to avoid getting ‘stuck’ with unfamiliar words or sounds; (3)

to practice ‘remedial’ strategies when faced with unfamiliar vocabulary such as

‘What does apenados mean?’ in the example that follows. For instance, the

instructor read the passage Mis padres estaban apenados porque no pudieron ir a

la fiesta de graduación de su sobrino. Ahora no saben qué hacer. ‘My parents

were sorry because they could not go to their nephew’s graduation party. Now

they don’t know what to do’. After reading the passage twice, the instructor

79

asked learners a question like ¿Cómo estaban mis padres? ‘How were my

parents?’. Learners chose the appropriate answer from a list of choices. In the

previous example, the choices were the following:

a. hapenathos b. hapenadhos c. apenados d. apenathos

Three and a half weeks after the last phonological lesson, participants

were given a delayed posttest that included a dictation of words and sentences,

and a multiple choice exercise. The purpose of the test was to evaluate the

learners’ ability to discriminate allophonic variation at the word and the utterance

level. It is important to notice here that all the tests included words that were

assumed to be unknown to the learners in order to avoid recognition of a familiar

word that could influence the results. Some of the words contained one or more

of the target phonemes (intervocalic /d/, intervocalic /r/, and /x/).

3.2.3 Test prompts at the word level for Study A

Study A was intended as a pilot study and there was no control of the

number of words in the tests containing the target phoneme. Consequently, as

Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show, the study has very few tokens for phonemes /d/ and /x/

at the word level. Another issue to keep in mind when evaluating the results is

the level of difficulty in the pretest and the delayed posttest, which is measured by

the number of tokens in each test and the length of the words in which the tokens

occurred. A comparison of the target words in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 shows that the

words in the delayed posttest were more difficult. For instance, although the

80

pretest contained six tokens of the intervocalic vibrant /r/ and the delayed posttest

contained only five, the words used in the pretest were all bisyllabic, while all five

words in the delayed posttest had three or more syllables. For the intervocalic /d/,

the two words in the pretest were also bisyllabic, while the words in the delayed

posttest contained at least three syllables. The delayed posttest was relatively less

difficult only for the /x/ phoneme, since it contained only one word, as compared

to two in the pretest.27

Target phoneme

Total tokens

/VrV/ cara pera ira aro pared raro 6 /VdV/ hada seda 2 /x/ ají ajeno 2 all phonemes 10

Table 3.1. Words used in the Study A pretest.

Target phoneme

Total tokens

/VrV/ pícaro avería voracidad tarado embustero 5 /VdV/ oleada voracidad tarado donador 4 /x/ atajar 1 all phonemes 10

Table 3.2. Words used in the Study A delayed posttest.

27 These flaws in Study A were corrected in Study B.

81

3.2.4 Test prompts at the sentence level for Study A28

This section begins by presenting the sentences used in the pretest and in

the delayed posttest at the sentence level of Study A. Since this study was

intended as a pilot study, there is only one sentence (sentence 1) in the pretest,

although all the targeted phonemes are included in that sentence. The underlined

words contain the targeted phonemes (e.g., 'jornalero' contains /x/ and

intervocalic /r/).

(1) El jornalero ruidoso está adolorido hoy. ‘The noisy day laborer is in pain today’

Sentences (2) throughout (4) are those used in the posttest:

(2) Es importante convidar con el agasajado. ‘It is important to treat the lionized person’

(3) La charada que oímos fue muy divertida.

‘The charada that we heard was very funny’

(4) La voracidad de los niños es increíble. ‘Children’s voracity is incredible’

Tables 3.3 and 3.4 show the total number of tokens possible per target

phoneme in the pretest and the delayed posttest, respectively.

28 Although it may be objectionable that the sentences are presented without context that could help learners understand the meaning of the utterances they hear, this situation in fact replicates the conditions of the oral portion of tests, where learners are often expected to answer questions for which no context has been provided.

82

Target phoneme

Total tokens

/VrV/ jornalero adolorido 2/VdV/ ruidoso adolorido 3/x/ jornalero 1all phonemes 6

Table 3.3. Words used in the Study A pretest at the sentence level.

Table 3.4. Words used in the Study A delayed posttest at the sentence level.

3.3 STUDY B

3.3.1 Participants in Study B

The data for Study B were collected from four groups of learners, divided

among three experimental groups and one control group. Experimental Group 1

(EXP-1) included 17 learners taught by the researcher of this study. Experimental

Groups 2 (EXP-2) and 3 (EXP-3) were taught by a male instructor and included

11 learners and 9 learners in each group, respectively. The control group (CON)

was taught by another male instructor and had 14 learners. All three instructors

were native Spanish speakers from Mexico.

Although Study B was supposed to take place over 18 days, however,

problems coordinating the study groups and the lesson plans of one of the

Target phoneme

Total tokens

/VrV/ charada voracidad 2 /VdV/ convidar agasajado charada divertida voracidad 5 /x/ agasajado 1 all phonemes 8

83

instructors forced the researcher to shorten the study to 10 days (as compared to

17 days in Study A). Therefore, due to the brevity of Study B instruction time,

learners who missed more than one day of instruction were excluded. Originally,

data from learners who reported a Spanish-speaking background or a significant

exposure to Spanish among friends or relatives before age 12 were to be

eliminated.29 T-tests on the overall results of the groups including and excluding

learners who reported a Spanish-speaking background or significant exposure to

Spanish before age 12 were performed, however, and the results were not

significantly different. Therefore, all of these learners, regardless of background,

were included.

The 51 native English speakers in Study B include 24 female and 27 male

learners. At the time of data collection, the age of the participants ranged from 18

to 24 years, with a mean of 20.16 years. Participants reported starting their study

of Spanish between the ages of 6 and 19, with a mean of 13.45 years, and reported

they speak or hear Spanish outside the classroom from 0 to 5 hours per day.30

Participants also reported to have studied Spanish in high school from 0 to 5 years

(mean: 2.54 years), and from 1 to 5 semesters of college Spanish (mean: 3.4

semesters), including the semester in which the data were collected. None of the

51 learners reported having studied in a Spanish speaking country; although one

student reported visiting Spain with her Spanish class for 2 weeks.

29 Number of learners with Spanish-speaking background and/or significant exposure to Spanish before age 12: EXP-1 = 3 learners; EXP-2 = 3 learners; EXP-3 = 0; CON = 3 learners. 30 The mean of this information is not available because many learners did not quantify the amount of Spanish per day they spoke or heard; instead they just qualified their amount of Spanish spoken or heard as “a little”, “once a day”, “once a week”, “at work”, “with my roommate”, “with other learners taking Spanish”.

84

In Table 3.5 detailed information about the participants’ characteristics in

each group is provided.

EXP-1 EXP-231

EXP-3 CON

Number of Female learners 8 8 6 4 Number of Male learners 9 5 3 10 Mean age (years) 20.2 20.1 20.2 20.1 Maximum age 24 22 22 22 Minimum age 18 18 19 19 Mean age begin Spanish 14.2 11.7 13.7 13.8 Latest age begin Spanish 19 18 15 16 Earliest age begin Spanish 11 6 7 10 Mean HS Spanish (years) 2.7 2.1 2.6 2.7 Most HS Spanish (years) 5 3 3 4 Least HS Spanish (years) 1 0 1 1 Mean college Spanish (semester) 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.1 Most college Spanish (semester) 4 4 4 5 Least college Spanish (semester)32 1 1 3 1

Table 3.5 Participants characteristics by group in Study B.

3.3.2 Procedures: Phonological lessons in Study B

As explained earlier, Study B took place over only 10 days of classes. The

information was not always presented to the groups on the same days or in the

same order. Learners in EXP-1 started and completed the study one week ahead

of the other groups.

There is another difference in Study B from Study A regarding the

methodology used. EXP-1 and 2 had the same instructional format (phonological

31 A participant from EXP-2 did not turn in a background questionnaire. Therefore, the overall information on this group is averaged based on 10 learners, instead of 11. 32 Recall that the participants in the three studies were in their fourth semester of studying Spanish at the university level. Because some learners were able to test out of the first semesters, however, some learners had taken only one semester of Spanish at the university level prior to the study, while others have taken all three of the previous Spanish courses.

85

lessons, dictations, and feedback) used in the Study A. Learners in EXP-3,

however, had only dictations (the same dictations received by EXP-1 and 2)

without phonological instruction. Also, the feedback provided to participants in

EXP-3 after each dictation was different. Instead of the immediate feedback

described previously (see section ‘Procedures: Phonological Lessons in Study

A’), the researcher collected the learners’ bluebooks and corrected the dictations

at home. The next day of instruction, learners received their bluebooks and were

given a few minutes to review the corrections individually, before they had the

next dictation. Learners in EXP-3, then, did not receive any oral explanation or

phonological information regarding the corrections on their bluebooks.33

The goals of the phonological instruction in Study B were almost the same

as in Study A: to make learners aware of the phonological realizations of the

Spanish phonemes /t, d/, /r/; to compare orthographic <h, j>, and to make learners

aware of the orthographic representations <b,v> for Spanish phoneme /b/. In

Study B the contrast between phoneme /g/ and phoneme /x/ and their orthographic

realizations were added. The lessons for EXP-1 and 2 were distributed as follows:

Day 1. Phonemes /t, d/, intervocalic /d/, / r/, and /rr/

Day 2.34 Word-syllabification and linking at the sentence level in Spanish

Day 6.35 Orthographic representation of <b,v> for Spanish /b/

Day 7.36 Differences between orthographic <h, j> 33 On day 2 of the training, one learner in EXP-3 asked the researcher about a sound she could not identify after the dictation of words as dado, dato, ida, adorar, pudo, caridad. In order to preserve the design of the study, by not providing explicit feedback to learners in EXP-3, the researcher asked the learner to think of the sound in the phrase: ‘dame tu lapiz’. 34 Information and dictation presented on Day 3 for EXP-2 and 3. 35 Day 7 for EXP-2 and 3. 36 Day 8 for EXP-2 and 3.

86

Day 9.37 Phonemes /g, x/

Note that in Study B, information on word-syllabification and linking was

presented on day 2, and the dictation of sentences, not just words, began. In

Study A, this information was not presented until day 7. Linking is a crucial

element in listening comprehension and the intention was to give learners in

Study B practice in attending to linking at an earlier stage than in the previous

study.38

The pretest in Study B was given the day before the phonological lessons

started; the posttest was given the day after the training ended; and the delayed

posttest was administered one month after the posttest.

3.3.3 Procedures: Structure of the phonological lessons in Study B

This section provides detailed information of how the lessons were

structured on the day a new phoneme was presented or when syllabification and

linking were introduced to learners (see Appendix B for the complete research

procedure for Study B).

Day 1. The lesson in which learners were introduced to the phonemes /t/,

intervocalic /d/, /r/ and /r/ was structured as follows:

(1) Visual: the researcher showed learners two pictures: a picture of a dog

dressed in feminine clothes (perra ‘female dog’) and a picture of a watch (reloj).

37 Day 10 for EXP-2 and 3. 38 In Day 3 in Study B, participants were supposed to learn that, because of linking, the chunk formed by the auxiliary and the past participle in has ido ‘you have been’ and ha sido ‘he has been’ sound the same phonologically. The contrast between va a hacer ‘he is going to do’ and va a ser ‘he is going to be’ was also targeted on Day 3. This lesson was removed due to the brevity of Study B instruction time, but it was included in Study C.

87

(2) Listening: the researcher asked the following question: ¿En qué foto

tengo una pera? ‘In which picture do I have a pear?’ Some learners incorrectly

pointed to the picture of the dog while some did not answer.

(3) Reinforcing listening: while pointing to the picture of the dog, the

researcher asked: ¿Es una pera o una perra? ‘Is this a pear or a female dog?’

emphasizing the pronunciation of the Spanish flap /r/ represented by <r> and the

Spanish trill /r/ represented as <rr> in intervocalic position.

The next four parts of the lessons are similar to those described in the

section ‘Procedures: Phonological Lessons in Study A’.

(4) Contrast of sounds.

(5) Reinforcing contrast.

(6) Dictation of words.

(7) Feedback.

The format of the lessons on phonemic awareness in Study B consisted of

seven parts: visual, listening, reinforced listening, contrast of sounds, reinforced

contrast, dictation of words and/or sentences, and feedback. The lessons in Study

B were similar to those in Study A in that there was a comparison and contrast of

the sounds of English and Spanish (following the Contrastive Analysis theory)

that make learners aware of “how letters sound in Spanish” (cited from one

learner who participated Study B). In order to help learners ground the Spanish

sounds in a meaningful manner and to emphasize that these different sounds

convey different meanings, however, familiar words containing the target sounds

88

were presented to learners (e.g., words ‘pera’ vs ‘perra’) together with visual

input (pictures).

Day 2. Word-syllabification and linking in Spanish (sinalefa). On this

day, the researcher included sentences (5) and (6) after the dictation of words.

(5) Los carros son elegantes ‘the cars are elegant’.

(6) Su cara es bonita ‘her/his face is pretty’

As before, some learners were asked to write the words and sentences of

the dictation on the board. The researcher then provided feedback, and explained

the word-syllabification and linking processes in Spanish described in the section

‘Procedures: Phonological Lessons in Study A’. Participants learned that a

sentence like (5) would be linked by a Spanish speaker as in (7), and (6) as in (8):

(7) los-ca-rro-so-ne-le-gan-tes39

(8) su-ca-raes-bo-ni-ta

Learners were encouraged to start paying attention to the context as a

strategy in making sense of what they heard. They were told, for example, if they

thought they heard something like “nelegantes” as in (7), they should start re-

playing that chunk in their minds and try to see if they could come up with a

meaningful word.

Day 6. On this day, the researcher showed learners two boards of different

colors as visual input in the introduction of the orthographic representation of

<b,v> for Spanish /b/. One board was purple and the other was yellow. The oral

input was the question ¿Cuál es el color violeta? ‘Which one is the purple 39 In all the explanations to participants in this study, letters were used to represent the Spanish phonemes because the purpose of this study was not to teach learners phonology, but some aspects of Spanish phonology that would help improve their listening skills.

89

color?’. Learners were reminded40 that the graphemes <b,v> in Spanish have the

same bilabial sound /b/. The rest of the lesson proceeded as mentioned before

(contrast, reinforcement, etc.)

Day 7. In order to introduce the difference in orthographic <h, j>, the

researcher presented learners with a picture of a man with the word HUGO as a

caption and a picture of a bottle of juice. Then, learners were asked ¿En qué foto

tengo jugo? ‘In which picture do I have juice?’, to which many learners pointed

incorrectly to the picture of the man. The researcher then asked ¿Y Hugo? ‘And

Hugo?’ in order to emphasize the difference between the Spanish words jugo

‘juice’, pronounced like [xugo], and the name Hugo pronounced like [ugo]

because the <h> in Spanish is silent. With this exercise, learners were reminded

that the grapheme <h> in Spanish has no sound. Moreover, they were taught a

strategy. They were told that if they heard something they thought was an <h> as

in English, it would probably be a <j> in Spanish as in jugo ‘juice’.41 The

dictation session also included the word Holanda ‘Holland’. Many learners did

not recognize the word, so the researcher first wrote the word olanda, without the

<h>, on the board, and asked learners again if they knew what the word was.

Many still did not recognize the word. The researcher then added an <h> at the

beginning of the word and most of the learners recognized the word immediately.

Learners were given another strategy: they were told that in some cases, if they

40 Learners are supposed to have heard this in the first semester of Spanish, although it is the experience of this researcher that learners do not know or have forgotten this rule. An explanation may be that many of the learners at UT Austin test out of the first semesters, so indeed they may have never heard of this rule. 41 The relationship of the sound /x/ to the grapheme <g> in Spanish words like gente ‘people’ was reviewed on Day 9 of instruction.

90

had a word they thought they did not recognize, they may come up with a familiar

word by adding a <h> at the beginning.

Day 9. In order to present the phonemes /g, x/, learners saw a picture of a

drop of water (una gota) and a picture of the letter <j>. Then, the researcher

asked ¿En qué foto tengo una gota? ‘In which picture do I have a drop?’,

followed by the question ¿Y una jota? ‘And a J?’. Then, the sounds of the letter

<g> in combinations with the vowels (ga, ge, gi, go, gu, gue, gui) were reviewed.

The rest of the lesson continued with the dictation and feedback as explained

earlier.

3.3.4 Test prompts for Study B

First, the sentences used in the pretest, posttest and the delayed posttest of

Study B are presented. There were a total of six sentences in each test used to

measure learners’ phonemic awareness. The underlined words contain the

targeted phonemes (e.g., justicia ‘justice’ includes the target phoneme /x/). The

sentences in the pretest were as similar as possible in terms of the position of the

phoneme in the word and the length of utterances to their corresponding sentences

in the posttest and delayed posttest. Here, the sentences are presented in six

groups, from (9) to (14), in order to make it easier to see which sentences are

compared in the different tests. A label in parentheses identifies in which test the

sentence appears.

9) a. La justicia de los hombres es horrible. (PRE) ‘Man’s justice is horrible’

91

b. El jaguar es un animal terrible. (POST) ‘Jaguars are terrible animals’ c. ¿Puedes justificar esa correspondencia? (DELAYED) ‘Can you justify that correspondence?’ 10) a. En cada calle hay mucho ajetreo. (PRE)

‘In each street there is a lot of fuss’ b. En la moda hay blusas ajustadas. (POST) ‘There are tight blouses in fashion’ c. No sé quién pudo tomar ese atajo. (DELAYED) ‘I don’t know who was able to take that short cut’ (11) a. La veracidad de programas en Austin es habitual. (PRE) ‘The veracity of programs in Austin is habitual’ b. La virilidad del hombre es hormonal. (POST) ‘The virility of men is hormonal’ c. La vulgaridad del hombre está en el horóscopo. (DELAYED) ‘The vulgarity of men is in the horoscope’ (12) a. Julieta está enamorada de Romeo. (PRE) ‘Juliet is in love with Romeo’ b. Juan siempre ha vivido en Rusia. (POST) ‘Juan has always lived in Russia’ c. Julián nunca ha vivido en Roma. (DELAYED) ‘Julian has never lived in Roma’ (13) a. El aroma es del galón de vino blanco. (PRE) ‘The aroma is from to the gallon of white wine’ b. El moralista es el galán vago y bueno. (POST) ‘The moralist is the good and loafing ladies’ man’ c. El pirata está en el galeón, el barco viejo. (DELAYED) ‘The pirate is in the galleon, the old boat’ (14) a. ¿Crees que María ha sido una estudiante con mareos? (PRE) ‘Do you think Maria has been a student with dizziness?’ b. ¿Crees que Carlos ha sido un buen marinero? (POST) ‘Do you think Carlos has been a good sailor?’ c. ¿Crees que ya has ido a ver la marina? (DELAYED) ‘Do you think you have already gone to see the seashore?’

92

Tables 3.6 throughout 3.8 are presented next and show the total number of

tokens possible per target phoneme in each test.

Target phoneme

Total possible

/VrV/ veracidad mareos aroma 3/VdV/ cada42 veracidad 2/x/ justicia ajetreo Julieta 3all phonemes 8

Table 3.6. Words used in the Study B pretest at the sentence level.

Target phoneme

Total possible

/VrV/ virilidad43 marinero moralista 3/VdV/ moda44 virilidad45 ajustadas 2/x/ jaguar ajustadas Juan 3all phonemes 8

Table 3.7. Words used in the Study B posttest at the sentence level.

Target phoneme

Total possible

/VrV/ vulgaridad marina pirata 3/VdV/ pudo vulgaridad 2/x/ justificar atajo Julián 3all phonemes 8

Table 3.8. Words used in the Study B delayed posttest at the sentence level. 42 Although the word cada in the pretest may be a word that learners have seen and heard frequently in the classroom, the results showed that 14 % of learners missed the phoneme VdV in the word cada compared to only 8% of learners who missed the phoneme VdVin the more difficult word veracidad, in the same test. Therefore, the word cada is included in the results. 43 All learners in all groups missed the word virilidad in the posttest; therefore, this word is not included in the results for phoneme /r/ and phoneme /d/ in the posttest. 44 Although the results show learners are familiar with the word moda (only 6% missed the phoneme /d/ in this word), the word is included in the results; otherwise there would be only one token testing the phoneme /d/ in the posttest. 45 The word virilidad was not counted in the results for phoneme /d/, either.

93

Sentence (14), repeated next, and sentence (15) were used to measure

learners’ segmenting skills. The underlined phrase is the target segment.

(14) a. ¿Crees que María ha sido una estudiante con mareos? (PRE) ‘Do you think Maria has been a student with dizziness?’ b. ¿Crees que Carlos ha sido un buen marinero? (POST) ‘Do you think Carlos has been a good sailor?’ c. ¿Crees que ya has ido a ver la marina? (DELAYED) ‘Do you think you have already gone to see the seashore?’ (15) a. Ven y dime si crees que va a llover otra vez. (PRE) ‘Come and tell me if you think it’s going to rain again’ b. Ven y dime si crees que Juan va a hacer la tarea. (POST) ‘Come and tell me if you think Juan is going to do the homework’ c. Ven y dime si crees que Pedro va a ser un doctor. (DELAYED) ‘Come and tell me if you think Pedro is going to be a good doctor’

3.4 STUDY C

3.4.1 Participants in Study C

The data for Study C were collected from two groups of learners also

taking a fourth-semester Spanish class. One of the groups was labeled the

Experimental Group (EXP) and the other, the Control Group (CON). The

instructor for both groups was a non-native Spanish speaker from Ghana who

studied in Spain and in the United States. EXP included 8 learners who

participated on at least 13 of the 15 days that formed the duration of Study C, and

who took all of the tests (pre-, post-, and delayed tests). CON included 13

learners. Study C also included learners with and without a Spanish-speaking

background.

The 21 native English speakers in Study C represented 13 female and 8

male university learners. At the time the data were collected, the age of the

94

participants ranged from 17 to 25 years (mean 20.09 years.) Participants reported

starting their study of Spanish from the ages of 12 to 18, with a mean of 14.19

years, and declared they speak or hear Spanish outside the classroom from 0 to 30

minutes per day. Learners also reported to have studied Spanish in high school

from 0 to four years (mean: 2.74 years) and from 2 to 4 semesters of college

Spanish (mean: 3.66 semesters), including the semester of data collection. None

of the 21 learners participating in Study C reported having studied in a Spanish

speaking country.

Table 3.9 provides detailed information about the participants’

characteristics in each group included in Study C.

EXP CON Number of Female learners 6 7 Number of Male learners 2 6 Mean age (years) 19.25 20.6 Maximum age 21 25 Minimum age 17 19 Mean age begin Spanish 14 14.3 Latest age begin Spanish 16 18 Earliest age begin Spanish 12 12 Mean HS Spanish (years) 2.7 2.8 Most HS Spanish (years) 4 4 Least HS Spanish (years) 1.5 0 Mean college Spanish (semester) 3.6 3.7 Most college Spanish (semester) 4 4 Least college Spanish (semester) 2 2

Table 3.9. Participants’caracteristics by group in Study C.

95

3.4.2 Procedures: Phonological lessons in Study C

Study C included 15 days of training but targeted fewer phonemes. The

lessons were distributed as follows:

Day 1. Phonemes /t, d/, intervocalic /d/, / r/, and /rr/

Day 9. Word-syllabification in Spanish

Day 10. Linking at the sentence level in Spanish

For Study C, the lessons on phonemic awareness were structured in the

same way as in the phonological lessons for Study B (seven parts including

visual, listening, reinforcing listening, contrasting of sounds, reinforcing contrast,

dictation of words and/or sentences, and feedback). The lessons on syllabification

and linking were also structured in the same way as in Study B. The main

difference is that the lesson on syllabification and linking was presented on

different days.

The lessons on phonemic awareness emphasized the contrasts between the

phonemes /t/, /d/, intervocalic /d/, and the two vibrant phonemes /r/ and /rr/.

Since the results obtained after Study A and Study B showed learners in the

fourth-semester of Spanish still have difficulties parsing sentences at a normal

speech rate, let alone identifying any targeted phoneme, the tests in Study C were

changed. In the previous two studies learners had to listen to and write entire

sentences read by their instructor. In Study C, learners were given cloze tests (see

Appendix D) and, although the instructor read the whole sentence, learners

needed to write only the missing words that contained the target phonemes.46

46 During the instruction phase, however, learners practiced with both type of exercises; thus, some days learners in Study C had to write the entire sentences, and other days the exercises were

96

This procedure, and the words chosen for the tests in Study C, however, seemed

too simple for these learners. The results obtained in the pretest showed almost

identical results as those of the posttest and the delayed test. Therefore, the data

that targeted the phonemes studied in this dissertation were not considered in the

results.

Learners in Study C were given more practice in syllabification at the

word level before being introduced to the lesson on linking across word-

boundaries. Also, the contrast in two instances was particularly emphasized: (1)

has ido versus has sido versus ha sido, and (2) va a ser vs va a hacer. In general,

the lessons attempted to make learners aware that the targeted phrases are

phonologically the same, so the importance of paying attention to the context as a

strategy to aid their listening comprehension was emphasized. For example,

instruction included sentences (16) thru (18):

(16) ¿Has ido a Europa? ‘Have you gone to Europe’

(17) ¿Tú has sido un buen estudiante? ‘Have you been a good student?

(18) Pedro ha sido un buen estudiante. ‘Pedro has been a good student’

Participants learned that the chunk formed by the auxiliary and the past

participle in these three sentences sound the same phonologically. The context,

then, helps the listener, even a native Spanish speaker, understand the meaning of

the sentences since, for example, it would not make sense in Spanish to interpret

sentence (16) as *¿Ha sido a Europa? ‘Has he/she been to Europe’ although in

English this sentence is grammatical.

designed as cloze tests. Therefore, learners had to write only the minimal pairs. See Appendix C, Research Procedure for Study C.

97

As mentioned earlier, Study C also explored linking across word-

boundaries in sentences like (19) and (20):

(19) Va a ser un buen estudiante. ‘He/she is going to be a good student’.

(20) Va a hacer calor hoy. ‘It is going to be hot today’.

Sentence (19) in Spanish would not be understandable if it were

interpreted as Va (a)47 hacer un buen estudiante ‘he/she is going to make a good

student’. Although it would be acceptable in colloquial English, the verb ‘hacer’

in this sentence in Spanish must have a transitive meaning.

As in the two previous studies, learners in the experimental group also

received immediate feedback after each dictation of words and sentences. One

important difference in Study C is that the dictation of phrases contained many

minimal pairs. The purpose here was to reinforce the idea of using context as a

disambiguating strategy for parsing and listening comprehension.

3.4.3 Test prompts for Study C

The sentences used in Study C are shown in (21) through (23). The

underlined phrases are the target segments. Notice that, although Study B and

Study C tested acquisition of the ability to parse chunks, all the phrases used in

Study C were designed as homophonous (i.e., phrases that are phonetically equal

but semantically different) to determine whether learners could differentiate

phrases based on their prior knowledge of Spanish grammar and semantic context.

47 In this research, we noticed many learners are still missing the ‘a’ in the construction ‘ir + a + infinitive. For instance, instead of writing va a llover hoy ‘it’s going to rain today’, learners would write va llover hoy without the preposition a.

98

In Study B some of the phrases were homophonous, while others were not.

Therefore, in Study C, more than in Study B, context played a major role in

helping learners differentiate the phrases despite the linking phenomenon of

reduction.

(21) a. Carla ha sido una buena estudiante y tú has ido con ella al parque. (PRE) ‘Carla has been a good student and you have gone with her to the park’ b. Creo que Miguel va a hacer la tarea y va a ser un buen doctor. (PRE) ‘I think Miguel is going to do the homework and he is going to be a good doctor. (22) a. Mario ha sido su mejor amigo pero tú has ido con él a comer. (POST) ‘Mario has been his best friend, but you have gone with him to eat’ b. Tomás va a hacer ejercicios porque va a ser un atleta. (POST) ‘Thomas is going to exercise because he is going to be an athlete’ (23) a. Pedro ha sido un buen profesor y tú has ido a estudiar con él. (DELAYED) ‘Pedro has been a good professor, and you have gone to study with him’ b. El señor va a ser un turista porque va a hacer un viaje. (DELAYED) ‘The man is going to be a tourist because he is going to take a trip’

Another difference between the studies is that, while learners in Study B

were expected to write the whole sentence they heard, in Study C the test

materials were designed as cloze tests (i.e., the sentences were printed and had a

99

blank to be filled with the missing phrase by learners). For example, learners

heard the whole sentence Carla ha sido una buena estudiante y tú has ido con ella

al parque, whereas they saw on the test sheet ‘Carla ___________ una buena

estudiante y tú ____________ con ella al parque’ and had only to write the

missing phrases in the blanks.

3.5 DATA COLLECTION

3.5.1 Materials

Several types of materials were used to collect data for this project. The

first one was the form in which learners gave their consent to participate in these

studies. Also, a background questionnaire with 16 items was used to gather

information regarding learners’ demographic characteristics like age and sex, as

well as their background concerning any prior experience with Spanish (see

Appendix E). Data were obtained regarding the learners’ native language and

language spoken at home, the age at which they began their study or exposure to

Spanish, any Spanish-speaking background, an estimation of the amount of time

that they speak or hear Spanish per day and in which situations, and the amount of

exposure to Spanish in an academic setting, whether in high school or college.

Another tool for data gathering used in these studies were the dictations

learners took during the training period. Only learners in the experimental groups

used this material, since learners in the control groups did not participate in any

kind of dictation except for that included in the tests (pre-, post-, delayed tests).

After each dictation, as explained earlier, some learners went to the board to write

100

what they had heard in the dictations; then the instructor gave learners some

feedback. The researcher asked learners to correct the dictations without erasing

what they had originally written. The purpose of this practice was to analyze the

learners’ progress as the training went on.

Another device used to collect data were the actual tests (pre-, post-,

delayed tests). The format of the tests changed progressively from Study A to

Study C, in order to improve the measurement of the learners’ progress with the

instruction. For Study A, the format of the tests included only dictations of words

and sentences, but learners were not required to do any translation of the

dictations. In Study B, learners had to hear and write whole sentences with words

that contained a targeted phoneme. Moreover, in order to check whether learners

had written a target word based on their improved phonemic awareness and not

based on context or recognition of a familiar word, they were asked to translate

the entire sentence. After the translation, learners were asked whether they knew

the target word before taking the test or not. If they answered ‘yes’ to this

question, they were asked to write the meaning. But if the word was unfamiliar to

them, they were asked to guess the meaning and report on how they had guessed.

As reported earlier, the tests in Study B proved to be extremely difficult

for learners at this level, and many did not have time to translate the sentences. In

addition, after careful analysis of the data, it was concluded that although words

had been chosen according to their phonemic inventory, the words in the different

tests did not have the same degree of difficulty. For example, the following

words targeted phonemes /r/ and /d/ in intervocalic position: veracidad ‘veracity’

101

(PRE), virilidad ‘virility’ (POST), and vulgaridad ‘vulgarity’ (DELAYED).48 All

of these words have cognates in English, and it was assumed that after

recognizing the target phonemes, learners would have been able to identify the

word regardless of the difference in the pronunciation of the grapheme <v> (i.e.,

this grapheme corresponds to a labial phoneme /b/ in Spanish and a labiodental /v/

in English). The word virilidad in the posttest, however, seems to have been

impossible for learners to parse in Study B since none of the learners in any of the

groups was able to parse it correctly. One possible explanation for this result is

that the word contains two liquids in a similar environment of low perceptibility

(i.e., followed and preceded by the vowel /i/).49

Therefore, the difficulty of the tests was decreased in Study C. As

reported earlier, learners in Study C heard dictations of entire sentences, but they

had to fill in the blank with only the missing word(s), which contained the target

phoneme or target chunk (e.g., in the case of sentences testing the distinction

between chunks as in va a ser vs va a hacer). Learners in Study C, as those in

Study B, were asked whether they were familiar or not with the target word, and

whether they could guess the meaning of the word. They also had to translate the

entire sentence. Recall that Appendix D contains the cloze tests for Study C.

An additional tool for gathering data was another questionnaire learners

answered after completing the pretest (see Appendix F). This questionnaire was

used to gather information regarding the strategies learners used when dealing

with listening exercises and their knowledge (or assumptions) concerning the

48 The tests in which the words occurred are in parentheses. 49 The vowels /i/ and /u/ are the least perceptible in Spanish (Navarro Tomás, 1991).

102

sounds of Spanish and English. The questionnaire also asked participants to rate

their feelings about the listening exercises.

The last tool used for the collection of data in this project was a follow-up

questionnaire to the instruction period (same as given in Appendix F). This

questionnaire was given only to learners in the experimental groups (after the

posttest), since they were the only ones who received phonological instruction.

The questionnaire also included the same questions regarding learners’ feelings in

dealing with listening exercises, their strategies, and their knowledge concerning

the sounds of Spanish and English, to see whether the instruction had affected

their original answers.

3.6 CATEGORIZATION PROCEDURES

3.6.1 Spelling considerations

As mentioned earlier, this study includes words and cognates that were

assumed to be unknown to learners because what is been measured are learners’

developmental stages of awareness of the Spanish phonemes, and not whether

they "understand" the word because they have heard it before.

The spelling considerations adopted in this analysis varied according to

whether the target word was a cognate or not. For example, if a learner wrote a

non-cognate word like hada 'fairy' without the orthographic <h> as in ada, the

word was counted as correct. Also, a word that did not have an <h> but that was

spelled with an <h> (e.g., haro instead of aro 'loop') was also counted as correct.

In addition, the orthographic distinctions between <ce, ci> and <se, si> and

103

<ze,zi> were not considered because this researcher's dialect does not make these

phonemic distinctions;50 e.g., a word like cerdo 'pig' was still counted as correct

whether the learner spelled it with <s> or with <c>. The orthographic distinction

between <b> and <v> was not considered either since Spanish does not make a

contrast between the /b/ and /v/ phonemes. For example, a word like vaca 'cow'

spelled with a <b> was counted as correct. The considerations just mentioned

were adopted because spelling (or misspelling) of these particular letters does not

affect the theoretical assertions of the present study.

Unfamiliar cognates, however, measured phonemic awareness as well as

learners’ abilities to use lexical information beyond the phonemic level (i.e.,

lexical effect) to identify a word despite the differences in pronunciation of the L1

and L2 phonemes. Therefore, the correct spelling was considered in the analysis

of cognates because it would indicate whether learners know the English cognate

and can recognize it. For instance, for a cognate like vulgaridad ‘vulgarity’,

listeners have to use information from the rest of the word (e.g., -ulgaridad) and

possibly from the utterance in order to identify the word despite hearing it

pronounced as [bulgaridad] because in Spanish <b> and <v> are mapped to the

/b/ sound. A correct spelling, then, would also show learners are aware of the

mapping of the graphemes <b> and <v> to the phoneme /b/.

50 The instructors who participated in the studies did not make this distinction, either.

104

3.6.2 Procedures in analysis of segments

In order to do the analysis of words at the sentence level, the sentences

were first divided into breath groups (‘grupo fónico’ in Spanish).51 Although

instructors of the classes were not told where to pause when reading the

sentences, they were asked to use a normal native speaker speech rate in the

dictation of words and sentences and not to insert unnatural pauses between, for

example, the verb and the adjective in the phrase está adolorido ‘s/he is in pain’.

The division of sentences in breath groups for the analysis, however, followed the

intuitions of the researcher of this dissertation, who is a native Spanish speaker.

A closer analysis of the written data from learners suggests that when instructors

read the sentences, they inserted pauses within the expected breath groups.

Therefore, the protocol for the analysis was as follows: if the target word was

phonologically embedded into a breath group because of linking, then the whole

breath group was analyzed (e.g., the word adolorido 'in pain' was analyzed as part

of the phonic group está adolorido hoy 'he is in pain today'). If it was possible to

isolate the target word, however, then the word was analyzed by itself (e.g., in the

group el jornalero 'the laborer', only the word jornalero was analyzed). The

breath group or word was further divided into syllabi to form a template with

which to compare learners' written output. For example, following the tendency

in Spanish to link and even reduce two contiguous vowels across word boundaries

51 According to Barrutia and Schwegler (1994), “Un grupo fónico es una secuencia de palabras que puede articularse cómodamente sin interrupción ninguna. La articulación de grupos fónicos suele ocurrir dentro de una misma aspiración de aire” (p. 89). ‘A breath group is a sequence of words that can be comfortably articulated without any interruption. The articulation of breath groups tends to occur within a single breath of air.’

105

(Quilis and Fernandez, 1996; Barrutia and Schwegler, 1994), the breath group

está adolorido hoy was used to form a template [es-ta-do-lo-ri-doy] that is

divided into six syllables and has one intervocalic /d/ in the third position, an

intervocalic /r/ in the fifth position, and another intervocalic /d/ in the sixth

position. The learners' responses were then compared to this template. Only six

learners out of the total of 29 who participated in Study A were able to produce

the whole word adolorido although, as it was hypothesized, no one was able to

extract it as an isolated word from the breath group.

In the dictations, a response with a <d> in the third and sixth positions,

and a <r> in the fifth position were counted as correct since the purpose of this

study is to verify if learners perceive the target phonemes in the appropriate

position. For example, a learner's "estado ruido hoy" was divided into syllables

as [es-ta-do-0-rui-doi], so the two tokens for /d/ and for /r/ were counted as

correct. On the other hand, another learner's "esta el dorido hoy" was parsed as

[es-ta-el-do-ri-doi] with one <d> in the fourth position, instead of the third. In

this case, the token for /d/ in the syllable 'do' in the fourth position was counted as

incorrect, while the token for /r/ in syllable 'ri', and /d/ in syllable 'doi' were

counted as correct.

3.6.3 Procedures in analysis of chunks

In Studies B and C, the sentences that contained the target chunks were

divided into individual words and compared to learners’ dictations to see whether

learners were able to identify all the individual words in the target phrases. For

example, the chunk ha sido ‘she has been’ was the target element in the sentence

106

Crees que María ha sido una estudiante con mareos ‘Do you believe that Maria

has been a student with dizziness?’. Recall that instructors read the sentence

without any pause between the words María and the auxiliary ha ‘has’ and the

participle sido ‘been’. Therefore, if learners wrote in their dictations the two parts

of the perfect tense ‘ha sido’ as individual words, the token was considered as

correct. Any other form (hacido, asido, etc.), or omissions of the auxiliary or the

past participle of the target phrase were considered incorrect.

3.6.4 Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was obtained after submitting learners' individual

scores52 from the tests to several non-parametric tests at 95% level of confidence.

The Mann-Whitney Test and the Wilcoxon Test were used to measure difference

of means in Study A and Study C, which included two groups, an experimental

and a control. Because Study B has more than two groups, the Kruskal-Wallis

Test and the Friedman Test were used instead.53 Typically, parametric tests such

as the T-Test and ANOVA are used to analyze population differences because

they are more powerful than the corresponding non-parametric tests in their

ability to demonstrate truly significant effects. “These tests make use of all the

information in the data, whereas the equivalent non-parametric tests simply take

account of the rank order of the scores” (Miller, 1991, p. 65). The data collected

for this dissertation, however, did not meet the restrictive assumptions of the

52 The actual scores obtained by learners in the three studies are presented in Appendices G through K. 53 The statistical analysis of the data was done with SPSS for Windows software (v12.0.1, SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).

107

parametric tests; in particular, that of homogeneity of variance. Furthermore,

although the T-Test is highly robust to violations of the basic assumptions, one

exception to this rule is when marked differences in variance occur together with

unequal sample sizes (Miller, 1991). Thus, considering that the sample sizes of

the groups in all the studies are different, a preliminary Lavene Test was

performed in the pretest data of all studies in order to test for the equality of

variances between groups. The results of the Lavene Test show that the

assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated in Study A for the phoneme

/d/ at the word level (p = 0.000), all phonemes together at the sentence level (p =

0.016), and the /x/ phoneme at the sentence level (p = 0.000). Violations of the

assumption occurred in Study B for the phoneme /d/ (p = 0.017) and the data on

linking (p = 0.000). In Study C, the difference of variances approaches

significance (p = 0.089). In order to avoid misleading results that can occur when

groups that are different in size show marked differences in variance, it was

decided to use the more conservative measures of non-parametric tests for further

statistical analysis.

The data were analyzed in two directions in order to measure the

difference of means within subjects (e.g., the change of means observed in each

group between pretest and posttest, and between posttest and delayed test) and the

difference of means between subjects (e.g., the difference of means between each

of the groups in each test). The results also show the mean and variance per

group.54 54 The variance shows how spread out the distribution of learners’ mean scores was in each group. The smaller the value, the less distributed the scores are; the greater the value, the more distributed the scores are. In other words, a variance of 0 would indicate that all learners have the same score,

108

Therefore, the Mann-Whitney Test was used in Study A and Study C to

measure the difference of means between subjects, and the Wilcoxon Test was

done to compare the difference of means within subjects. The Kruskal-Wallis

Test was used to measure the between subjects comparison in Study B, while the

Friedman Test was performed to measure the difference of means within subjects.

The rationale behind the non-parametric tests is simple. They combine

the samples of scores from different groups into one larger group and rank the

scores from lowest to highest. If the samples had been drawn from the same

population, the scores from both original samples are expected to be randomly

arranged in the combined ranking. If, however, most of the scores from one

sample were higher in rank than most of the scores from the other sample, it could

be concluded that the two samples were not drawn from the same population.

The non-parametric tests find the sum of the ranks of one of the samples and

determine whether a given difference between the ranks of the two groups could

have arisen by chance. If the probability is very low (i.e., < 0.05), the null

hypothesis that the ordering of ranks is random can be rejected in favor of the

alternative hypothesis that the independent variable (e.g., instruction) produced

the difference in the levels of performance of the groups.

To illustrate how non-parametric tests are performed, Table 3.10 presents

the general procedure followed when using the Wilcoxon Test. 55 This example

shows a within-subjects comparison for CON in Study A because it compares the which means there was not variance in the scores. On the other hand, a value of 1 would indicate that, in a range of scores between 1 and 10, for example, some learners obtained a score of 1, some obtained a score of 2, and so on up to a score of 10. 55 The procedures was adapted from Miller (1991) using the scores learners in CON in Study A obtained for the /r/ phoneme at the word level.

109

scores learners in CON obtained in the pretest and the delayed posttest. Table

3.10 shows the scores obtained in the pretest (X1) and the delayed posttest (X2).

Student pre X1

d-post X2

Differences (X1 - X2)

Ranked differences

Con 1 0.83 1.00 0.17 4 Con 2 0.66 0.80 0.14 2 Con 3 0.83 1.00 0.17 4 Con 4 0.66 1.00 0.34 8.5 Con 5 0.50 1.00 0.5 12 Con 6 0.33 0.80 0.47 11 Con 7 0.33 1.00 0.67 13 Con 8 0.66 1.00 0.34 8.5 Con 9 0.66 1.00 0.34 8.5 Con 10 0.83 0.80 - 0.03 1 Con 11 0.83 1.00 0.17 4 Con 12 1.00 1.00 0 omitted Con 13 1.00 1.00 0 omitted Con 14 0.66 1.00 0.34 8.5 Con 15 1.00 0.80 - 0.20 6

Table 3.10. Control group. Ranking of individual scores for phoneme /VrV/ at the word level.

From the data in Table 3.10, the difference, d, between each pair of scores

is calculated (X1 - X2). The differences are then ranked in order from the smallest

rank (rank 1) to the largest rank. Miller (1991) explains the procedure to resolve

ties as follows:

Ties. There are two sorts of ties that can occur in this test: (1) the two scores in a pair may be tied, in which case d = 0, and (2) two (or more) ds may be tied. If a pair of scores is tied, the pair is dropped from the analysis, and the value of N is reduced accordingly. If two or more ds are tied, each one is given the average of the ranks that would otherwise have been used. (p. 104)

110

Although when ranking the differences their sign is ignored, in the next

step the sum of the ranks corresponding to the differences with the less frequent

sign is calculated. This value is called T. In the example presented here, the minus

sign is the less frequent sign. Therefore, the ranks for learner 10, rank 1, and

learner 15, rank 6, are added, so the sum of the ranks is T = 7. This value of T is

then compared to the critical value of T needed for significance at the desired

level. In this example, the critical value of T needed for .05 level of significance

is 17.56 As the value of T = 7 is less that 17, it is concluded that there is a

significant difference between the scores learners in CON obtained in the pretest

and the delayed posttest.

Next, Table 3.11 shows an example of the output from the test performed

using SPSS comparing the ranked scores learners showed in Table 10 (i.e., the

scores CON obtained in the pretest and the delayed posttest). Chapter 4 discusses

the significant results. 56 The critical value of T in this example was obtained from the Wilcoxon test table in Miller, 1991, p. 176.

111

Ranks

N Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

r_post - r_pre Negative Ranks Positive Ranks Ties Total

2a 11b 2c 15

3.50 7.64

7.00 84.00

a. r_post < r_pre b. r_post > r_pre c. r_post = r_pre Test Statisticsb

r_post - r_pre

z p

-2.702a 0.007*

a. Based on negative ranks. b. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Table 3.11. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects obtained by CON for the phoneme /r/ at the word level.

3.7 SUMMARY

This chapter presented a description of the research design in this

dissertation. The procedures to collect and measure the data in Study A, Study B,

and Study C was reviewed. The rationale for having three different studies was

discussed. A description of the learners participating in these studies and how

they were selected has been provided. A detailed description of the phonological

instruction for the experimental and control groups in each study was presented.

Then, the spelling considerations and the procedures used for the analysis of

phonemes and chunks (i.e., homophonous phrases like ha sido ‘s/he has been’ vs

112

has ido ‘you have gone’) were discussed. Finally, the chapter discussed the

rationale for choosing non-parametric tests for the statistical analysis; namely, the

Mann-Whitney, the Wilcoxon, the Kruskal-Wallis, and the Friedman tests from

the SPSS software. In the next chapter, the results of the data analysis are

presented.

113

CHAPTER 4

Analysis of Results

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the results and a preliminary discussion of the data

collected following the various methodologies described in Chapter 3. The

discussion shown in this chapter focuses on the phonemic awareness fourth-

semester learners of Spanish have of three individual phonemic segments (/r/, /d/,

and /x/) and on their abilities to chunk streams of speech into meaningful phrases

(e.g., 'ha sido' versus ‘has ido’). Implications of findings with respect to current

cognitive theories of SLA appear in Chapter 5.

The two main sections that comprise this chapter are: (1) Analysis of

Segments, which include results gathered from groups participating in Studies A

and B; and (2) Analysis of Chunks, which presents data obtained from groups

participating in Studies B and C. The results in Study A are further subdivided

into segments at word level, and segments at sentence level. The results in the

Analysis of Segments are presented as follows. Each study first presents the

words that contain the target phonemes and a tally of all possible tokens in each

test (e.g., pretest, posttest, delayed posttest). Next, the sub-sections that contain

the statistical results per phoneme are examined, starting with the results for the

intervocalic /r/ segment, followed by the data for intervocalic /d/ segment, and for

114

phoneme /x/. At the end of Study A, a comparison of the results obtained at the

word and sentence levels is shown. A comparison of the results obtained in Study

A and Study B is presented at the end of the Analysis of Segments.

The data obtained in the analysis of chunks include the sentences

containing the target chunks and a tally of all possible tokens in each test (i.e.,

pretest, posttest, delayed posttest). These data are followed by the statistical

results. Finally, a comparison of the results obtained in Study B and Study C on

the parsing of chunks is found.

4.2 SECTION 1: ANALYSIS OF SEGMENTS

4.2.1 Study A: Analysis of segments at word level

Table 4.1 presents words used in the pretest and Table 4.2 shows those

used in the delayed posttest. The underlined phoneme is the targeted segment.

Recall that Study A was intended as a pilot study and there was no control of the

number of words in the tests containing the target phoneme. As seen in Tables

4.1. and 4.2, the study has very few tokens for phonemes /d/ and /x/. Also, recall

that the words in the delayed posttest were more difficult.57 Thus, an

improvement in the mean values in the delayed posttest, despite an increase in

difficulty would suggest a higher proficiency recognizing the target phonemes.

57 These flaws of Study A were corrected in the design of the tests in Study B.

115

Target phoneme

Total tokens

/VrV/ cara pera ira aro pared raro 6 /VdV/ hada seda 2 /x/ ají ajeno 2 all phonemes 10

Table 4.1. Words used in the Study A pretest.

Target phoneme

Total tokens

/VrV/ pícaro avería voracidad tarado embustero 5 /VdV/ oleada voracidad tarado donador 4 /x/ atajar 1 all phonemes 10

Table 4.2. Words used in the Study A delayed posttest.

In the sections that follow, the data obtained for the individual phonemes

in Study A are discussed. Appendix I shows the scores at the word level.

4.2.1.1 Intervocalic simple vibrant /r/

The results obtained for the /r/ phoneme appear in Tables 4.3 throughout

4.5. N pre d-post EXP 29 mean 0.57 0.82variance 0.070 0.052CON 15 mean 0.72 0.95variance 0.047 0.008

Table 4.3. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /VrV/ at the word level in Study A.

116

/r/ pretest d-posttest

z -1.852 -2.146

p 0.064 0.032*

Table 4.4. Mann-Whitney test. Statistical results between subjects for /r/.

The difference of means between subjects in Tables 4.3 and 4.4 shows

that, in the pretest, CON’s mean is almost significantly higher than EXP’s (µcon =

0.72; µexp = 0.57; p = 0.064) in the Mann-Whitney U test. These results suggest

that learners in CON had a more consistent association of the Spanish intervocalic

/r/ phoneme with the grapheme <r> at the onset of Study A, which indicates

individual differences of the learners in the groups are a factor.58 CON’s higher

proficiency over EXP in the pretest is further demonstrated by the fact that 20%

(3/15) of learners in CON were able to identify all six tokens of the /r/, compared

to only 7% (2/29) in EXP. An analysis of the learners’ responses according to the

grapheme they used to represent the flap /r/ shows that, although both groups

show L1 transfer effects in the pretest as hypothesized, this problem was a more

widespread occurrence among learners in EXP. For instance, 55% (16/29) of

learners in EXP used a <d> in the word ira ‘ire’ (and wrote ida) and 28% (8/29)

in the word raro ‘rare’ compared to 27% (4/15) in CON who used an intervocalic

/d/ in each word. L1 transfer was also observed in the words pera ‘pear’, aro

58 The term individual differences used here encompasses what Gass and Selinker (2001) describe as non-language influences (e.g., factors such as age, aptitude, motivation, attitude, and socio-psychological influences) as well as language factors due to different personal experiences, linguistic knowledge and background. Gass and Selinker (2001) consider the term individual differences misleading because non-language influences are factors that may correlate with social differences, although their influence in language learning is observed only in the progress of individuals. For the sake of simplicity, the term individual differences is used in this study.

117

‘loop’, and even the word cara ‘face’. These findings support the claim that L1

interference affects listening comprehension at lower levels of processing,

although it is not the only factor. The dictations show there is a high degree of

variability in the orthographic representations learners assign to the flap /r/

segment, which again indicates individual differences at play. For instance, some

learners in EXP also mistook the intervocalic /r/ for <rd> in the words aro, pared

‘wall’, pera, and cara, while no learners in CON used this alternative spelling.

An <rr> was also used in words like pera, cara, aro, and pared. The frequent use

of a <d>, <rd>, <rr> and other less frequent spellings (<rt>, <l>; and <t>)

suggests learners have difficulties associating the flap to the <r> grapheme

consistently. This pattern indicates a stage of variability in the interlanguage of

most learners at the onset of Study A.

In the delayed posttest, the proficiency of both groups improved, as

suggested by the data in Table 4.3. An analysis of accuracy supports these

results: in the pretest, only 7% (2/29) of learners in EXP obtained a perfect score,

compared to 42% (12/29) in the delayed posttest. Learners in CON also improved

from 20% (3/15) who identified all 6 tokens in the pretest to 73% (11/15) in the

delayed posttest.

Despite the significant improvement observed in both groups, however,

Table 4.4 shows that the difference of means between subjects in the delayed

posttest reached statistical significance (p = 0.032), which indicates learners in

CON retained their superiority in their phonemic awareness of the /r/ phoneme.

The analysis of the grapheme selection in the delayed posttest shows that learners

118

in EXP continued experiencing more L1 transfer difficulties than those in CON.

For example, with the word embustero ‘liar’, 38% (11/29) in EXP used an

intervocalic /d/ and wrote embustedo compared to only 7% (1/15) in CON who

did so. In fact, that word was the only one for which a learner in CON used an

intervocalic /d/ for a /r/, while learners in EXP illustrated evidence of L1 transfer

at the phoneme level in pícaro ‘mischievous’, avería ‘failure’, and tarado

‘defective’. L1 transfer, however, was less prevalent in the delayed posttest than

in the pretest, even for learners in EXP. This finding is supported by the results

within subjects seen in Table 4.5, which shows the improvement for both groups

was statistically significant (pexp = 0.000, and pcon = 0.007).

EXP CON

z -3.602 -2.702

p 0.000* 0.007*

Table 4.5. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for /r/.

The significant improvement experienced by EXP and CON makes it

difficult to conclude that the treatment made the difference for EXP in the

development of phonemic awareness of the /r/ phoneme. Another possible

explanation for the improvement experienced by both groups could be that, by the

time learners took the delayed posttest, they had had more experience listening to

their instructor. The improvement seen in the delayed posttest may be due to a

delayed proceduralization achieved after the review of the preterite, future, and

119

conditional morphemes over the course of the fourth semester.59 Whether the

improvement is the result of declarative or procedural mechanisms, the data

suggest that practice is a factor in helping learners retune the processing of L2

phonemic categories, at least with respect to phoneme /r/ at the word level. The

delay in the development of phonemic awareness observed among learners in

EXP may be due to individual differences; after all, it was seen earlier that more

learners in CON showed a higher proficiency and consistent identification of the

/r/ phoneme from the beginning of Study A and maintained a superior

identification of the intervocalic /r/ in the delayed posttest.

When evaluating these results it should be recalled that the delayed

posttest was more difficult than the pretest. Thus, a higher mean in the delayed

posttest, despite the increase in difficulty, suggests learners' phonemic awareness

of /r/ improved by the time they took the delayed posttest. Whether EXP’s

improvement with the /r/ segment was acquired through the declarative (explicit)

mechanisms as a result of the treatment or through procedural ones is an issue that

is addressed after the results at the sentence level are evaluated

4.2.1.2 Intervocalic voiced dental fricative /d/

The results for intervocalic /d/ at the word level appear in Tables 4.6 to

4.8.

59 More discussion regarding the effect of input on the results will be presented in the Summary of Analysis of Segments.

120

pre d-post EXP mean 0.84 0.99variance 0.073 0.002CON mean 1.00 0.97variance 0.000 0.017

Table 4.6. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /VdV/ at the word level in Study A.

/d/ pretest d-posttest

z -2.218 -0.514

p 0.027* 0.607

Table 4.7. Mann-Whitney test. Statistical results between subjects for /d/.

Table 4.6 shows that both groups have a high proficiency in recognizing

the /d/ segment in the pretest (µexp = 0.84; µcon = 1.00),60 although CON’s mean

value was significantly higher (p = 0.027) than EXP’s, as seen in Table 4.7. The

dictations support this finding. CON’s phonemic awareness of the intervocalic /d/

phoneme is 100% accurate in the target words hada ‘fairy’ and seda ‘silk’.

Moreover, contrary to what was hypothesized, neither CON nor EXP shows any

L1 transfer difficulties. Only one learner in EXP used a <th> instead of the /d/

segment in the word hada and other spellings used do not suggest any real trend

among learners since only one learner used <ld>, another used <g>, another used

<l>, and still another, <ll>. These results in the pretest suggest that, in the fourth

semester of Spanish, learners’ phonological interlanguage system already

60 The mean values EXP and CON obtained for phoneme /d/ in the pretest were the highest of all three target phonemes at the word level.

121

incorporates the fricative allophone of the L2 phoneme /d/. Furthermore, the

phonemic awareness of the [δ] allophone seems to have been facilitated by the

procedural learning system as learners appeared not to be conscious of the

differences between the /d/ phoneme in English and Spanish,61 despite evidence in

their dictations of a high proficiency in identifying it. The question that arises

here is whether learners need to be aware of the differences between the L1 and

L2 sounds in order to develop a phonemic awareness of the fricative allophone of

the Spanish /d/ phoneme. After all, although all learners in CON were able to

achieve 100% accuracy in the pretest, some learners in EXP still had difficulties

identifying the Spanish /d/ segment. These findings suggest that individual

differences also interfere with the learning of this phoneme. Thus, for those

learners who have not developed the phonemic awareness of the fricative

allophone of the /d/ phoneme, a treatment that taps into declarative processes of

learning may be needed.

The results in the delayed posttest, seen in Tables 4.6 and 4.7, show that

EXP’s recognition of the /d/ phoneme improved and the dictations show almost

100% accuracy.62 In Table 4.8, the data show that only EXP’s improvement was

statistically significant (µpre = 0.84 and µdel = 0.99; pexp = 0.007). These results

suggest a possible effect of treatment, and the data in the dictations support this

claim. In the pretest, 72% (21/29) in EXP recognized both tokens of /d/, while in

61 In the follow-up questionnaire after the treatment ended, learners in EXP indicated that the phonological lessons had helped them to learn to distinguish the differences between the English and Spanish sounds. 62 In fact, all learners in EXP identified the /d/ segment in the target words. One learner, however, totally changed the target word voracidad for velocidad, which reduced the accuracy to 99%.

122

the delayed posttest, all but one of the 97% (28/29) of learners recognized the four

tokens in the test.63

EXP CON

z -2.682 -1.000

p 0.007* 0.317

Table 4.8. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for /d/.

Moreover, although in the pretest CON’s phonemic awareness of /d/ was

significantly higher than EXP’s, in the delayed posttest there was no longer a

significant difference (p = 0.607) between the means of the two groups as seen in

Table 4.7. These data suggest a similar proficiency for EXP and CON in the

delayed posttest and support the claim of a main effect of the treatment. Keep in

mind, however, that CON’s values show a similar proficiency in both tests (µpre =

1.00 and µdel = 0.97); thus, even if CON had obtained the same value in the

delayed posttest, the difference of means within subjects would have been zero

(e.g., µpre - µdelpost: 1 - 1 = 0). Yet, although the similar proficiency achieved by

EXP and CON in the delayed posttest could compromise a claim of a main effect

of treatment, a possible explanation for EXP’s late development recognizing the

intervocalic /d/ segment could be the result of delayed procedural mechanisms

due to the learners’ individual differences.

In conclusion, although the /d/ segment seems to be acquired mainly by

procedural mechanisms, some learners still have difficulties identifying this

63 This learner was the one who changed the word voracidad for velocidad.

123

phoneme in the fourth semester of instruction. For these learners, learning may

be more dependent on declarative mechanisms that include awareness of the

differences of the L1 and L2 systems and explicit feedback even though the

knowledge to be learned involved a rule (i.e., regular past participle formation).

The results for learners in EXP suggest that the treatment helped them achieve a

phonemic awareness of intervocalic /d/ segment to the level observed in CON.

4.2.1.3 Voiceless velar fricative /x/

Data showing the results of the identification of the /x/ phoneme appear in

Tables 4.9 throughout 4.11.


Table 4.9. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /x/ at the word level in Study A.

/x/ pretest d-posttest

z -0.458 -2.274

p 0.647 0.023*

Table 4.10. Mann-Whitney test. Statistical results between subjects for /x/.

Tables 4.9 and 4.10 show that, in the pretest, both EXP and CON have a

similar level of recognition of the phoneme /x/ at the onset of Study A, as

124

indicated by the similar mean values obtained by both groups in the pretest (µexp =

0.69; and µcon = 0.67) and the lack of significance (p = 0.647) between subjects.

An analysis of the grapheme selection shows that learners in the fourth level of

Spanish still have problems associating the Spanish /x/ phoneme consistently with

the grapheme <j> or <g> in the case of words like gente 'people’. Learners

mapped the Spanish /x/ phoneme to the grapheme <h> frequently, an association

attributable to L1 interference and more prevalent in the experimental group due

to possible different linguistic knowledge and background. For instance, 28%

(8/29) in EXP wrote the word ajeno ‘foreign’ with an <h>, while no one in CON

did so. An <h> was also used by 28% (8/29) in EXP and 33% (5/15) in CON for

the word ají ‘chili’ and wrote ahi or ahe. These data suggest that, as learning

becomes more dependent on the declarative memory system, the influence of the

L1 increases.

The results also indicate individual differences affect the development of

the /x/ segment. Although the performance of most learners in the pretest varies

between accurate script-to-sound correspondence and the occasional L1

interference, 21% (6/29) of learners in EXP showed a strong L1 interference since

they wrote both ají and ajeno in the pretest with the grapheme <h>. None of the

learners in CON used the grapheme <h> for both words.

In the delayed posttest, the data in Table 4.11 show that only EXP’s

difference of means (µpre = 0.69; and µdel = 0.97) yields a statistically main effect (p

= 0.004).

125

EXP CON

z -2.889 -0.368

p 0.004* 0.713

Table 4.11. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for /x/.

The dictations in the delayed posttest support the conclusion of a main

effect of treatment since only 3% (1/29) in EXP wrote the word atajar with <h>,

while 27% (4/15) in CON did so. Also, Table 4.10 shows the EXP’s

improvement over CON’s results reached significance (p = 0.023).

CON’s slight improvement suggests exposure to the speech of one's

instructor in the course of a semester may help some learners improve their

phonemic awareness of Spanish /x/. The lack of significance observed in this

group, however, indicates that practice without awareness of the difference

between L1 and L2 sounds is not enough, at least in the case of the /x/ segment.

Although it is important to keep in mind that the number of tokens

analyzed for phoneme /x/ (two in the pretest, and one in the delayed posttest) is

too small to draw any definite conclusions, the results suggest a positive effect of

treatment for learners in EXP. When comparing the means obtained by both

groups in all three target phonemes at the word level in the pretest, it is observed

that CON's mean values were usually higher than EXP's mean values, except in

the recognition of /x/ at the word level, in which the mean values for both groups

were very close (µcon = 0.67 and µexp = 0.69). Therefore, although individual

differences are a factor in the acquisition of the /x/ segment, its effect is not as

126

strong as with the /r/ phoneme. This finding suggests that the more the

acquisition depends on the declarative system of learning, the more the

development is affected by L1 transfer and less by individual differences. After

the treatment, however, the better results obtained by EXP in the delayed posttest

supports the claim that the development of phonemic awareness of the segment

/x/ depends on declarative mechanisms.

4.2.1.4 Summary of analysis of segments at word level: Study A

The data for Study A indicate that acquisition of the three phonemes

studied in this dissertation depends on the declarative and procedural learning

systems proposed in Ullman’s DP model (2001, 2004) and is affected by L1

transfer and individual differences. Recall from Chapter 1 that the declarative

learning system is involved with the processing of idiosyncratic linguistic

elements, which entails input-driven processing (i.e., bottom-up). It has been

claimed (Byrnes, 1984, cited in O’Malley et al., 1995) that bottom-up processing

is subject to L1 interferences because it relies on linguistic characteristics of the

oral text in order to interpret meaning. The procedural learning system is a top-

down process that makes use of schematic knowledge drawn upon information in

memory or upon analysis of text meaning for comprehension (O’Malley et al.,

1995).

The results suggest that the fricative allophone [δ] of the phoneme /d/ is

the first segment to be learned because the majority of learners in the fourth

semester of Spanish instruction appear to be very proficient identifying it in

127

words. The phonemic awareness of the /d/ phoneme seems to have been

facilitated by the procedural learning system because the participants in this study

indicated not being aware of the differences between the /d/ phoneme in English

and Spanish. Furthermore, acquisition by procedural mechanisms entails top-

down processing, which explains why there was not much L1 transfer observed in

the data for the /d/ segment. The data also suggest that the more the dependence

on the procedural mechanism, the less individual differences seem to affect

acquisition and the closer learners’ phonemic awareness of the /d/ phoneme is to

the target language by the fourth semester of Spanish instruction. These data are

consistent with the proposal that exposure to a sound that occurs in the context of

a rule of grammar (e.g., the rule to form the regular past participle in Spanish -

ado/-ido and the nominal morpheme -dad) facilitates proceduralization, as

suggested by Ullman’s DP model (2001, 2004).

The results suggest the /x/ segment is the most affected by L1 transfer and,

in terms of its recognition in speech, is the last one to be acquired in the L2

classroom environment, when there is not explicit instruction that draws learners’

attention to the differences of the phoneme /x/ in L1 and L2. This segment

appears to be the more amenable to be acquired through declarative mechanisms

because the results show conclusively an effect of treatment for the /x/ segment.

As stated before, these findings suggest that the more the dependence on the

declarative system for learning, the more L1 transfer will affect acquisition, as

opposed to individual differences. Recall from Chapter 1 that an analysis of the

input presented to learners in the textbook Puntos de Partida showed a lack of a

128

rule that could proceduralize the learning of the /x/ segment. These observations

are consistent with the results and with Ullman’s DP model (2001, 2004) which

predicts that idiosyncratic elements in the language are acquired by the

declarative system.

The data indicate that the /r/ segment is the second of the three phonemes

to be learned in the L2 classroom environment in the absence of explicit

instruction that compares the flap sound in Spanish and English. The reader may

recall that the analysis of the dictations showed some L1 transfer as well as a high

degree of variability in learners’ sound-to-script associations. That is, learners

associate the flap /r/ sound to several spellings: <r>, <d>, <rd>, <rr>, <rt>, <t>,

which suggests the influence of individual differences in the development of /r/

phonemic awareness. The results for the /r/ segment after the treatment are not

conclusive; the comparison within subjects shows that both EXP and CON had a

significant improvement (pexp = 0.000, and pcon = 0.007), while the data between

subjects show CON remained significantly more proficient than EXP (p = 0.032)

in the delayed posttest. Therefore, although the data suggest learners in EXP

benefited from the treatment, individual differences may explain why learners in

CON were still more proficient with the /r/ segment throughout the study.

Furthermore, these results suggest that some level of proceduralization was

facilitated by exposure to the flap /r/ sound in the context of Spanish morphemes

for the preterite, future, and conditional (i.e., morphological effect). The fact that

the phoneme /r/ appears more irregularly in the input as a morpheme (as

compared to the /d/ phoneme) and the presence of some L1 interference in

129

learners’ responses, however, indicate that the declarative system of learning also

affects the development of the phonemic awareness of the flap. These findings

suggest that both learning mechanisms interact in the development of the

phonemic awareness of the /r/ phoneme and dependence on one or the other

system is affected by individual differences, as indicated by the variability

observed in the learners’ proficiency.

In sum, it is concluded that proceduralization of an L2 phoneme is

facilitated by the morphological effect, a mechanism that forms an association

between a sound and the morpheme that contains it. Evidence is suggested by the

proceduralization of the /d/ segment and the partial proceduralization of the /r/

segment. The declarative learning system, however, also affects acquisition. The

development of the phonemic awareness of Spanish /x/ seems to depend mostly

on the declarative learning system because the data that are provided to learners

do not include input that can help with the proceduralization of the voiceless velar

fricative. Finally, the results show that phonemic awareness development of the

/r/ phoneme is dependent on both the procedural and declarative learning systems.

Dependence on either system, however, seems to be determined by individual

differences. While some learners, such as those in CON, showed a superior

proficiency throughout the study, other learners, mostly in EXP, appeared not to

be affected by the effect of the procedural learning system and their improvement

required a more direct teaching approach such as the one provided by the

treatment.

130

4.2.2 Study A: Analysis of segments at sentence level

In this section, Tables 4.12 and 4.13 present the words containing the

target phonemes that were analyzed at the sentence level of Study A in the pretest

and the delayed posttest, respectively.64

Target phoneme

Total tokens

/VrV/ jornalero adolorido 2/VdV/ ruidoso adolorido 3/x/ jornalero 1all phonemes 6

Table 4.12. Words used in the Study A pretest at the sentence level.

Table 4.13. Words used in the Study A delayed posttest at the sentence level.

The next sections present the analyses for each individual phoneme in

Study A at the sentence level. See actual scores obtained by learners in the tests

in Appendix J.

64 Recall that the sentences containing these words in the pretest and the delayed posttest are presented in Chapter 3.

Target phoneme

Total tokens

/VrV/ charada voracidad 2 /VdV/ convidar agasajado charada divertida voracidad 5 /x/ agasajado 1 all phonemes 8

131


Analyses of learners' identifications of intervocalic /r/ at the sentence level

appear in this section in Tables 4.14 throughout 4.16.


Table 4.14. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /VrV/ at the sentence level in Study A.

/r/ pretest d-posttest

z -0.300 -2.282

p 0.764 0.023*

Table 4.15. Mann-Whitney test. Statistical results between subjects for /r/.

Tables 4.14 and 4.15 show that the difference of means between subjects

in the pretest is not statistically significant (µexp = 40; µcon = 0.37; p = 0.764),

which suggests that both groups have a similar phonemic awareness of the

intervocalic /r/ at the onset of Study A. The low means suggest that the

proficiency identifying this segment is low, and the dictations support this

observation. Less variability was observed in the grapheme selection used to

represent the /r/ phoneme at the sentence level than that seen at the word level, a

finding attributed to an increase in working memory difficulties at the sentence

level. L1 transfer, however, was present in the data and supports the previous

132

claim that the declarative system affects the development of phonemic awareness

of the /r/ phoneme. For instance, 59% (17/29) of learners in EXP and 27% (4/15)

in CON wrote the word jornalero ‘laborer’ with a <d> as in jornaledo. Although

an intervocalic <d> was also used in place of the <r> in the word adolorido ‘in

pain’ by 27% (4/15) of the learners in CON and 3% (1/29) in EXP, an analysis of

the dictations indicates that, in most cases, the problem was due to a transposition

of the three syllables boldfaced in the target phrase es-tá ado-lo-ri-do hoy ‘s/he is

in pain today’. The following are examples of the output written by some

learners: ‘es-ta/lo-ra-di-do/hoy’, ‘es-ta/ro-lo-dio/hoy’, ‘es-ta-do-ro-di-d/hoy’.65

This finding indicates that although some learners retained the sounds they heard,

working memory limitations prevented them from remembering the order in

which the sequences of syllables were heard. The fact that the consonants in

these syllables share the same feature66 suggests that the processing of similar

sounds (i.e., those that share a feature) could be a difficult task for learners at this

level. This finding indicates that cognitive manipulation of information at low-

levels of processing, in this case at the feature level, may also contribute to

difficulties and breakdowns in understanding. For instance, 21% (6/29) of

learners in EXP and 33% (5/15) in CON seemed to have been overwhelmed by

the sequence of these syllables because they missed two or three syllables and

wrote, for example, ‘estado .... hoy’ or ‘esta ..... hoy’.

65 The words are broken into syllables to facilitate comparison. The slash ‘/’ indicates the end of a word in the learners’ dictations. 66 The sounds /d/, /r/, and /l/ are all coronals (Nuñez Cedeño and Morales-Front, 1999).

133

EXP CON

z -4.443 -2.565

p 0.000* 0.010*

Table 4.16. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for /r/.

Table 4.16 shows that the improvement within subjects reached

significance for both groups (pexp = 0.000, and pcon = 0.010). This finding

replicates the results obtained at the word level, where a main effect of treatment

for the /r/ segment could not be claimed because both EXP and CON also attained

a significant improvement attributable to the delayed effect of procedural

mechanisms. The results at the sentence level, however, are different. Recall that

the proficiency of both groups in the pretest was very similar because the

difference of means between subjects was not significant (p = 0.764). In the

delayed posttest, however, the data between subjects show that EXP’s

improvement over CON’s reached statistical significance (µexp = 97; µcon = 0.80; p

= 0.023), and the dictations indicate that EXP’s phonemic awareness of the

intervocalic /r/ was slightly higher than CON’s. Only 3% (1/29) of learners in

EXP failed to write the target /r/ in the word charada ‘charade’ and used instead a

<rr> as in charrada.

In CON, 20% (3/15) of learners showed difficulties with this word; one

learner use a <rr> and wrote charra, another used a <ch> and wrote cuchara,

another used an <l> and wrote charla. Also, although working memory

limitations were still observed in the dictations for both groups in the delayed

134

posttest, learners in CON showed more difficulties attending and retaining

information: 13% (2/15) of learners in CON failed to write the target word

charada (although it occurs in the second position of the utterance), compared to

no learners in EXP. L1 transfer, however, was no longer a problem in the delayed

posttest. Although it could be claimed that a delayed morphological effect could

have contributed to the proceduralization of the /r/ segment among both groups,67

as was the case for the results at the word level, an analysis of the dictations

suggests that the treatment was successful not only in improving EXP’s phonemic

awareness of the /r/, but also their overall processing capabilities. As stated

earlier, the treatment was designed to raise learners’ conscious awareness of

phonological phenomena (e.g., reduction) that occur in Spanish due to linking.

The results suggest that this new knowledge provided learners in EXP with clues

for segmentation that helped them improve their processing capabilities of longer

utterances. A look at the raw scores also supports the claim of a main effect of

treatment. In the pretest, both groups had a similar level of accuracy identifying

the intervocalic /r/ phoneme. That is, 14% (4/29) of learners in EXP and 13%

(2/15) in CON identified both tokens in the pretest and obtained a perfect score.

In the delayed posttest, however, 93% (27/29) of learners in EXP obtained a

perfect score while only 67% (10/15) in CON were able to identify both tokens in

the delayed posttest.

In conclusion, the results for the /r/ segment at the sentence level support

those at the word level, where declarative and procedural mechanisms were found 67 Recall that, by the time learners took the delayed posttest, they had already reviewed the preterite, the future, and the conditional, which are verb forms that have morphemes containing an intervocalic /r/.

135

to contribute to the development of phonemic awareness of this phoneme.

Furthermore, the data at the sentence level suggest that the difference in results

between learners in EXP and CON is attributable to the effect of a treatment in

which declarative mechanisms (awareness and practice) facilitated learning. It is

claimed that the treatment helped learners in EXP to engage in more efficient

phonemic processing, which allowed them to continue with higher level

processing (i.e., words and utterances). Also, EXP’s proficiency in processing

utterances is attributed to the learning of segmentation rules facilitated by the

treatment. The difficulties experienced by CON, however, indicate that the lack

of automatization at the phonemic level and unfamiliarity with the rules for

segmentation in Spanish overwhelm their working memory capacity.


The data of learners' identification of intervocalic /d/ at the sentence level

appear in this section in Tables 4.17 throughout 4.19.


Table 4.17. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /VdV/ at the sentence level in Study A.

136

/d/ pretest d-posttest

z -1.647 -2.308

p 0.099 0.021*

Table 4.18. Mann-Whitney test. Statistical results between subjects for /d/.

The lack of statistical significance obtained in the difference of means

between subjects in the pretest (µexp = 70; µcon = 0.57; p = 0.099), seen in Tables

4.17 and 4.18, suggest both groups have a similar proficiency identifying the

intervocalic /d/ at the sentence level at the onset of Study A. The results for the

/d/ segment at the sentence level support the data obtained at the word level;

namely, that a morphological effect appears to have proceduralized the

intervocalic /d/. The data do not show any L1 transfer difficulties, and most of

the problems seen in the dictations suggest memory limitations. For instance,

34% (10/29) in EXP and 7% (1/15) in CON failed completely to write the target

word ruidoso ‘noisy’; also, 17% (5/29) of learners in EXP and 53% (8/15) in

CON had difficulties with several syllables of the word adolorido.

The data within subjects seen in Table 4.19 did not yield a main effect of

treatment.

EXP CON

z -1.714 -1.708

p 0.087 0.088

Table 4.19. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for /d/.

137

Despite the lack of a significant improvement obtained by EXP and the

working memory difficulties observed in the dictations of both groups when

processing multiple-word utterances,68 however, the differences of means

between subjects in the delayed posttest show EXP was significantly better than

CON (µexp = 83; µcon = 0.69; p = 0.021) as seen in Table 4.18. These findings

suggest that EXP’s improvement is attributable to the treatment that made

learners aware of the difference between L1 and L2 phonological systems. In

addition, improvement of learners’ low level processes (processing of the

intervocalic /d/ and lexical segmentation in Spanish) contributed to increasing the

efficiency of higher levels of processing (e.g., words and utterances).


Finally, Tables 4.20 throughout 4.22 show the results of the dictation and

identification of the /x/ phoneme at the sentence level.

pre post EXP mean 0.38 0.38variance 0.244 0.244CON mean 0.13 0.33variance 0.124 0.238

Table 4.20. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /x/ at the sentence level in Study A.

68 The reader may recall, for instance, that 12 learners in EXP and 6 in CON failed completely to write the word agasajado in the delayed posttest.

138

/x/ pretest d-posttest

z -1.676 -0.297

p 0.094 0.766

Table 4.21. Mann-Whitney test. Statistical results between subjects for /x/.

The between-subjects comparison in Tables 4.20 and 4.21 shows that the

mean values in the pretest were low for both groups (µexp = 0.38, and µcon = 0.13)

and the difference of means between subjects was not significant (p = 0.094). An

analysis of the data corroborates the assertion made earlier that phonemic

awareness of the /x/ segment among learners in the fourth semester of Spanish is

mainly affected by L1 interference: 41% (12/29) of learners in EXP and 80%

(12/15) in CON associated the Spanish voiceless velar fricative /x/ with the

grapheme <h> in the pretest.

In the delayed posttest, the difference of means between subjects remained

insignificant (p = 0.766), as seen in Table 4.21, which suggests both groups

retained a similar recognition of the /x/ segment.

EXP CON

z 0.000 -1.134

p 1.000 0.257

Table 4.22. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for /x/.

Moreover, the difference of means within subjects for both groups did not

reach significance (pexp = 1.000; pcon = 0.257), as seen in Table 4.22. The data in

the delayed posttest were unexpected because they do not support the results

139

obtained at the word level, where EXP improvement reached a statistical

significance that was attributed to the phonological training. The delayed posttest

results at the sentence level, however, seemed to have been affected by memory

limitations. The word agasajado, occurred at the end of the utterance Es

importante convidar con el agasajado ‘it is important to treat the lionized person’

and 38% (11/29) of learners in EXP and 40% (6/15) in CON failed completely to

write it. In comparison, only 7% (2/29) in EXP and 7% (1/15) in CON missed

the word jornalero in the pretest that occurred in the second position, after the

article.69

In sum, although EXP started with a better recognition of the /x/ phoneme

at the onset of the study (µexp = 0.38, compared to µcon = 0.13), it obtained the same

mean value in the delayed posttest (0.38), and its difference of means within

subjects was equal to 0. Unfortunately, the fact that many learners in both groups

missed the target word in the delayed posttest made it difficult to draw any

definite conclusions regarding the phonemic awareness of /x/ at the sentence

level, except for the claim that bottom-up processings seem to be involved in the

acquisition of this segment, as the occurrence of L1 transfer indicates.

4.2.2.4 Summary of analysis of segments at sentence level: Study A

The results at the sentence level indicate that procedural and declarative

learning systems (Ullman’s DP model, 2001, 2004) are involved in the

69 The other most frequently missed word was ruidoso, which was used to test intervocalic /d/ in the pretest. Ten learners in EXP (34%), but no subject in CON, missed this word completely. The percentage of other words missed in any of the tests was 14% or lower.

140

development of phonemic awareness of the three sounds studied in Study A.

These data support the data obtained at the word level. The /d/ segment is the

first one to be learned, and the development of phonemic awareness is attributed

to the effect of the procedural system due to the morphological effect.

Acquisition of the flap /r/ depends on both learning mechanisms; however,

influence of either system is affected by individual differences. The data indicate

learning of the /x/ segment depends on the declarative learning system as

suggested by the L1 transfer observed in the results. The data for the /x/ segment,

however, were not conclusive because several learners in both groups completely

failed to write the word containing the target phoneme due to working memory

limitations.

The lower mean values obtained at the sentence level than at the word

level suggest phonemic processing was more difficult because of an overload of

learners’ attentional resources (Goh, 2000) rather than a deficient phonemic

awareness. The dictations show that some portions of the sentences, and even

whole sentences, were left blank, which suggest working memory difficulties

attending and retaining information. Few learners, however, failed to write

something, even if incorrectly, for words that occurred in the first three positions

of the sentences, which indicates that the position of the target word in the

sentence affects retention. For instance, no more than 7% (3/44) of the learners

participating in Study A failed to write the words jornalero ‘laborer’, charada

‘charade’, and convidar ‘to treat’; and no learner failed to write something for

voracidad ‘voracity’. Learners had difficulties, however, with the words

141

agasajado ‘a lionized person’ in the sixth position of the utterance and adolorido

‘in pain’ in the fourth position, which were completely missed by 43% (19/44)

and 14% (6/44) of participants, respectively. A word like divertida ‘fun’,

however, was not difficult because only 9% (4/44) of learners missed that word,

although it was the seventh word in the utterance. The results for the word

ruidoso ‘noisy’, despite being in the third position of the utterance, show that 25%

(11/44) of learners missed it completely. Although the target words were not

rated according to familiarity, these observations indicate some words are more

familiar to learners than others and affect recognition despite their position in the

sentence.

The findings at the sentence level suggest two main factors behind the

breakdowns in understanding. One factor originates with difficulties in low levels

of speech processing as the lack of automatization of sound-to-script relationships

(i.e., learners failed to associate the L2 sounds they heard to graphemes). The

second factor, unfamiliarity with segmentation rules in Spanish, also contributes

to working memory difficulties because it prevents learners from being able to

cope with the demands of processing long utterances. These results indicate

learners in the fourth semester of university Spanish instruction still have

difficulties processing oral input at native speech rates, which prevents them from

attending and retaining the information in multiple-word utterances.70 For

instance, despite the effects of proceduralization on the acquisition of the /d/

phoneme, the lower mean values obtained at the sentence level suggest processing

70 Study C was developed to include less demanding tests in order to avoid the parsing problems encountered in Studies A and B.

142

utterances was a more demanding task than processing words and contributed to

hampering the morphological effect.

The working memory difficulties experienced by EXP, however, were not

as prevalent as those observed in CON. Learners in EXP appear to have

developed more efficient phonemic processing and segmenting abilities that

helped them cope with the demands of processing beyond the sound level because

they were able to attend to and retain more of the information they heard. In

comparison, more learners in CON failed to write great portions of the sentences

(including the target words) as a result of working memory difficulties. These

findings suggest that, without direct, explicit instruction, L2 segmentation clues

are not learned by the procedural learning system in the L2 classroom

environment. Furthermore, the improvement observed in EXP’s processing of

utterances indicates that learners in the fourth semester of University instruction

are amenable to learn segmentation rules through the declarative memory system.

Next, the summary of Study A compares the results at the word level with

those at the sentence level.

4.2.2.5 Study A summary

An analysis of the results at the word and sentence levels within the DP

model (Ullman, 2001, 2004) indicates that the development of phonemic

awareness of the /r/ and /d/ sounds in intervocalic position, and /x/ depends on the

declarative and procedural learning systems.71 Furthermore, the morphological 71 As explained earlier, this dissertation investigates whether learners are able to recognize the /r/ and /d/ phonemes despite the phonetic variations in intervocalic position. The phoneme /r/ in

143

effect has been found to be a proceduralizing mechanism that, together with

individual differences and L1 transfer, affects the development of L2 phonemic

awareness. Processing of sentences, however, presents more difficulties to

learners in the fourth semester of Spanish instruction because they seem unable to

meet the working memory demands of processing long utterances. The results

also suggest that the greater the dependence on the declarative learning system,

the more amenable learning is to perception training that includes a comparison

between L1 and L2 sounds and presents learners with knowledge of

segmentations clues in L2 Spanish.

The next section presents the results of the analysis of the segments in

Study B.

4.2.3 Study B: Analysis of segments at sentence level

As explained in Chapter 3, the tests administered to learners who

participated in Study B included sentences that tested learners’ level of phonemic

awareness and their ability to segment chunks (e.g., has ido versus ha sido, etc.).

In this sub-section, the results of the analysis of phonemes are presented. The

analysis of target chunks appear in Section 2, Analysis of Chunks.

This section first present Tables 4.23 throughout 4.25 that show the total

number of tokens possible per target phoneme in each test.

intervocalic position corresponds to the simple vibrant or alveolar flap [r] in words like caro ‘expensive’ and contrasts with the multiple vibrant in words like carro ‘car’. The flap sound is misunderstood by English speakers as a <dd> or <tt> in words as ladder or butter. The /d/ phoneme has an fricative allophone [δ] when it occurs in intervocalic position (e.g., seda ‘silk’) and a stop manifestation in an absolute-initial position or after a /n/ as in the word mandar ‘to order’. The /x/ sound does not have an allophonic variation.

144

Target phoneme

Total possible

/VrV/ veracidad mareos aroma 3/VdV/ cada72 veracidad 2/x/ justicia ajetreo Julieta 3all phonemes 8

Table 4.23. Words used in the Study B pretest at the sentence level.

Target phoneme

Total possible

/VrV/ virilidad73 marinero moralista 3/VdV/ moda74 virilidad75 ajustadas 2/x/ jaguar ajustadas Juan 3all phonemes 8

Table 4.24. Words used in the Study B posttest at the sentence level.

Target phoneme

Total possible

/VrV/ vulgaridad marina pirata 3/VdV/ pudo vulgaridad 2/x/ justificar atajo Julián 3all phonemes 8

Table 4.25. Words used in the Study B delayed posttest at the sentence level.

72 Although the word cada in the pretest may be a word that learners have seen and heard frequently in the classroom, the results showed that 14 % of learners missed the phoneme VdV in the word cada compared to only 8% of learners who missed the phoneme VdVin the more difficult word veracidad, in the same test. Therefore, the word cada is included in the results. 73 All learners in all groups missed the word virilidad in the posttest; therefore, this word is not included in the results for phoneme /r/ and phoneme /d/ in the posttest. 74 Although the results show learners are familiar with the word moda (only 6% missed the phoneme /d/ in this word), the word is included in the results; otherwise there would be only one token testing phoneme /d/ in the posttest. 75 The word virilidad was not counted in the results for phoneme /d/, either.

145

Next, the analyses for each individual phoneme for Study B at the

sentence level are presented. See actual scores in Appendix K.


In this section, Tables 4.26 throughout 4.28 present an analysis of learners'

identification of intervocalic /r/ at the sentence level.

N pre post d-post EXP-1 17 mean 0.58 0.53 0.55variance 0.063 0.084 0.110EXP-2 11 mean 0.70 0.39 0.48variance 0.122 0.040 0.118EXP-3 9 mean 0.77 0.52 0.18variance 0.057 0.114 0.057CON 14 mean 0.59 0.59 0.59variance 0.072 0.089 0.106

Table 4.26. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /VrV/ at the sentence level in Study B.

/r/ pretest posttest delayed

Chi-Square 4.025 3.258 8.951

df 3 3 3

P 0.259 0.354 0.030*

Table 4.27. Kruskal Wallis test. Statistical results between subjects for /r/.

146

Table 4.26 shows that, at the onset of Study B, the highest mean in the

identification of the intervocalic /r/ phoneme was obtained by learners in EXP-3

(µ = 0.77) and EXP-2 (µ = 0.70), although the results between subjects do not

show any statistical significance in the pretest (p = 0.259) or the posttest (p =

0.354) as seen in Table 4.27. Throughout the study, however, EXP-3 and EXP-2

experienced a steady decrease in performance. In the delayed posttest, where

EXP-3 (µEXP-3 = 0.18) and EXP-2 (µEXP-2 = 0.48) obtained the lowest means, the

difference between subjects reached statistical significance (p = 0.030).

EXP-1 EXP-2 EXP-3 CON

Chi-Square 1.378 8.069 11.438 0.054

df 2 2 2 2

P 0.502 0.018* 0.003* 0.973

Table 4.28. Friedman test. Statistical results within subjects for /r/.

Furthermore, Table 4.28 shows that the decreased in performance

experienced by EXP-2 and EXP-3 reached statistical significance (pEXP-2 = 0.018;

pCON = 0. 003) in the results within subjects. An explanation as to why the

proficiency of learners in EXP-2 and EXP-3 declined throughout the study is

addressed after the results for the three phonemes are reviewed.

The data for EXP-1 show that learners in this group produced a consistent

performance (µpre = 0.58; µpost = 0.53; µdel = 0.55) that failed to reached

significance (pEXP-1 = 0.502) despite the treatment. These results do not support

the results of Study A, where there was an effect of treatment for the learners in

the experimental group.

147

An analysis of the dictations offers insights into the difficulties

experienced by learners in Study B. The data show that L1 transfer was utilized

more in the dictations of learners in EXP-1; in particular, in the delayed posttest

where 53% (9/17) used a <d> in the word pirata and wrote something like pidata

or pidadta, as compared to only 27% (3/11) in EXP-2, 22% (2/9) in EXP-3, and 0

in CON who did so. The dictations also show how L1 transfer at the phonemic

level affects interpretation of the target word and utterance. For the word

marinero in the posttest, for instance, 35% (6/17) in EXP-1, 33% (3/9) in EXP-3,

27% (3/11) in EXP-2, and 14% (2/14) in CON wrote a <d> instead of the first

intervocalic /r/ and wrote strings like madinero, madenero, modenero, etc.76

Eight learners actually wrote dinero as a separate word, although only five

translated it as ‘money’ as shown in sentences (27) - (31). The first line shows

what the learners actually wrote; the second, their translation. The utterance they

heard was ¿Crees que Carlos ha sido un buen marinero? ‘Do you think Carlos

has been a good sailor?’:

(27) [EXP-1-2] Creyes que Carlo hace buen al dinero. ‘I believe Carlo does well with money.’ (28) [EXP-1-3] ¿Crees que Carlos ha hacido bueno dinero? ‘Do you think Carlos has made good money?’ (29) [EXP-1-5] Crees asada de .... dinero ‘Do you believe ..... the money.’ (30) [EXP-2-5] ¿Crees de que Carlos _____ dinero? ‘Do you know that Carlos ____ money?’

76 L1 transfer was also seen in the second /r/ in the word marinero since 5 learners (2 in EXP-1 and 3 in CON wrote a <d> instead of an <r> for the syllable ‘ro’.

148

(31) [EXP-2-8] Cres que Carlos hacido muy dinero? ‘You think Carlos has much money?’

These findings show how a L2 phonemic processing that is affected by L1

transfer (e.g., using a <d> instead of an <r> in the word marinero ‘sailor’) triggers

a biasing lexical effect and ‘activates’ the wrong word (e.g., dinero ‘money’).

An analysis of the dictations in Study B also suggests learners are in a

stage of variability regarding the graphemes they associate with the /r/ in

intervocalic position (<d>, <t>, <rr>, <n>, and <l>). These findings are

consistent with the previous claim that learners are confused about what

grapheme corresponds to the flap sound, and they form mental representations of

the flap /r/ that are based on individual differences possibly due to different

linguistic knowledge and background.

Most of the difficulties observed, however, are related to working memory

limitations. For instance, in the pretest 29% (5/17) in EXP-1 , 36% (4/11) in

EXP-2, 11% (1/9) in EXP-3, and 50% (7/14) in CON failed to write at least one

of the three target words.77 The results in the posttest, however, show that

learners in EXP-1 and CON had fewer memory difficulties than those in EXP-2

and EXP-3 because 45% (5/11) in EXP-2 and 44% (4/9) in EXP-3 missed at least

one of the target words, as compared to only 18% (3/17) in EXP-1 and 29%

(4/14) in CON.78 In the delayed posttest, the performance of EXP-3 decreased to

89% (8/9) of learners who missed at least one of the target words. The

performance of EXP-2 remained unchanged in the delayed posttest because 45%

77 None of the learners failed to write more than two of the target words. 78 Only one learner in EXP-2 failed to write the three target words in the posttest.

149

(5/11) failed to write at least one of the target words, compared to only 18%

(3/17) in EXP-1 and 36% (5/14) in CON. Thus, as the study progressed, fewer

working memory problems were observed in the dictations of learners in EXP-1,

while the cognitive processing difficulties increased dramatically for EXP-2 and

EXP-3 and remained unchanged for CON. The ability to process longer

utterances is attributed to the phonological lessons given to learners in EXP-1 that

emphasized awareness of phonological phenomena (e.g., linking and reduction) in

Spanish and provided learners with clues for segmentation. This finding suggests

that the learning of segmentation clues among learners at the level of university

instruction depends on the declarative system because the results indicate that

explicit instruction helped learners to improve their segmentation skills.

Regarding learners in EXP-2, who continued having difficulties parsing

utterances despite having the same treatment as those in EXP-1, the data suggest

other factors affected their performance. One possible explanation is found in the

fact that learners in both EXP-2 and EXP-3 had the same instructor. As

mentioned earlier, this issue is addressed after all the results for Study B are

analyzed.

In conclusion, the data indicate that the reduction of the treatment to 10

days (compared to the 17 days of treatment given in Study A) was insufficient for

the learners in EXP-1 to overcome L1 transfer in the acquisition of /r/ (i.e.,

prelexical stage). The data also show, however, that the treatment helped these

learners to improve their segmentation of utterances and their ability to attend and

retain longer sequences of words.

150


Tables 4.29 to 4.31 show data that quantify learners' identification of

intervocalic /d/ in the dictation task at the sentence level.

N pre post d-post EXP-1 17 mean 0.85 0.97 0.97variance 0.055 0.015 0.015EXP-2 11 mean 0.95 0.82 0.64variance 0.023 0.064 0.205EXP-3 9 mean 0.83 1 0.44variance 0.063 0 0.090CON 14 mean 0.89 0.61 0.46variance 0.045 0.084 0.133

Table 4. 29. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /VdV/ at the sentence level in Study B.

/d/ pretest posttest delayed

Chi-Square 2.075 20.276 20.038

df 3 3 3

P 0.557 0.000* 0.000*

Table 4.30. Kruskal Wallis test. Statistical results between subjects for /d/.

The high means values obtained by the three groups in the pretest (µEXP-1 =

0.85, µEXP-2 = 0.95, µEXP-3 = 0.83, µcon = 0.89), seen in Table 4.29, indicate learners

have no difficulties recognizing the /d/ segment. These findings are consistent

151

with the results in Study A where the early learning of the /d/ phoneme was

attributed to the effect of the procedural learning system. Furthermore, the data in

Table 4.30 suggest that the groups had a similar proficiency in identifying the

intervocalic /d/ segment at the onset of Study B as indicated by the lack of

statistical significance between subjects (p = 0.557). In the posttest and in the

delayed posttest, however, the difference between subjects reached statistical

significance, as seen in Table 4.30 (p = 0.000). Furthermore, only learners in

EXP-1 maintained a high mean (0.97) in the delayed posttest, compared to the

mean values for the other groups (µEXP-2 = 0.64; µEXP-3 = 0.44; µcon = 0.46).


Chi-Square 4.571 3.909 13.040 10.585

df 2 2 2 2

P 0.102 0.142 0.001* 0.005*

Table 4.31. Friedman test. Statistical results within subjects for /d/.

The within subjects comparison seen in 4.31 suggests that the decrease in

performance observed in EXP-3 and CON reached statistical significance (pEXP-3 =

0.001; pCON = 0.005). Although learners in EXP-2 also experienced a steady

decrease in mean values (µpre = 0.95, µpost = 0.82, µdel = 0.64), the within-subjects

data do not show a significance (p = 0.142). The fact that only EXP-1

maintained a high proficiency (µ = 0.97) in the delayed posttest indirectly

suggests an overall effect of treatment for EXP-1. The dictations show that

learners in EXP-1 were able to cope better with the cognitive demands of

listening to long utterances to process the /d/, even a month after the treatment

152

ended. In comparison, an analysis of the dictations of learners in EXP-2, EXP-3

and CON shows that their decrease in performance was due mainly to working

memory difficulties in parsing and retaining the utterances. In the posttest, for

instance, learners in CON experienced the most difficulties because 57% (8/14) of

learners in CON failed to write at least one of the target words, compared to 36%

(4/11) in EXP-2, 33% (3/9) in EXP-3 and 24% (4/17) in EXP-1 who did so. The

most difficulties were observed with the word ajustadas, for which 43% (6/14) in

CON failed to write something, compared to only 18% (2/11) of learners in EXP-

2, 12% (2/17) in EXP-1, and no learner in EXP-3 who missed it totally. In the

delayed posttest, learners in EXP-2, EXP-3, and CON show difficulties attending

and retaining the utterances as 45% (5/11) in EXP-2, 78% (7/9) in EXP-3, and

57% (8/14) in CON completely missed at least one of the target words. For

example, 27% (3/11) in EXP-2, 33% (3/9) in EXP-3 and 50% (7/14) in CON

completely missed the word pudo ‘s/he was able to’, compared to only 6% (1/17)

in EXP-1. Also, an analysis of the dictations of the word vulgaridad suggest

difficulties processing the segments /r/ and /d/. The syllable -ri was particularly

difficult for learners in all groups but, although the dictations of learners in EXP-1

show that they also had difficulties recognizing the intervocalic <r> in its proper

position (e.g., bugurlidad, bulgalidad, borgalidad, bugardia), no learner in this

group failed to write something for this target word and most were able to

recognize the phoneme /d/ in the syllable -dad, compared to 67% (6/9) of learners

in EXP-3, 29% (4/14) in CON, and 27% (3/11) in EXP-2 who missed it

completely. This finding is important because it suggests learners in EXP-1

153

achieved a more efficient prelexical processing and improved their attending

capabilities of longer sequences of words, despite processing difficulties with the

/r/ segment.

In conclusion, the results obtained for the intervocalic /d/ suggest an effect

of treatment for learners in EXP-1 because they received the full treatment that

emphasized awareness of the differences between L1 and L2 sounds, as well as

awareness of segmentation rules in Spanish. The data show, however, that

despite the high level of recognition of the /d/ segment, working memory

limitations could overwhelm learners in the fourth-semester level of Spanish and

would prevent them from processing utterances and recognizing phonemes that

they could otherwise identify in isolated words.


Results of the analysis from learners' identification of phoneme /x/ at the

sentence level are shown in Tables 4.32 throughout 4.34.

Table 4.32 shows that learners in EXP-2 obtained the higher mean value

in the pretest (µpre = 0.73), while learners in EXP-1 obtained the second lowest

mean (µpre = 0.55). Table 4.33, however, does not show a statistically significant

difference (p = 0.187) between subjects in the pretest, which suggests a similar

proficiency for all four groups. The data for learners in EXP-1 throughout Study

B, however, showed a steady improvement in their phonemic awareness of /x/

(µpre = 0.55; µpost = 0.62; µdel = 0.84). In addition, both EXP-1 and EXP-2

obtained the higher mean values in the delayed posttest (µEXP-1 = 0.84; µEXP-2 =

154

0.82; µEXP-3 = 0.70; µcon = 0.59), and the difference between subjects reached

statistical significance (p = 0.025), as seen in Table 4.33.

N pre post d-post EXP-1 17 mean 0.55 0.62 0.84variance 0.069 0.026 0.058EXP-2 11 mean 0.73 0.76 0.82variance 0.13 0.070 0.054EXP-3 9 mean 0.66 0.55 0.70variance 0.056 0.056 0.097CON 14 mean 0.52 0.52 0.59variance 0.045 0.080 0.037

Table 4.32. Mean and variance per group: Phoneme /x/ at the sentence level in Study B.

/x/ pretest posttest delayed

Chi-Square 4.800 5.801 9.307

df 3 3 3

P 0.187 0.122 0.025*

Table 4.33. Kruskal Wallis test. Statistical results between subjects for /x/.

The development of phonemic awareness of /x/ experienced by EXP-1

throughout the study is significant, considering that the analysis of the dictations

in the pretest shows a strong L1 interference among learners in this group. For

example, 47% (8/17) in EXP-1 wrote an <h> for the target word ajetreo in the

phrase mucho ajetreo ‘a lot of fuss’ (some examples were ‘mucho hetreo’,

155

‘mucho hatreo’, ‘mucho hetero’), compared to only 18% (2/11) in EXP-2, 11%

(1/9) in EXP-3, and 7% (1/14) in CON who wrote something similar for the target

word. The word justicia ‘justice’ also shows L1 interference by 24% (4/17) of

learners in EXP-1, 9% (1/11) in EXP-2, 11% (1/9) in EXP-3, and 29% (4/14) in

CON. L1 transfer was less prevalent in the posttest and in the delayed posttest.

For example, in the posttest, only 9% (1/11) of learners in EXP-2, 11% (1/9) in

EXP-3, and 14% (2/14) in CON used an <h> for the cognate jaguar; and 6%

(1/17) in EXP-1 and 11% (1/9) in EXP-3 did so with the word ajustadas ‘tight’.

In the delayed posttest, L1 transfer was used by only 11% (1/9) of learners in

EXP-3 with the word atajo ‘short cut’, and 7% (1/14) in CON and 9% (1/11) in

EXP-2 with the word justificar’ justify’.

Working memory difficulties were also observed in the tests, although the

problem in the pretest was due more to a transposition of the two boldfaced

syllables in the phrase mu-cho a-je-tre-o ‘a lot of fuss’. The following are

examples of what 5 learners (1 in EXP-3 and 4 in CON) wrote: ‘mu-cho/e-tre-je-

yo’, ‘mu-cha/a-tre-je-o’, ‘mu-cho/a-tra-je-llo’, ‘mu-cho/tra-je-o’, mu-cho/a-tra-

e-jo’.79 In the posttest, learners in CON show greater memory difficulties

because 57% (8/14) of learners in CON failed to write at least one of the target

words (e.g., the word ajustadas), compared to 29% (5/17) in EXP-1, 27% (3/11)

in EXP-2, and 22% (2/9) in EXP-3.80 In the delayed posttest, 36% (4/11) in

79 Remember that the words are broken into syllables to facilitate comparison. The slash ‘/’ indicates the end of a word in learners’ dictations. 80 The word jaguar was less problematic since only 7% (1/14) in CON and 22% (2/9) in EXP-3 missed it completely.

156

EXP-2, 33% (3/9) in EXP-3, and 36% (5/14) in CON completely missed at least

one of the target words, compared to only 18% (3/17) in EXP-1.

An analysis of the grapheme selections used to represent the /x/ phoneme

offers insights into what other factors may affect listening comprehension.81 For

instance, the grapheme <c> was commonly associated with the /x/ phoneme as

occurred with the word justicia ‘justice’ in the pretest, for which 8 learners wrote

something as custicia. In the posttest, 3 learners wrote cuan and failed to

recognize the proper name Juan.82 The word ajustadas was also written with the

velars <c> (5 learners) and <g> (4 learners); and 6 more learners used a <s> as in

‘asustadas’, although only one of these learners translated this word correctly as

‘scary’. In the delayed posttest, 6 learners use a <c> for the word atajo ‘short

cut’ and produced instead taco and ataco, which were translated as taco or attack,

respectively. The following examples (30) to (34) show how the biased lexical

effect interfered with learners’ interpretation of the utterances. The first line

shows what the learners actually wrote; the second line provides their translation.

The utterance they heard was No sé quién pudo tomar ese atajo ‘I don’t know

who was able to take that short cut’: (30) [EXP-1-4] No sé quien pude a tomar ese ataco. ‘I don’t know anyone able to take that attack.’ (31) [CON-1] No sé quien toma un (el) un taco. ‘I don’t know who took the taco.’

81 Percentages are not included here since the purpose is to understand what learners hear in listening exercises and what factors may affect comprehension. 82 Also, 6% (1/17) in EXP-1 spelled it as quan and 9% (1/11) in EXP-2 as cual.

157

(32) [CON-11] No sé quiempudo tomarese al taco. ‘I don’t think (that) take the taco.’ (33) [CON-12] No sé ..... tomar esa taco. [The learner did not provide a translation, but guess the last word to be ‘taco’.] (34) [CON-13] No se quien pude a tomar este taco. ‘I don’t know who wants to take the taco.’

These findings suggest difficulties at the feature level, because learners

substituted the target segment /x/ with a grapheme that represents other

phonemes with common features (/x/, /k/, /g/ are velars; while /x/ and /s/ are both

unvoiced fricatives). A possible explanation for these findings relates to

listeners’ expectations and experience with language (i.e., prior knowledge).

For instance, the misunderstanding of quan, cuan, or cual for the name Juan

suggest that learners were possibly expecting a question word in the input. By the

fourth semester of Spanish instruction, learners are quite familiar with the

question words cuándo, cómo, quién, qué that occur at the beginning of a

sentence. These observations indicate that failure to distinguish phonemes that

share features also affects phonemic processing and interacts with listeners’ prior

knowledge of the L2 in the ‘activation’ of the wrong word (i.e., lexical effect).

Next, Table 4.34 shows the comparison of means within subjects.

158


Chi-Square 13.265 0.467 1.040 1.310

df 2 2 2 2

P 0.001* 0.792 0.595 0.519

Table 4.34. Friedman test. Statistical results within subjects for /x/.

Table 4.34 shows that only EXP-1 experienced a significant improvement

within subjects for the /x/ segment (p = 0.001). These results support a claim of a

main effect of treatment for EXP-1 despite being the group with the most

difficulties due to L1 transfer in the pretest. In addition, although the results for

EXP-2 did not reach significance (p = 0.792), the data seen earlier showed a slight

improvement for this group (µpre = 0.73; µpost = 0.76; µdel = 0.82) in spite of the

working memory difficulties.

These findings indicate that the /x/ segment can be affected by a training

that taps into the declarative memory system even with a short treatment, as was

the case with Study B. As stated earlier, the treatment received by EXP-1 and

EXP-2 included making learners aware of the differences and similarities between

L1 and L2. The element of awareness was not present in the treatment that EXP-

3 received, and learners in CON did not receive any treatment. Therefore, the

positive results obtained by EXP-1 and EXP-2 suggest that awareness, and not

practice, is the key element that facilitates the phonemic awareness of the /x/

sound. The results for the /x/ segment also support the claim that, as their

phonological processing becomes more efficient, learners are able to allocate

159

more working memory resources to higher levels of processing, which allows

them to attend to and retain longer sequences of words in memory.

4.2.3.4 EXP-2 and EXP-3 results

Before presenting the Summary of the Analysis of Segments for Study B,

this section briefly reviews the results obtained by learners in EXP-2 and EXP-3

because they show an unexpected steady decline in their ability to process oral

input. Recall that learners in EXP-2, as those in EXP-1, received a full treatment

of explicit instruction, practice, and feedback. Learners in EXP-3, however, did

not receive feedback or explicit instruction on the differences between English

and Spanish phonemes and segmentation rules. Although the treatment

conditions for EXP-2 and EXP-3 were different, however, both groups had the

same instructor. The results for these two groups show that EXP-2 and EXP-3

obtained the highest overall mean values (i.e., when considering all phonemes

together) in the pretest (µEXP-1 = 0.64; µEXP-2 = 0.77; µEXP-3 = 0.75; µcon = 0.64).

Their performance, however, decreased throughout Study B due to working

memory difficulties, as in the case of the results obtained by CON. The results

obtained by CON, however, remained relatively constant during the study (µpre =

0.64; µpost = 0.57; µdel = 0.56) and the difference of means within subjects was not

statistically significant (p = 0.344) in the Friedman test. The mean values for

EXP-3, however, showed a steady decrease (µpre = 0.75; µpost = 0.65; µdel = 0.44)

that was statistically significant (p = 0.023) in the Friedman test. Although EXP-

2 showed a steep decrease between the mean values of the pretest and the posttest

160

(µpre = 0.77; µpost = 0.63; µdel = 0.64), the overall decrease in performance was not

statistically significant (p = 0.110) in the Friedman test.

One possible explanation as to why the performance of EXP-3 diminished

is related to the partial treatment learners in this group received. The purpose of

including this group in Study B was to test whether learners need an explicit

explanation of the differences between the L1 and L2 phonological systems in

order to improve their L2 listening skills.83 Therefore, although learners in EXP-3

listened to the same oral input given to learners in EXP-1 and EXP-2 (e.g., the

groups that received the full treatment of instruction, practice and feedback), they

did not receive any feedback nor explicit instruction on Spanish phonological

system. The results obtained by EXP-3 suggest that learners do need explicit

instruction to acquire the studied elements, but they do not account for the

apparent decrease in processing skills observed in learners’ dictations. It was

hypothesized that, at worst, EXP-3 would have a constant performance

throughout the study, as was the case with learners in CON. The fact that EXP-

3’s performance declined so drastically indicate other factors are at play. An

analysis of a follow-up questionnaire asked of the learners suggests that the

majority were very anxious, although they knew that the exercises were not

graded: (35) [EXP-3-2] I’m still unfamiliar with Spanish and it’s hard for me to understand often, which is stressful.

(36) [EXP-3-3] (It is) frustrating to only pick up a few words.

83 The inclusion of a group with a partial treatment was suggested by one of the committee members.

161

(37) [EXP-3-6] Listening is often difficult, especially with a foreign language that is still being learned.

(38) [EXP-3-7] It’s hard to understand the sounds and words. (39) [EXP-3-8] This was frustrating because although you kept

reinforcing that this wasn’t a test, it felt like one, and one that I wasn’t prepared for.

One learner even mentioned being angry at the listening exercises: (40) [EXP-3-5] I strongly dislike listening exercises. I don’t like

(them) because it is more difficult than reading.

Some expressed being confused and insecure because they did not know

the differences between Spanish and English sounds and the meanings of the

words included in the exercises:

(41) [EXP-3-2] It’s hard to do listening exercises when we don’t

know the vocab. I think, first, we should work on listening and understanding words we already know; then, when we’re more comfortable with listening, we can worry about using context to determine the meaning of unknown words.

(42) [EXP-3-4] Some sounds in Spanish are very similar and it is

difficult for me to differentiate them. I don’t have time to hear the pronunciation of a new word before the rest of the sentence is said, causing me to forget most of the sentence. (I will improve) only if I learn exactly which letters make which sounds in different situations.

These comments are consistent with claims that feelings of frustration and

anger are associated with learners’ inability to comprehend unsimplified, normal

speech (Scarcella and Oxford, 1992; Oxford, 1993). In fact, shortening the

treatment in Study B was in response to the concerns expressed by EXP-3’s

instructor, who was worried that learners’ resentment toward the listening

exercises was affecting their performance in the class. The results obtained for

162

EXP-3 support these concerns. A mixed ANOVA was conducted to assess

whether there were test and treatment differences in the scores obtained by

learners. The mixed ANOVA with test (with three levels ‘pretest’, ‘posttest’, and

‘delayed posttest’) as a within-items factor and treatment (with three levels ‘full

treatment’, ‘partial treatment’, and ‘no treatment’) as a between-items factor

showed a main effect of test (F [2, 96] = 6.815, p = 0.002), but not of treatment (F

[2, 48] = 2.32, p = 0.109). There was a significant interaction, however, between

test and treatment (F [4, 96] = 4.80, p = 0.000), which suggests learners with

different treatments scored differently in the different tests. The question that

arises, however, is whether the fact that EXP-3 and EXP-2 had the same

instructor also affected the results. A mixed ANOVA with test (with three levels

‘pretest’, ‘posttest’, and ‘delayed posttest’) as a within-items factor and instructor

(there were three instructors) as a between-items factor did not show a significant

main effect of instructor (F [1, 48] = 1.73, p = 0.188). There was, however, a

significant interaction between test and instructor (F [4, 96] = 6.10, p = 0.000),

which suggests that the overall trend for learners with different instructors is

somewhat different and that the instructor’s attitude toward the study possibly

affected the overall results.

In conclusion, these findings indicate that the development of listening

comprehension requires helping learners identify their cognitive difficulties and

teaching them ways to cope with these problems as they arise, as suggested by

Goh (2000) and Field (2003). Furthermore, the data obtained by EXP-3 suggest

that providing learners with listening exercises that disregard feedback and

163

explicit instruction of the phonological differences between L1 and L2 systems

can be detrimental to acquisition.

4.2.3.4 Study B summary

The data from Study B support the results obtained in Study A. The

procedural and declarative learning systems proposed in Ullman’s DP model

(2001, 2004) were found to affect the development of phonemic awareness of the

phonemes studied in this dissertation, and phonemic processing is more difficult

when learners are expected to listen to sentences.

The results in Study B are consistent with the previous claim that learners

have more difficulties with words occurring beyond the third position in an

utterance.84 Working memory difficulties and the length of the treatment (10

days in Study B, compared to 17 days in Study A) appear to have contributed to

the widespread lack of statistical significance observed in the results for Study

B.85 For instance, although L1 transfer was observed in the development of the

/x/ and /r/ phoneme, working memory limitations seemed to have decreased the

incidence of L1 transfer in the data obtained from EXP-2, EXP-3, and CON,

because a higher percentage of learners in these two groups failed to write

something for the target words. In comparison, although fewer working memory

84 Several learners failed to write the words mareos ‘dizziness’ (29%; 15/51), pudo ‘s/he was able to’ (27%; 14/51), atajo ‘short cut’ (27%; 14/51), marinero ‘sailor’ (22%; 11/51), ajustadas ‘tight’ (20%; 10/51), and marina ‘shore’ (18%; 9/51). In comparison, the words justicia ‘justice’, jaguar ‘jaguar’, and justificar ‘justify’, which appeared in the second position of the utterance, were missed by no more than 12% (6/51) of the learners participating in Study B. 85 Recall that only the within-subjects improvement experienced by EXP-1 in the recognition of the /x/ phoneme in the delayed posttest was statistically significant

164

difficulties were observed among learners in EXP-1 in the results for the /r/

phoneme (i.e., in the posttest and delayed posttest), L1 interference was more

prevalent in this group, in particular with the word pirata. These findings and the

high degree of variability of graphemes associated with the flap /r/ throughout the

study are consistent with the previous claim that individual differences affect the

development of phonemic awareness of the intervocalic /r/. Thus, although the

treatment appears to have helped learners in EXP-1 to improve their processing of

longer utterances, the 10-day treatment was not successful in improving learners’

phonemic awareness of the /r/ segment.

The data for the /x/ phoneme, however, were not affected by the length of

treatment. As seen earlier, the results EXP-1 obtained for the /x/ phonemic

awareness were the only statistically significant improvement in Study B.

With respect to the /d/ phoneme in intervocalic position, the high mean

values obtained by the four groups support the claim that phonemic awareness of

this Spanish fricative allophone [δ] develops via the procedural learning system.

The data for EXP-2, EXP-3, and CON, however, indicate that recognition may be

affected by working memory limitations.

Furthermore, although the overall poor proficiency observed among

learners in EXP-2, EXP-3, and CON is attributed mainly to working memory

limitations, learners in EXP-1 appeared to have benefited from the explicit lessons

on syllabification and linking in Spanish, as suggested by their improvement in

parsing longer sequences of words. These observations are consistent with the

165

conclusions in Study A where segmentation clues in Spanish were found to be

acquired by the declarative learning system.

4.2.3.5 Lexical effect

This section presents an analysis of several examples of the lexical effect,

or perceptual feedback, which was observed in Study B. As stated earlier, the

lexical effect is the process by which information of a word is fed back to the

prelexical level (e.g., phonemic or feature levels) where decisions about sounds

are made (McQueen et al., 2003). Furthermore, although it is assumed that

lexical information sometimes can improve phoneme and word recognition,

critics of the feedback proposal argue that a lexical effect is not needed and,

instead, could affect performance and distort prelexical (i.e., phoneme)

representation (Norris et al., 2000; McQueen et al., 2003). Contrary to these

arguments against the existence of a perceptual feedback, however, the data in

this dissertation indicate that a strong lexical effect exists and could bias

phonemic and word identification because some learners seemed to discard

prelexical information.

One such example occurred with the word moralista ‘moralist’, in the

posttest, for which 10% (5/51) learners wrote ‘mona lisa’ as in ‘lady in painting’

(as one of the learners explained). One of these 5 learners, however, first wrote

mona lista ‘smart monkey’ with a ‘t’; then, crossed out the ‘t’ and translated it as

mona lisa. This finding support Field’s (2003) assertion that once learners have

formed expectations from the oral text, they are reluctant to revise them, even if

166

evidence comes in that contradicts them. Thus, learners may overlook

information coming from the prelexical stage in favor of more meaningful lexical

information as in the example mentioned, where the learner’s prelexical

processing correctly registered a ‘t’ in the acoustic signal but mistook the /r/ for

an /n/, thus facilitating the interpretation of the word ‘mona’. Then, since the

learner’s lexical knowledge found an appropriate candidate to match the input

without a ‘t’ (and failed to find one with it), the lexical bias effect prevailed and

contributed to the misinterpretation of the string moralista as mona lisa. Another

example occurred in the pretest in which some learners failed to write the ‘a’ after

the vibrant in the cognate veracidad. Although it is not clear whether learners

failed to distinguish the ‘a’ or whether they heard it and ignored it in favor of a

phrase that was more familiar to them, the omission of the ‘a’ contributed to a

biased misinterpretation (i.e., lexical effect) of the phrase la veracidad ‘the

veracity’ for la universidad ‘the university’ (3 learners in EXP-1 and 1 in EXP-3).

These findings suggest that effective listening comprehension relies on

optimal prelexical and lexical processing. Thus, even assuming an efficient

prelexical processing, failure to find an appropriate candidate in one’s lexicon (as

happens with beginners who have a general lack of vocabulary) results in a strong

lexical effect that is biased toward activation of an incorrect word. The results,

however, are predicted by the Merge model (Norris et al., 2000), which assumes a

prelexical level that operates optimally. But, as the analysis of the data has

shown, the majority of learners in the fourth semester of Spanish still have an

inefficient prelexical processing due to L1 interference and working memory

167

difficulties. Thus, a sub-optimal prelexical processing appears to interact with an

underdeveloped L2 vocabulary in facilitating a biasing lexical effect.

Whether the lexical effects are due to feedback from the lexical to the

prelexical stage (as claimed by proponents of interactive models as TRACE by

McClelland and Elman, 1986), or due to “merge” processes at phonemic decision

units (as argued by the proponents of the Merge Model, Norris et al. 2000) is an

issue that goes beyond the scope of this dissertation and is not addressed in this

study. The data, however, indicate that learners may overlook some information

in favor of familiar interpretations despite of the evidence in the acoustic signal

(e.g., moralista been interpreted first as mona lista, then as mona lisa). These

findings suggest that learners are listening for meaning and use information from

the word (lexical effect) to formulate hypotheses as to the words to which they are

listening. Other factors, however, like inefficient prelexical processing and

learners’ undeveloped lexical knowledge contribute to impair the performance at

the prelexical and lexical stages.

4.2.3.6 Cognates

This section provides an analysis of learners’ abilities to use lexical

information beyond the phonemic level (i.e., lexical effect) in order to identify a

word despite the differences in pronunciation of the L1 and L2 cognates.

The data show that not all cognates were equally difficult for learners. For

cognates like veracidad ‘veracity’, virilidad ‘virility’, and vulgaridad ‘vulgarity’,

although they occurred in the second position of the utterance, learners faced

168

working memory difficulties at the sound level. The most problematic of these

words was virilidad since no learner in any of the three groups was able to parse

the target segment in the syllable ri correctly. The following are some examples

of what learners wrote for this word: bi-bi-li-dad, vi-vi-bi-dad, vi-vi-dad, vi-di-li-

dad, de-bi-li-dad, a-bi-bi-li-dad, a-bi-li-dad. These data support the earlier claim

that it is difficult for learners in the fourth semester of Spanish study to process

similar sounds. The three boldfaced consonants in the word vi-ri-li-dad are

coronals, while the second and third consonants are also liquids.86 The difficulty

of processing the liquids was aggravated by the fact that they appear in a similar

context in the word virilidad (i.e., in the syllables -ri and -li, the liquids are

followed by the vowel ‘i’).

These data support the findings in Study A where processing difficulties at

the feature level also contributed to breakdowns in understanding. Although

these results suggest that difficulties with low level processes impeded learners

from recognizing cognates, however, other examples suggest learners simply did

not know the English cognate. For instance, 12 learners (2 in EXP-1; 4 in EXP-2;

2 in EXP-3, and 4 in CON) were able to extract the word veracidad87 from the

utterance La veracidad de programas en Austin es habitual ‘The veracity of

programs in Austin is habitual’ in the pretest, but only one learner in EXP-3, one

in EXP-2, and two in CON determined the meaning of the word correctly. The

other eight learners stated they did not know the meaning of this Spanish word

86 The liquids, /r/ and /l/, are sonorant, ‘resonant’, ‘approximant’, and anterior (Nuñez Cedeño and Morales-Front, 1999). 87 The 12 learners even spelled the word veracidad with a <v> and a <c>.

169

and could not guess it, either. As stated earlier, learners heard the sentence twice

and were given 5 more opportunities to think about the target word and its

meaning.88 Thus, even if word-referent processing was not automatized, learners

had several opportunities to think about the meaning of the word. The fact that

learners still did not recognize the word suggests that they were not familiar with

the English cognate ‘veracity’, in which case phonemic awareness of the target

phonemes would be irrelevant to the recognition of the target word veracidad.

Other cognates were not difficult for learners to identify. For instance, the

word aroma was identified by 15 learners (88%) in EXP-1, 7 (64%) in EXP-2, 6

(67%) in EXP-3, and 4 (29%) in CON. Moreover, several learners were able to

identify some of the cognates despite failures in identifying all the phonemes of

the words. For example, although some learners wrote ‘justificious’,

‘justifaricas’, ‘justifices’, ‘justifaces’, ‘justificas’, and ‘justificares’ instead of the

target justificar, they were still able to translate the word correctly as ‘justify’.

On the other hand, those learners who missed the initial <j> in justificar or

mistook the intervocalic <r> in pirata for a <d> were not able to recognize the

words. These findings suggest some phonemes are more important than others in

the recognition of words, an issue that will be discussed in more detail in Chapter

5.

In the next section, a summary of the analysis of segments is presented.

88 In the tests, after the dictation of each sentence, learners were asked to translate the sentence. They also had to answer questions regarding whether they knew the target word or not, and whether they could guess its meaning.

170

4.2.3.7 Summary: Analysis of segments

An analysis of the results at the word and sentence levels within the DP

model (Ullman, 2001, 2004) suggests the following: (1) the first phoneme to be

learned is the intervocalic /d/, and acquisition is facilitated by the procedural

system in the context of the rule for the regular past participle formation (i.e., -

ado, -ido) and the nominal morpheme -dad (e.g., ciudad ‘city’ and universidad

‘university’);

(2) the /x/ is an idiosyncratic sound in Spanish is acquired last, in that

phonemic awareness of the /x/ segment depends on the declarative system and is

affected by L1 interference;

(3) the phonemic awareness of the /r/ segment develops in function of both

declarative and procedural mechanisms, and the reliance on one or the other

learning system appears to be affected by individual differences. Also, the high

degree of variability of graphemes associated to the flap /r/ in Studies A and B are

consistent with the previous claim that individual differences affect the

development of the phonemic awareness of the intervocalic /r/; and

(4) learners in the fourth semester of university Spanish instruction face

working memory difficulties that prevent them from understanding familiar words

and cognates, let alone utterances, from oral input spoken at native-like speech

rates. The data, however, indicate that acquisition of L2 segmentation rules

depends on the declarative learning system.

These findings suggest that listening comprehension of a L2 spoken at

typical native speech rates requires proficiency at lower levels and higher levels

171

of processing. Although it has been suggested that “the principal clue for

segmentation in listening comprehension is meaning” (O’Malley et. al., 1995), the

lower mean values obtained at the sentence level and the analysis of the dictations

show that learners’ lack of knowledge of other segmentation clues (e.g., syntactic,

semantic, phonological) contribute to their difficulties processing utterances that

are spoken at normal speech rates. These findings are surprising. The

segmentation clues are part of the regularities found in language and, according to

the DP model (Ullman 2001, 2004), are predicted to be learned by the procedural

system. There are two possible explanations for these results. One is that the L2

classroom has not provided these L2 adult learners with multiple presentations of

stimuli that target the rules of segmentation on an ongoing basis and that,

according to Ullman (2001), are needed for the procedural learning system to

facilitate acquisition. The second explanation is that the knowledge needed for

segmentation may appear idiosyncratic to L2 listeners because they may be using

a strategy in segmentation that is consistent with the stress-based segmentation in

English but not with the syllabic-based segmentation used in Spanish (Cutler and

Clifton, 1999). In this case, the declarative system, which promotes awareness

and practice, may be needed for learning. In either case, whether to promote

proceduralization of segmentation rules or whether to utilize the associative

memory of the declarative system of learning, it seems that learners need explicit

instruction of the segmentation rules in Spanish, as it has been done in the

treatment proposed in this dissertation. The results indicate that learners in the

fourth semester of university Spanish instruction are receptive to this kind of

172

knowledge, which is consistent with the claim that learners are amenable to learn

segmentation rules by the declarative memory system.

4.2.3.8 Comparison of Study A and Study B

A comparison of the results from Study A and B yielded different results,

which suggests an effect of the length of treatment. In Study A the treatment

lasted 17 days and there was a main effect of treatment in all the phonemes, while

in Study B, in which the treatment lasted only 10 days, there was a widespread

lack of statistical significance in the results, except for phoneme /x/. The

influence of the length of the treatment, however, varied depending on the

phoneme. The data show that the /r/ segment was the most affected by the short

treatment; i.e., a high degree of variability in the graphemes that were used to

represent the flap /r/ were still observed in the delayed posttest of Study B, but not

in Study A. The reader may recall our claim that learning the phoneme /r/

involves procedural (e.g., morphological effect) as well as declarative systems of

learning. The lack of a statistically significant improvement in the experimental

group in Study B, however, indicates that an increasing amount of practice, not

just awareness, is required for the development of the phonemic awareness of the

flap /r/. Thus, learning of the /r/ phoneme seems to have shifted toward more

dependence on declarative mechanisms.

Recognition of the phoneme /d/ was not affected by the short treatment

although the lower mean values obtained by the experimental groups in Study B

were attributed to difficulties due to the demands of processing long utterances.

173

The data for the /x/ segment show a main effect of treatment in both

studies. As mentioned earlier, acquisition of the /x/ phoneme depends mainly on

declarative mechanisms because this segment is an idiosyncratic sound in the

Spanish phonological system. These results in Study B, however, suggest that

acquisition of the /x/ phoneme is more dependent on the factor of awareness than

on practice, since the results for the /x/ segment were the only ones that yielded an

effect of treatment in Study B.

These findings are consistent with Field’s (2000) categorization of

learners in two individual learning styles. One group of learners, the risk-takers,

are prepared to form hypotheses as to the meaning even though they may have

recognized little of the signal; the second group, the avoiders, need a large

amount of hard bottom-up evidence before forming conclusions as to the overall

meaning. The avoiders appear not to be affected by procedural mechanisms

(e.g., the morphological effect) and require a more direct teaching approach in

order to develop an understanding of the L2 phonological system. Therefore, it is

claimed that for learners who are not affected by the procedural influence of the

morphological effect or when no morphological effect is possible (e.g., /x/

segment), a treatment of explicit knowledge and feedback as proposed by

González-Bueno (1997) may be needed to help learners bridge between the L1

and L2 knowledge. The results in this dissertation are consistent with this claim:

learners who were instructed about the differences between the L1 and L2

phonological systems (e.g., phonemes and segmentation rules) and provided with

explicit feedback and opportunities to practice, improved their perceptual

174

processing and their segmenting capabilities. Furthermore, as learners were more

prepared to deal with the memory demands of higher levels of processing, they

were able to attain and retain longer sequences of words.

4.3 SECTION 2: ANALYSIS OF CHUNKS

The purpose of this section is to study learners’ ability to process and

interpret “phonological chunks,” which are defined as homophonous phrases that

are semantically different. Consider, for instance, the following sentences (35)

and (36), in which the underlined phrases correspond to the string [a-si-do] when

spoken at normal speech rates:

(35) ¿Has sido un buen estudiante? ‘Have you been a good student?’

(36) ¿Pedro ha sido un buen doctor? ‘Has Peter been a good doctor?’

(37) ¿Has ido a la playa? ‘Have you gone to the beach?’

Listeners need to use the lexical and grammatical context in which the

chunk appears in order to interpret the sentences correctly. Therefore, although

(35) and (36) use the same verb, ser ‘to be’, the difference is one of person

reference. Thus, the phrase has sido in (35) refers to the second person singular,

while ha sido in (36) identifies the third person singular. Disambiguation of (37)

is more complex because it involves knowledge of the distinction between the

copulas ser and estar, which are both translated as the verb ‘to be’ in English

although they appear in different semantic contexts. The verb ser is used as a

defining entity (e.g., to be tall, to be happy, to be Mexican, etc.) and estar as

175

indicating where or in what condition someone or something has resulted89 (e.g.,

to be sad, to be at the beach, etc.). Therefore, although in English one could say

that ‘Have you been to the beach?’ is a possible translation for (37), the

corresponding Spanish phrase for ‘Have you been to the beach?’ should be ¿Has

estado en la playa?, with the verb estar, not ser (notice also the change in the

prepositional phrase).

The data, however, show that the majority of learners in the fourth

semester of Spanish would translate the phonological chunk [a-si-do] in sentences

like (35) to (37) as the non-word *hacido and interpret it as the past participle of

the verb hacer ‘to do, to make’,90 which suggests they are using only the

phonological information from the utterance and ignoring grammatical and

semantic contextual cues.

The purpose of this section of the dissertation was to test whether a

phonological lesson with explicit instruction in the phonological processes of

linking and reduction in Spanish would encourage learners to use context in order

to disambiguate the homophonous phrases targeted in this work.

The data for this section were gathered from the groups participating in

Studies B and C.

89 This definition was taken from the University of Durham website http://www.dur.ac.uk/m.p.thompson/ser-estar.htm. 90 The correct past participle of the verb hacer ‘to make, to do’ is the irregular form hecho ‘done’.

176

4.3.1 Study B

In Study B the phonological phrases used in the tests are shown in Table

4.35. Recall that the sentences containing these target phrases appear in Chapter

3.

pre post d-post

Chunk 1 ha sido ha sido has ido

Chunk 2 va a llover va a hacer va a ser

Table 4.35. Phonological chunks used in the tests in Study B.

As Table 4.35 shows, there were two kinds of phrases in each of the tests.

Chunk 1 phrases contain an auxiliary verb and a past participle; while chunk 2

phrases are of the va + a + infinitive format. Therefore, there were three possible

scores a learner could obtain: (1) 1.0 if the learner identified both phrases

correctly in the dictation task; (2) 0.5 if only one token was identified; or (3) 0.

Tables 4.36 and 4.37 present the data for a comparison between subjects in

the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest. Table 4.36 includes the mean and

variance of the scores91 obtained by learners in the identification of the

phonological chunks in Study B. Table 4.37 shows the results of the Kruskal

Wallis test and evaluates the difference of mean values between subjects.

91 The actual scores learners obtained in the dictation task of chunks are included in the Appendix L.

177

pre post d-post EXP-1 mean 0.09 0.24 0.15 variance 0.039 0.066 0.055 EXP-2 mean 0.32 0.32 0.05 variance 0.164 0.114 0.023 EXP-3 mean 0.11 0.22 0.00 variance 0.049 0.069 0.000 CON mean 0.04 0.11 0.04 variance 0.018 0.084 0.018

Table 4.36. Mean and variance per group in recognition of chunks.

pretest posttest delayed

Chi-Square 6.227 4.430 5.565

df 3 3 3

P 0.101 0.219 0.135

Table 4.37. Kruskal Wallis test. Statistical results between subjects for identification of chunks in Study B.

Table 4.36 shows learners in EXP-2 obtained the highest mean in the

pretest (µ = 0.32) and those in CON obtained the lowest (µ = 0.04). Table 4.37,

however, shows that the difference of means between subjects in the pretest was

not statistically significant (p = 0.101). In addition, despite the slight

improvement observed in the posttest, except for EXP-2 (µEXP-1 = 0.24; µEXP-2 =

0.32; µEXP-3 = 0.22; µcon = 0.11), all four groups showed a similar low proficiency

throughout Study B, as suggested by the lack of significance seen in Table 4.37

for the data in the posttest (p = 0.219) and the delayed posttest (p = 0.135).

178

These findings suggest that learners in the fourth semester of Spanish have

difficulties segmenting running speech and cannot extract the targeted phrases out

of the input stream and interpret them correctly. The low mean values obtained by

all groups in all the tests and the general lack of statistical significance between

the means of the groups suggest that the difficulties processing these phrases is a

widespread problem among learners at this level.

Table 4.38 shows a comparison within subjects. The results of the

Friedman test indicates that the decreased in performance experienced by learners

in EXP-2 and EXP-3 reached significance (pEXP-2 = 0.025; p EXP-3 = 0.035).


Chi-Square 2.923 6.522 6.000 4.000

df 2 2 2 2

P 0.232 0.038* 0.050* 0.135

Table 4.38. Friedman test. Statistical results within subjects on the chunk identification task in Study B.

Most of the problems seen in the dictations suggest working memory

difficulties, in particular with the phrases for chunk 2. In the pretest, for instance,

12 learners (3 in EXP-1, 1 in EXP-3, and 8 in CON) completely failed to write the

phrase ha sido ‘s/he has been’; compared to 29 learners (12 in EXP-1, 3 in EXP-

2, 5 in EXP-3 and 9 in CON) who had difficulties with the phrase va a llover ‘it’s

going to rain’. Learners in EXP-1, however, seemed to have benefited from the

lessons on linking and reduction, and they showed an improvement in their ability

to segment speech and recognize more target phrases. In the posttest, for

179

example, 0 learners in EXP-1 and 1 in EXP-2 (9%) failed to write something for

the phrase ha sido ‘s/he has been’, compared to 33% (3/9) learners in EXP-3 and

50% (7/14) in CON who missed the phrase completely. Learners in EXP-1 were

also better at parsing the phrase va a hacer ‘s/he is going to do’ in the posttest,

since only 29% (5/17) failed to write this phrase completely, compared to 45%

(5/11) in EXP-2, 78% (7/9) learners in EXP-3 and 64% (9/14) in CON. In the

delayed posttest, the data show that learners in EXP-1 and CON had improved

their processing capabilities, while those in EXP-3 had not. The phrase with the

form va + a + infinitive continued to be the most problematic for all groups. For

example, 6 learners (1 in EXP-2, 3 in EXP-3 and 2 in CON) did not write

anything for the phrase has ido ‘s/he has gone’ in the delayed posttest, compared

to 17 learners (3 in EXP-1, 5 in EXP-2, 7 in EXP-3, and 2 in CON) who missed

the phrase va a ser ‘s/he is going to be’.

Although it was anticipated that more learners in all groups would use the

non-word *hacido for chunk-1 phrases (e.g., the perfect forms ha sido ‘s/he has

been’ or has ido ‘s/he has gone’) in the pretest, this occurrence was not common

among learners in Study B, except for 5 learners in EXP-2 and 5 in EXP-3.

Instead, the most common error observed in the pretest was the omission of the

auxiliary ‘haber’ in the utterance ¿Crees que María ya ha sido....?.92 When this

sentence is spoken at a normal speech rate, the string produced is [kres-ke-ma-ria-

ya:-si-do], with a reduction of the ‘a’ in the word ya and the ‘a’ of the auxiliary

ha into one long ‘a:’. Thus, learners’ failure to recognize the auxiliary of the

92 This was a problem for 41% (7/17) of learners in EXP-1 and 43% (6/14) in CON.

180

perfect form ha sido ‘s/he has been’ suggests learners are not using their

grammatical knowledge of the language and, instead, are relying only on the

phonological information.

These findings indicate learners in the fourth semester of Spanish

instruction are unfamiliar with the rules for segmentation in Spanish and are

unaware of the disambiguating role of context. After the treatment, however,

learners in the experimental groups started to use the perfect tense more often in

chunk-1 phrases (with a form of ‘haber’ plus a past participle ‘sido’ or ‘ido’) than

learners in the control group. Although learners in the experimental groups

sometimes did not necessarily use the correct form of the past participle, their

overall recognition of this tense improved. For instance, accurate recognition of

the target phrase by EXP-1 improved from only 18% (3/17) of learners in the

pretest to 47% (8/17) in the posttest. The recognition by EXP-2 improved from

27% (3/11) in the pretest to 45% (5/11) in the posttest. In the delayed posttest,

however, only 24% (4/17) of learners in EXP-1 and 0 learners in EXP-2

recognized the target phrase because 59% (10/17) in EXP-1 and 36% (4/11) in

EXP-2 misunderstood the form ‘ha sido’ for ‘has ido’ or ‘has sido’.93 The results

suggest that the treatment was successful in making learners in EXP-1 and EXP-2

aware of how (grammatical and semantic) contextual information facilitates

recognition and disambiguation of similar phrases (e.g., perfect tenses ‘ha sido’

versus ‘has sido’), which was the intention of the treatment. Furthermore, the 93 Unfortunately, in Study B there was no control for the consistency of phrases used in the tests, which may have been the cause of learners’ confusion of the two forms of chunk-1 type phrases. Therefore, while in the pretest and in the posttest, the target chunk was ha sido ‘s/he has been’, in the delayed posttest the target chunk was has sido ‘you have been’ This flaw of Study B was corrected in the design of the tests in Study C.

181

improvement suggests that knowledge of segmentation clues is learned through

the declarative system, because learners in EXP-1 and EXP-2 received a treatment

that stressed explicit instruction on the rules for segmentation, as well as

information on syllabification and linking in Spanish.

Identification of chunk 1 by learners in EXP-3 also improved from 22%

(2/9) of learners in the pretest to 44% (4/9) in the posttest. In the delayed posttest,

accuracy for this group was 0 because 3 learners wrote ha sido ‘s/he has been’

instead of has ido ‘you have gone’, 2 learners missed the auxiliary, 2 missed the

entire chunk, and 2 more wrote something completely wrong. The improvement

observed in EXP-3, however, suggests that the procedural system may also

influence learning of some segmentation clues, because the treatment received by

EXP-3 did not include explicit instruction on the rules of segmentation.

For the control group, 0 learners identified the target phrase in the pretest;

14% (2/14) in the posttest and 0 learners, in the delayed posttest. The main

problem in the delayed posttest was that 57% (8/14) of the learners omitted the

auxiliary and wrote ‘ya sido’ instead of ‘ya ha sido’.

Regarding chunk-2 phrases, a comparison of the results is presented here,

although a different phrase was used in each of the tests (va a llover ‘it’s going to

rain’ in the pretest; va a hacer ‘s/he is going to do’ in the posttest; and va a ser

‘s/he is going to be’ in the delayed posttest).94 The general results suggest

working memory difficulties were greater with phrases with the form va + a +

infinitive. For instance, there were only four learners in Study B who were able to

94 This inconsistency was eliminated in the design of the tests in Study C.

182

identify correctly the chunk ‘va a llover’ in the pretest, while 41 learners (80%)

failed to write something for this phrase. In the posttest, where the phrase ‘va a

hacer’ was used, although more learners tried to write something, only the same

learner in the control group and two in EXP-2 were able to recognize the chunk.95

In the delayed posttest, only three learners in Study B identified the tested phrase

‘va a ser’ (the same learner from the control group as before, and one learner in

EXP-1 and one in EXP-2), while 18% (3/17) of learners in EXP-1, 9% (1/11) in

EXP-2, and 7% (1/14) in CON wrote ‘va a hacer’ instead of ‘va a ser’.

In conclusion, the results suggest a slight effect of treatment for learners in

EXP-1. The lessons that emphasize awareness of word syllabification, linking,

and reduction in Spanish seem to have helped learners in EXP-1 improve slightly

in their lexical segmentation abilities of normal speech. They obtained a higher

mean in the posttest and, although there was a decrease of the mean obtained in

the delayed posttest, the decrease was not as steep as that of the other two groups.

These findings suggest that learning the importance of grammatical and semantic

context as segmenting and disambiguating tools is done by L2 listeners through

declarative mechanisms.

4.3.1.1 Summary of analysis of ‘chunks’: Study B

The analysis of the results in the parsing task (e.g., chunks) in Study B

suggests learners in EXP-1 benefited from the phonological lessons on linking in

95 There were also two learners (12%) in EXP-1 and one learner (7%) in the control group who failed only to write the preposition. Also, three learners in EXP-1 and two in EXP-2 used a different form of the verb ir ‘to go’ (e.g., they wrote vas or van instead of va).

183

Spanish despite working memory difficulties. The highest mean acquired by

EXP-2 (µ = 0.32) in the pretest and posttest, and EXP-1 (µ = 0.24) in the posttest,

however, was still very low.

The majority of the difficulties were in dealing with chunk-2 phrases

despite the fact that learners’ exposure to phrases with the ir + a + infinitive has

been longer than with phrases using the present perfect, as in chunk-1 phrases.96

This finding suggests that prior knowledge of a grammatical feature is not enough

for learners to parse spoken speech and to interpret the kinds of phrases studied in

this dissertation. Moreover, although a specific lesson on linking of phonetically

similar phrases ('has ido' versus 'ha sido'; and 'va a hacer' versus 'va a ser') was

prepared for Day 3 of the treatment in Study B, as mentioned in Chapter 3, this

lesson was removed when the treatment was shortened for the reasons explained

earlier. The shortening of the treatment decreased the time learners had to

understand and practice the phonological reduction that occurs in chunk-2

phrases. For example, phrases like ‘va a hacer’ are produced as [ba:ser], which

learners interpreted as <va ser>; or those like ‘va a llover’ are produced as

[ba:yober], which learners interpreted as <va yo ver>. In short, the data indicate

that the listening practice of phrases with the form va + a + infinitive was

insufficient for learning.

More critical is the fact that, although the lessons included one token each

of the contrast ‘has ido’ versus ‘ha sido’ in the same day, there was no instance of

‘va a ser’ in the treatment; therefore, learners were not exposed to the contrast of 96 Phrases with the ir + a + infinitive format are introduced at the University of Texas together with the presentation of the present tense of the verb ir during the first semester. In comparison, the present perfect tense is not introduced until the second half of the second semester.

184

this phrase with ‘va a hacer’.97 Also, while in the phonological lessons learners

heard five different tokens of chunk 1 (three tokens of ha sido, ‘s/he has been’ one

token of han sido ‘they have been’; and one token of has ido ‘you have gone’),

learners heard only four tokens of chunk 2 (two tokens of va a hacer ‘s/he is

going to do’; one token of van a hacer ‘they are going to do’; and one of va a

dañar ‘s/he is going to damage’).

Another possible reason for the poor results learners obtained in the

chunk-2 phrases is the lack of similarity of the phrases used in the tests for chunk

2 (e.g., va a llover in PRE; va a hacer in POST; va a ser in DELAYED). The

same was not the case for the chunk 1 phrases, which were phonologically equal.

In conclusion, the results show a slight improvement for EXP-1.

Learners’ parsing abilities improved as they became aware of the phonological

realities of Spanish. For example, they learned that the linking and reduction

phenomena make phrases like ‘ha sido’ and ‘has ido’ phonologically identical,

and disambiguation can be made possible by paying attention to the grammatical

and semantic context in which they occur.

The results, however, showed that the task of listening to sentences at

normal speech still exceeded the listening proficiency of learners in the fourth

semester of Spanish. In light of these findings, Study C was developed to include

tests that narrowed the demands on the parsing tasks98 and that included similar

97 These shortcomings of Study B are addressed in Study C. 98 Although Study C also included phonemic awareness tasks, this section was discarded from this dissertation because there were some problems with the dictations of some words by the instructor of the groups used in Study C.

185

phrases in the different tests to facilitate a comparison. Also, learners in Study C

were able to undergo a longer treatment that lasted 15 lessons.

4.3.2 Study C

First, this section shows the phrases used in Study C in Table 4.39. Recall

that the sentences in which the target phrases occurred were presented in Chapter

3.

pre post d-post

Chunk 1 ha sido - has ido ha sido - has ido ha sido - has ido

Chunk 2 va a hacer - va a ser va a hacer - va a ser va a hacer - va a ser

Table 4.39. Chunks used in Study C tests.

As seen in Table 4.39, two minimal pairs (or four homophonous phrases)

were evaluated in each test. For chunk 1, the minimal pair was ‘ha sido’ and ‘has

ido’, while for chunk 2, they included ‘va a hacer’ and ‘va a ser’. Since there

were two minimal pairs in each test for a total of four phrases tested, there were

five possible scores: (1) 1.0 if the learner identified the four phrases correctly in

the dictation task; (2) 0.75 if three chunks were identified; (3) 0.5 if the learner

identified two chunks; (4) 0.25 when the learner identified only one chunk; or (5)

a score of 0.

As mentioned in Chapter 3, the test materials in Study C were designed as

cloze tests (i.e., the sentences were printed and had a blank to be filled with the

186

target phrase by learners) in order to avoid the parsing difficulties learners

encountered in Study A and Study B.

Next, Table 4.40 shows the mean and variance of the scores per group in

order to compare the proficiency of the groups in the three tests, and Table 4.41

shows whether there was a statistical significance in the difference between

subjects.99

Note that Table 4.41 indicates that the mean obtained by learners in CON

(0.25) in the pretest was almost significantly higher (p = 0.081) than the mean

obtained by learners in EXP (0.06). After the treatment, however, EXP’s mean

value in the posttest was significantly higher than CON’s (µexp = 0.91; and µcon =

0.29; p = 0.001). In the delayed posttest, although the mean of the experimental

group decreased to 0.78 and the mean of the control group improved to 0.42, the

difference between subjects remained significant (p = 0.023).

pre post d-post EXP mean 0.06 0.91 0.78 variance 0.031 0.017 0.115 CON mean 0.25 0.29 0.42 variance 0.083 0.103 0.119

Table 4.40. Mean and variance per group in recognition of chunks in Study C.

99 The actual scores appear in Appendix M.

187

pretest posttest delayed

z -1.747 -3.342 -2.279

p 0.081 0.001* 0.023*

Table 4.41. Mann-Whitney U test. Statistical results between subjects for identification of chunks in Study C.

These results indicate that, although both groups showed an improvement

within subjects (pexp = 0.001, pcon = 0.035) that was statistically significant, as seen

in Table 4.42, the main effect of treatment for learners in the experimental group

was evident in the posttest and in the delayed posttest, while the significant

improvement in the control group was shown only in the delayed posttest.

EXP CON

Chi-Square 14.000 6.690

df 2 2

P 0.001* 0.035*

Table 4.42. Friedman test. Statistical results within subjects on the chunk identification task in Study C.

4.3.2.1 Summary of analysis of ‘chunks’: Study C

The data presented regarding the parsing task of chunks in Study C

indicate clearly that there was a main effect of treatment for learners in the

experimental group and that the effect of treatment was maintained at least a

month after the treatment ended. For chunk-1 phrases, as predicted, the majority

of learners in EXP and CON misunderstood both members of the minimal pair

188

‘ha sido/has ido’ for the non-word ‘hacido’.100 For instance, 88% (7/8) of

learners in EXP wrote ‘hacido’ for either of the two chunk-1 phrases (e.g., ha sido

and has ido); in CON, 85% (11/13) wrote ‘hacido’ instead of the phrase ‘ha sido’,

and 77% (10/13) wrote ‘hacido’ instead of ‘has ido’. These findings suggest a

sort of lexical biasing effect facilitated by a dependence on bottom-up

(phonological) information in listening exercises (O’Malley, 1995; Goh, 2000,

Field, 2003) and a disregard for the contextual information even in cloze tests. In

the posttest most learners (62%; 8/13) in the control group continued using

‘hacido’ or a similar form and were unable to distinguish the minimal pair ‘ha

sido/has ido’, while all 8 learners in the experimental group identified

successfully the phrase ‘ha sido’, and 7 recognized the phrase ‘has ido’. The only

learner who did not recognize the whole chunk used the incorrect form of the

auxiliary ‘haber’ in the chunk ‘has ido’. In the delayed posttest, only 13% (1/8)

in EXP had problems with ‘ha sido’ and 38% (3/8) experienced difficulties with

the phrase ‘has ido’. The dictations show that learners in the control group

showed an overall improvement of their recognition of the phrase ‘ha sido’ (31%,

or 4/13, recognized the phrase in the posttest; 69%, or 9/13, did so in the delayed

posttest). They continued to experience problems, however, in identifying the

chunk ‘has ido’ correctly: 4 learners (31%) recognized the phrase in the posttest

but only 3 learners (23%) did so in the delayed posttest.

For chunk-2 phrases, learners in the experimental group experienced

difficulties with both members of the minimal pair ‘va a hacer/ va a ser’ in the

100 The non-word ‘hacido’ will be used to represent all the forms used by learners for chunk-1 kind of phrases: hacido, hasido, asido/a, asidan.

189

pretest, even more than learners in the control group. For example, in the control

group 54% (7/13) of learners identified the chunk ‘va a hacer’ in the pretest

correctly, while only 13% (1/8) in EXP were able to do so. As for the chunk ‘va a

ser’, 23% (3/13) in CON identified the correct chunk in the pretest, but only one

learner (13%) in the experimental group did so. In the posttest, however, all

learners in EXP were successful at distinguishing the minimal pair ‘va a hacer/ va

a ser’ (although 2 learners missed the preposition ‘a’ in the chunk ‘va a hacer’),

while learners in CON continued having difficulties with the infinitive of the

phrase ‘va a ser’, which 54% (7/13) of learners misunderstood as ‘hacer’. In the

delayed posttest, learners in EXP displayed a similar performance as the one in

the posttest, although one learner mistook ‘ser’ for ‘hacer’, while learners in CON

repeated their performance in the posttest with a fairly accurate recognition of the

chunk ‘va a hacer’, and a poor identification of ‘va a ser’.

Overall, although learners in the experimental group showed a

performance inferior to that of their peers in the control group on the pretest, as

the mean values show (µexp = 0.06, µcon = 0.26), EXP’s ability to differentiate the

targeted homophonous phrases improved in the posttest, while their peers in the

control group continued having difficulties. It was observed that the minimal pair

‘ha sido/has ido’ was the most difficult for both groups to distinguish at the onset

of Study C, and the phrase ‘va a hacer’ seemed to have been the default phrase

used by both groups to represent the pair ‘va a hacer/va a ser’. By the time they

took the posttest, however, learners in the experimental group could distinguish

the four phrases successfully, while this was not the case for learners in the

190

control group. Learners in CON continued to experience difficulties with all

phrases except ‘va a hacer’ although they had a slight improvement in the

identification of the phrase ‘ha sido’.

Moreover, learners in the experimental group were able to maintain a fair

recognition of the four target phrases in the delayed posttest. Learners in the

control group showed an overall performance that did not reach the proficiency

observed in the experimental group, despite achieving a definite improvement in

identifying the phrase ‘ha sido’ and, to a lesser extent, better abilities in

distinguishing the pair ‘va a hacer/ va a ser’. An improvement was seen by

learners in the control group on the delayed posttest, as indicated also by a higher

mean obtained in the delayed posttest of 0.42 than the mean obtained in the

posttest of 0.29. This finding suggests that learners in the fourth semester of

Spanish may improve in their parsing skills of chunk-1 phrases once they reach

the point in the semester in which they have reviewed the use of the perfect forms,

without having received any specific instruction that draws attention to the linking

process in Spanish and grammatical contextual clues.

The difference of the overall results obtained by the experimental group

and the control group, however, cannot be explained only by the teaching of

grammatical elements alone. The improvement observed in learners in the

experimental group far surpassed the improvement of the control group at an

earlier stage in the semester. For example, while learners in the experimental

group were already producing better results in identifying the four chunks in the

posttest, learners in the control group did not have a more definite improvement

191

until the delayed posttest, and this improvement was observed only in the

identification of one of the four phrases, ‘ha sido’. Also, although the tests used

in Study C were relatively simple,101 those in the control group still experienced

more problems than learners in the experimental group in recognizing the missing

element in all the three tests. For example, none of the learners in the

experimental group wrote “hacido” in the posttest for any member of the minimal

pair in the chunk-1 ‘ha sido/ has ido’, while almost all learners in the control

group did so. And, in the delayed posttest, although more learners in the control

group had learned to differentiate the minimal pair just mentioned, there were still

several others who continued to produce the incorrect form particularly when the

context required the chunk ‘has ido’. These results suggest that, while learners in

the experimental group had learned to use the contextual clues to differentiate the

minimal pairs, learners in the control group had not, despite the fact that the cloze

tests contained the written sentences (except for a blank for the target phrases).

4.3.2.2 Comparison between Study B and Study C: Analysis of ‘chunks’

In order to make a comparison between the learners in Study B and Study

C who underwent similar conditions of a treatment or no treatment, only two

groups from Study B (EXP-1 and CON)102 and the two groups in Study C (EXP

and CON) are examined in this section.

101 Recall that learners in Study C needed only to fill the chunk in the blank that they believed was required in a particular sentence as supposed to the Study B in which they had to listen and write the whole sentence. 102 The group that received only a partial treatment (EXP-3) in Study B is not included in the comparison, since there is no equivalent group in Study C. Group EXP-2 is not included in order to avoid the effect of instructor described in Section 4.2.3.4 ‘EXP-2 and EXP-3 results’.

192

Although both studies suggest a main effect of treatment, only the data for

Study C demonstrate a statistically significant effect in the posttest and

maintenance of this effect in the delayed posttest. The dictations show that

learners in the experimental group in Study C improved in their ability to

distinguish the four phrases used (ha sido/has ido; va a hacer/va a ser) in the

posttest and in the delayed posttest. Learners in the control group did not improve

until later in the delayed posttest, and their performance was inferior to that

shown by learners in the experimental group. In Study B, the statistical results

obtained by the experimental group show a negligible improvement, although an

analysis of the dictations revealed an effect of treatment that was not shared by

learners in the control group; in particular, with regard to the increased use of

perfect tenses in contexts requiring a chunk-1 phrase. Furthermore, although

learners in the experimental group in Study B improved in their recognition of

chunk-1 phrases, this improvement was seen only in the posttest and was not

confirmed by the data from the delayed posttest. Also, the results for chunk-2

kind of phrases were not conclusive due to problems with the design of the

sentences used in Study B tests that presented great working memory difficulties

for learners. This problem was evidenced in the fact that they failed to write some

portions of the sentences, including the target elements.

Although both studies indicate an effect of treatment, the differences

observed between the two studies were the result of several factors. The length of

treatment is one of the factors that affected the results. That is, obvious

advantages were seen in the results obtained by learners in the experimental group

193

in Study C who benefited from a treatment of 15 days that was longer than that

which learners in Study B experienced. Thus, after explaining how word

syllabification and linking work in Spanish, and how attention to grammatical and

semantic context helps to disambiguate minimal pairs as has ido versus ha sido,

learners in Study C had also more opportunities to practice listening to dictations

of sentences containing the target phrases. There was also more time to give

learners immediate feedback following the dictations, which helped them to

retune their processing to accommodate the new knowledge. In comparison, the

results obtained by learners in the experimental group in Study B were poor,

probably as a consequence of a treatment that lasted 10 days and the removal of

several of the lessons on linking that were originally planned. Learners in Study

B had less time to practice to listening to sentences that incorporated the new

knowledge (i.e., syllabification and linking in Spanish, and awareness of the

importance of grammatical context). Another important factor that can account

for the differences among the studies was the difference in the level of difficulty

of the tests used. The tasks in Study B, in which learners had to listen to and

write whole sentences spoken at a normal speech rate, were beyond the listening

proficiency of learners in the fourth semester of Spanish. Learners in Study B (in

experimental and control groups) missed entire phrases and sentences in the tests,

which in turn made it impossible to measure whether the treatment had an effect

on the target elements, because many times the target elements had been missed

by learners. Therefore, the tests in Study C were re-designed as cloze tests where

194

learners heard the whole sentence but had to fill in only the target elements (e.g.,

chunks) in the sentences provided by the researcher.

Also, in order to facilitate the comparison of results within subjects from

one test to the next, the target phrases presented in Study C included two sets of

minimal pairs: the chunk-1 pair included the phrases ‘ha sido’ and ‘has ido’, and

the chunk-2 pair tested the phrases ‘va a hacer’ and ‘va a ser’. In Study B,

although the chunk-1 phrases were somewhat similar (‘ha sido’ in the pretest and

in the posttest, and ‘has ido’ in the delayed posttest), chunk-2 phrases were very

different (‘va a llover’ in the pretest, ‘va a hacer’ in the posttest, and ‘va a ser’ in

the delayed posttest), such that any comparison, let alone an improvement, was

impossible to measure.

In conclusion, the changes implemented in the tests for Study C made it

possible to support the slight effect of treatment previously suggested in Study B.

More importantly, analyzed within Anderson’s model for language

comprehension, these results place learners in the fourth semester of Spanish

instruction at the level of low proficiency listeners who rely on perceptual

processing (processing of sounds) and seemed to lack the ability to construct

meaningful mental representations based on schematic knowledge because of

parsing difficulties (i.e., lexical segmentation). The fact that learners in the

experimental group in Study C improved significantly after the training, however,

suggests that knowledge of segmentation rules, the disambiguating role of

grammatical and semantic context, and syllabification and linking in Spanish, is

information that can be acquired by a declarative system. It is claimed that

195

implementation of metacognitive strategies that provide learners with

opportunities to identify their cognitive difficulties and the means to cope with

them (e.g., attending to contextual clues) facilitates the shift to more top-down

processes in listening comprehension. This issue is addressed in more detail in

Chapter 5.

4.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter presents the results of three studies used to test the effect of a

phonological treatment that focused on enhancing the phonemic awareness and

parsing (segmenting) abilities of learners in the fourth semester of Spanish.

These data provide information about the development of L2 Spanish

listening comprehension by adult English speakers. It was concluded that learners

in the fourth semester of Spanish face processing difficulties at the perceptual and

parsing levels that prevent them from constructing meaningful mental

representations of the information they hear when engaged in listening tasks. At

the perceptual level, it was proposed that the development of phonemic awareness

of a sound is facilitated by the morphological effect (i.e., a sound that appears

frequently as a bound morpheme in the input presented to learners). Thus, the

intervocalic /d/ is acquired first, and its acquisition is proceduralized in the

context of the morpheme of the regular past participle -ado and -ido. The

development of phonemic awareness of the intervocalic /r/ is at a stage of

variability influenced by the effect of procedural (e.g., morphological effect) and

declarative mechanisms (e.g., L1 transfer). Dependence on one system or the

196

other is affected by individual differences, and a treatment of explicit

phonological lessons helps those learners who are not affected by procedural

mechanisms to improve their phonemic awareness of the flap /r/. The /x/

segment is not affected by the procedural learning system because there are no

morphemes that appear regularly in the input containing the phoneme /x/.

Furthermore, it appears that the smaller the influence of the morphological effect

on a phoneme (e.g., phonemes /x/ and /r/), the more L1 transfer is observed. The

results suggest that the development of phonemic awareness of the /x/ depends on

declarative processes.

At the parsing phase, learners experience working memory difficulties that

prevent them from attending to and retaining the information they hear.

Acquisition of the rules for L2 segmentation appears to be dependent on

declarative mechanisms of learning.

The overall results show that the treatments were successful in helping

learners overcome the perceptual and parsing difficulties. By making them aware

of L1 transfer tendencies and segmentations cues in Spanish, learners developed

more effective listening skills.

197

CHAPTER 5

Concluding Remarks

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this dissertation is to describe the listening comprehension

skills of Spanish L2 learners after four semesters of university level instruction.

With that objective in mind, this chapter begins by addressing the research

questions posed in this study. Next, the pedagogical implications of the use of

explicit instruction in the development of listening skills in the L2 classroom are

presented, followed by some suggestions for future research. This chapter then

presents the limitations of the present study and concludes with a summary of the

contributions of this work to the research of L2 acquisition.

5.2 ANSWERS TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The answers to the research questions posed in this dissertation provide an

understanding of the cognitive processes involved in the development of listening

skills in the L2 classroom. The results are discussed from two perspectives of

cognition: a learning and a listening approach. An analysis of the data within

Ullman’s declarative/procedural (2001, 2004) model provides the framework for

the analysis of learners’ development of listening skills. Anderson’s framework

(2000) for listening comprehension contributes to an understanding of the

198

difficulties learners face with Spanish oral input at the different levels of

processing.

1. What listening comprehension skills do learners in the fourth

semester of university Spanish instruction display at the perceptual level

(Anderson, 2000), particularly with regard to the recognition (phonemic

awareness) of the Spanish phonemes /d/ and /r/ in intervocalic position, and

/x/?

At the perceptual level, the phase at which processing of sounds occurs,

the data from the dictations support Ellis’ claim (1996) that novice language

learners are influenced by the orthographic and phonological aspects of

vocabulary when they participate in listening tasks. Their level of phonemic

awareness, however, depends on the segment analyzed.

When the input contains the fricative dental voiced [δ] sound, learners do

not have difficulties mapping the sound to the Spanish phoneme /d/ and its

corresponding grapheme <d>. Contrary to what was hypothesized, learners’

processing of this segment is not influenced by L1 interference, and the data do

not show any variability in learners’ recognition of the /d/ in intervocalic position.

Processing of the simple vibrant [r] in intervocalic position seems to be

affected by L1 interference and individual differences. Few learners consistently

recognized the /r/ phoneme, and L1 interference at the sound level was observed

in the data (e.g., misunderstanding the flap /r/ for a <d> when hearing the word

pirata ‘pirate’), but not as much as hypothesized. More than the results of the

199

other two targeted sounds, the results for the flap are consistent with Ellis’ (1996)

claim that “learners make associations driven by orthographic or phonological

confusions” (p. 94) and show a great degree of variability concerning the sound-

to-script associations. For instance, some learners occasionally mapped the

simple vibrant sound /r/ in intervocalic position to the grapheme <r>, others

associated it with the American English flap sound corresponding to the

graphemes <d> or <t> in English words as ‘butter’ or ‘ladder’, and still others

mapped it to two-letter spellings (i.e., digraphs) such as <rd>, <rt>, and <rr>.

Treiman and Cassar (1997) have found that orthographic knowledge affects

speech processing and phonological awareness among literate English-speaking

adults. Their results confirm that adults use their knowledge of spelling (e.g.,

they use the diagraph wh to represent /w/ in English) when making judgments

about sounds. The findings of the present study are consistent with Treiman and

Cassar’s claims and suggest a different kind of L1 interference, not at the sound

level as hypothesized, but at the level of conventional orthography. The fact that

learners use digraphs to represent the flap /r/ indicates that learners’ literacy and

L1 English print-related knowledge influenced their interpretation of the flap in

Spanish and contributed to the stage of variability and confusion found in the

dictations as the majority of learners mapped the flap sound to two or more

different orthographic representations.

The processing of the fricative velar [x] was the most affected by L1

interference at the phoneme level, although not entirely, because few learners

consistently mapped the sound /x/ to the grapheme <h> as in English. The data

200

show that there was not much variability regarding the orthographic

representations attributed to the /x/ segment; the majority of learners used only an

<h> or a <j> to represent it. There were few learners, however, that mapped the

/x/ phoneme to the spelling <q> or <c>, as happened with the word juan, which

was interpreted as cuan ‘how’ by three learners, and *quan by one learner. Still

another learner misunderstood the word juan as the question word cual

‘which’.103 Notice that the <q> and <c> are graphemes used to represent the

phoneme /k/ in Spanish with which the /x/ segment shares the features of point of

articulation (i.e., /k/ and /x are velar sounds) and sonority (i.e., both sounds are

voiceless). There were other words such as ajustadas ‘close-fitting’, in which

some learners mapped the sound /x/ to the spelling <s>, which is the

representation for the /s/ phoneme. The segments /x/ and /s/ share the features of

manner of articulation (i.e., both sounds are fricative) and sonority (i.e., they are

voiceless).

These findings do not indicate an orthographic influence as was the case

with the flap /r/. Instead, the data support existing evidence (Miller and Nicely,

1955 in Anderson, 2000) that listeners often confuse consonants that are

distinguished by just a single feature. In this case, the unvoiced fricative velar /x/

segment differs from the unvoiced stop velar /k/ phoneme only in the feature of

manner of articulation, and it differs from the unvoiced fricative alveolar /s/ in the

feature of point of articulation. Furthermore, failure to distinguish similar sounds

may have contributed to the misunderstanding of the target word with another

103 Only this learner translated the word cual as ‘which’.

201

possible L2 word. Consider, for example, the word juan that was misunderstood

as the nonword *quan and the question words cuan ‘how’ and cual ‘which’.

Notice that the nonword *quan and the question word cuan resemble another

Spanish question word, cuándo ‘when’, although none of the four learners

provided a translation. Learners in the Spanish classes, however, become familiar

with Spanish question words (e.g., cuándo ‘when’, cómo ‘how’, cuál ‘which’,

quién ‘who’) in the first semester of Spanish instruction, and they know that they

tend to occur at the beginning of an utterance just as in English. These findings

suggest learners have certain expectations of the L2 and, in this case, they may

have been expecting a question word at the beginning of the utterance.

Another factor that might have contributed to the misunderstanding of the

target sounds is related to the fact that this study did not control for external

factors such as the testing conditions (e.g., outside noise, the distribution of

learners’ seats in the classroom, the size and acoustics of the room, the manner

and direction in which the instructors projected their voice when reading the

sentences). Thus, it is possible that the conditions in which learners took the tests

added to the difficulties of distinguishing similar sounds and contributed to their

failure to perceive all the features of the voiceless velar fricative /x/.

In conclusion, at the perceptual phase of listening comprehension in

Anderson’s (2000) framework, this study suggests that the level of phonemic

awareness experienced by learners in the fourth semester of Spanish instruction

varies depending on the phoneme. Figure 5.1 shows the stage of development of

the target phonemes /d/, /r/, and /x/ when they are placed in the interlanguage (IL)

202

continuum. Learners’ phonemic awareness of the intervocalic /d/ appears to be in

the portion closer to L2, while the perception of /x/ resembles the perception of

these sounds in English (L1). The perception of the flap /r/ in intervocalic

position varies between L1 and L2 because learners appear to be uncertain of the

script-to-sound relationship regarding these linguistic elements.

/d/ /r/ /x/

<──────────────────────────────────────> L2 L1

Figure 5.1: Phonemic awareness development of Spanish /d/, /r/, and /x/ in the interlanguage continuum.

2. After four semesters of university Spanish instruction, to what

extent is the learner able to segment streams of speech in order to recognize

words and differentiate homophonous phrases (e.g. ha sido versus has ido)

when listening to speech spoken at a normal speech rate?

As predicted, after two years of university Spanish instruction, learners

have difficulties segmenting streams of speech spoken at native speech rates, and

fail to recognize familiar words ─ even cognates ─ and distinguish homophonous

phrases. Several factors were identified that contributed to segmenting

difficulties. One factor concerns the cognitive overload of learners’ short-term

memory. As Goh (2000) suggests, the processing of oral input that is more

demanding of what learners are able to process contributes to “little or no spare

processing capacity to form meaningful associations with existing knowledge in

203

long-term memory” (p. 61). These claims are consistent with the findings of this

study that show many learners failed to write several portions of the utterances.

Another factor is related to learners’ false expectations regarding how a language

should ‘sound’. The learners’ general perception, as expressed in the background

and follow-up questionnaires, is that their difficulties with listening exercises are

due to the fact that Spanish speakers speak “fast”. One learner in EXP-1 in Study

B, for instance, expressed the following: “They [Spanish speakers] speak quickly

and don’t take the time to make sure you understand them.” The present study,

however, indicates that the main factor for failure to segment oral input relates to

learners’ minimum general knowledge of the language, in particular, with regard

to the rules for segmentation in Spanish. Unfamiliarity with the segmentation

rules prevents learners from being able to extract words out of the input stream,

even when cognates, words, and phrases that are familiar to them are included in

the utterances. Take for instance the sentence in (39a), which was part of the

pretest in Study B and is repeated next:

(39) a. Ven y dime si crees que va a llover otra vez. ‘Come and tell me if you think that it is going to rain again’

Only six learners of the 51 who participated in Study B were able to

recognize the word ‘llover’ in the target phrase ‘va a llover’. In addition, only

three of those (i.e., learners EXP-2-9, EXP-2-11, and CON-9) were able to

translate correctly the word llover as ‘to rain’ as their dictations show next: (43) [EXP-2-1] ven y dime si crees que va a llover otra ves. ‘..think I’m going to say it one more time.’

204

(44) [EXP-2-6] ven y dime si crees llover ... tres. ‘... if you think you are going to cry another time.’ (45) [EXP-2-9] ven y dime si crees llover ... tres. ‘come and tell me if you think is going to rain again.’ (46) [EXP-2-11] ven y dime si crees llover ... tres. ‘look and tell me if you think is going to rain again.’ (47) [EXP-3-7] ven y dime si crees llover ... tres. (no translation provided) (48) [CON-9] ven y dime que va a llover otra vez. ‘go and tell me if it’s going to rain again.’

Furthermore, 30 learners failed to write the chunk between dime and otra

vez, while the remaining participants failed to segment the phrase correctly and

were unable to understand it as the following examples show: (49) [EXP-1-3] crees que vayo otra vez. ‘... you think that ... another time.’ (50) [EXP-1-6] benide de crece volver a otra vez. ‘....believe... return... time.’ (51) [EXP-1-10] benidi mezcrees caballa otro vez. (no translation provided) (52) [EXP-1-13] vine mes cres que aber otra vez. (no translation provided) (53) [EXP-2-2] ve edime si creas vaya otra vez. ‘... another time.’ (54) [EXP-2-5] ven y dime si creas de un otra vez. ‘they saw him tell me that he knew.’ (55) [EXP-2-7] ven y dime si crees que va a otra vez. ‘tell and ask me if you think I have to go again.’ (56) [EXP-2-8] dime si crees yo va otra vez.

205

‘give me if you think you are going to ... another time.’ (57) [EXP-2-10] ven y dime si crees si va otra vez. ‘come and tell me if you believe you will go another time.’ (58) [EXP-3-4] ve ydime es cave otra vez. (no translation provided) (59) [EXP-3-6] ven y dime si crees llevar otra vez. ‘... if you think.... again.’ (60) [CON-3] creas que vayo otra ves. ‘... thinks that I go again.’ (61) [CON-4] venedimos y crees que voy al otro ves. (no translation provided) (62) [CON-8] crees que vallo. (no translation provided) (63) [CON-11] ven y vides aya van van a otro vez. ‘... go and live to go another time.’

Recall that learners who participated in these studies were all in the fourth

semester of Spanish instruction at the university level. Now, considering that all

the words in (39a) are supposed to be familiar to learners since the first semester,

their failure to understand them suggests segmenting difficulties as well as an

underdeveloped “listening vocabulary”, a term that describes an inability to

recognize words by sound (although they may know them by sight) because the

word-referent processing are not fully automatized (Goh, 2000, p.61). String (44)

illustrates this concept because the learner appeared to have misunderstood the

target word llover ‘to rain’ for llorar ‘to cry’. In addition, String (51) ‘benidi

mezcrees caballa otro vez’ demonstrates parsing difficulties because the learner

206

failed to segment the utterance into familiar words and was unable to assign a

coherent meaning to the overall sentence.

An analysis of the dictations also indicates that although learners may

know some of the grammatical rules of the language (e.g., formation of present

perfect tenses; ir + a + infinitive ‘be + going to + infinitive’), they do not use this

knowledge to assign meaning to utterances. The reader may recall that in Study

C, learners have only to supply the missing element (e.g., va a ser versus va a

hacer or ha sido versus has ido) in (55a) and (55b), repeated next:

(55) a. Pedro ha sido un buen profesor y tú has ido a estudiar con él. ‘Pedro has been a good professor, and you have gone to study with him’ b. El señor va a ser un turista porque va a hacer un viaje. ‘The man is going to be a tourist because he is going to make a trip’.

As seen earlier, however, the results for Study C show that most learners

in the control group failed to recognize and distinguish the target homophonous

phrases in the tests, even in the delayed posttest towards the end of the semester.

These findings suggest that learners are not using the syntactic and semantic

information as segmenting and disambiguating cues.

In conclusion, an analysis of the results within Anderson’s framework

(2000) indicate that learners face difficulties at the parsing and utilization phases

as they struggle to understand the meaning of an utterance in listening tasks. At

the parsing level (i.e., the phase where the aural string is segmented into words),

learners are unable to segment speech and recognize even familiar words from the

acoustic signal. In addition, problems at the parsing phase cause difficulties at the

207

utilization phase (i.e., the phase where mental representations of the text meaning

is related to prior knowledge) because learners are unable to use context in order

to form meaningful associations with their existing knowledge.

Finally, recall that the analyses of learners’ dictations show their

understanding is limited to occasional words and they show no ability to

comprehend even short sentences. Although an oral proficiency interview was

not conducted,104 the findings suggests that after four semesters of university

Spanish instruction, learners still fit the description of novice-low listeners found

in the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines for listening comprehension (Omaggio

Hadley, 1993).

3. What developmental and cognitive explanations can be offered for

the listening skills observed in fourth semester learners?

The findings in this dissertation suggest that the development of listening

skills at the different phases of processing described in Anderson’s framework

(2000) depend on the procedural and declarative learning systems (Ullman, 2001,

2004). Recall from Chapter 1 that the procedural system is used in the acquisition

of regular linguistic elements found in language, while the declarative system

accounts for the learning of idiosyncratic elements. The data presented in

Chapter 4 suggest that the phoneme /d/ is a regular sound acquired by the

procedural learning system. The phoneme /x/ and the rules for lexical

segmentation, however, appear to be idiosyncratic in nature and are acquired by 104 As mentioned in Chapter 1, the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines for listening comprehension do not include guidelines to evaluate listening comprehension at lower levels of processing, which is the purpose of this study.

208

the declarative learning system. Furthermore, the results indicate that the

development of phonemic awareness of the /r/ in intervocalic position depends on

both the procedural and declarative systems.

Listening skills at the perceptual level

The present study suggests that at the perceptual phase (Anderson, 2000),

the sounds that are acquired first are those learned by the procedural system of

learning (e.g., /d/) because phonemic awareness is facilitated by an association to

a language rule (e.g., the fricative allophone of the /d/ phoneme is associated to

the regular past participle -ado, -ido in Spanish). Although learners indicated not

being conscious of the differences between the /d/ sounds in English and Spanish,

the data showed that they do not have difficulties recognizing the /d/ segment in

intervocalic position. Therefore, it is claimed that the fricative allophone of the

/d/ phoneme belongs to the category of regular linguistic elements that are

amenable to be learned by the procedural learning system.

On the other hand, there are some sounds that do not occur regularly in the

language. It is claimed that these sounds correspond to what Ullman (2001,

2004) refers to as idiosyncratic word-specific information of language. These

idiosyncratic phonemes (e.g., /x/) are not acquired by the procedural learning

system due to the lack of a language rule (e.g., morphological rule) that could

facilitate learners’ sound-to-script associations from input alone. The data in the

present study suggest that the /x/ segment belongs to the category of idiosyncratic

or arbitrary-related information (Ullman, 2001) that is not proceduralized and,

209

instead, depends on declarative mechanisms such as awareness, practice and

memorization for acquisition. In addition, a comparison of the results of the three

segments analyzed suggests that the /x/ segment is the most affected by L1

transfer and the last one to be acquired. These findings support O’Malley et al.’s

(1995) claim that the more the reliance on the linguistic characteristics of the text

(i.e., bottom-up processes), the more listening is affected by L1 interference.

Furthermore, from the results presented in Chapter 4, there appears to be

an intermediate category of information between regular and idiosyncratic

linguistic elements, which might be termed semi-idiosyncratic linguistic elements.

Learning of this semi-idiosyncratic information such as the intervocalic /r/ sound

is likely to occur by the interaction of both procedural and declarative learning

systems because the input available to learners allows for an association to a

language rule in a sporadic manner and at a relatively later stage of development.

Recall, for instance, that the flap /r/ in intervocalic position occurs in the past-

tense morpheme -eron and is presented to learners towards the end of the first

semester. This morpheme, however, appears only in the third person plural. In

addition, the morphemes -erá and -ería of the future and conditional tenses in

Spanish are not presented until the third semester of university instruction at the

institution where the study took place. Furthermore, it is suggested that

dependence on both learning systems accounts for the stage of variability between

the L1 and L2 acquisition observed in learners’ perception of the Spanish /r/ in

intervocalic position.

210

Earlier, Figure 5.1 showed the level of phonemic awareness of the target

sounds that was observed among these fourth-semester learners. Below, Figure

5.2 presents learners’ phonemic development of regular, semi-idiosyncratic, and

idiosyncratic sounds with respect to the procedural and declarative learning

systems proposed by Ullman (2001, 2004).

regular semi-idiosyncratic idiosyncratic

<──────────────────────────────────────> L2 Individual L1 Procedural Differences Declarative

Figure 5.2: Phonemic awareness development of Spanish /d/, /r/, and /x/ in the interlanguage continuum with respect to the declarative and procedural learning systems.

The procedural memory system is placed near the L2 in the IL continuum

to show that it facilitates acquisition of regular elements of the language (e.g., /d/

in intervocalic position). On the opposite end are the idiosyncratic elements of

the language (e.g., /x/) that are not acquired by the procedural system. As

mentioned before, perception of these elements is strongly affected by the L1 and

acquisition depends on the declarative memory system. Figure 5.2 suggests that

the closer a sound is to either end of the continuum (i.e., whether the sound is a

regular or an idiosyncratic sound), the less the influence of individual differences.

In the middle of the IL continuum are the semi-idiosyncratic linguistic sounds

(e.g., /r/ in intervocalic position) that depend on both learning systems for

acquisition. Individual differences seem to be the underlying factor behind the

211

dependence on either learning system and account also for the variability found in

the data.

Listening skills at the parsing and utilization phases

The analysis of the listening skills at the parsing and utilization phases

(Anderson, 2000) indicates learners face difficulties segmenting speech and

understanding more than a few words. This finding suggests that L2 learners may

perceive the rules for segmenting speech as idiosyncratic and, therefore,

acquisition of the rules is dependent on the declarative memory system. It is not

clear whether learners are using L1 strategies when segmenting oral input, since

this study did not analyze whether the sentences were parsed according to the

stress-based segmentation of English or not. The data, however, show that

learners try to find a good match between the oral input and some mental

representation of the message they hear. For example, the syllabification template

for string (39) Ven y dime si crees que va a llover otra vez would be [be-ni-dí-me-

si-krés-ke-ba-yo-bé-ro-tra-bés]. A comparison of this template with string (51)

benidi mezcrees caballa otro vez, as seen earlier, illustrates how learners may

follow the syllabification used by the instructors but fail to assign meaning to it.

Notice, for instance, that the learner who wrote (51) perceived the break between

the two syllables of the bisyllabic word di-me ‘tell me’ (i.e., ‘benidi’ and

‘mezcrees’) but was unable to recognize any Spanish words due to segmentation

difficulties. This finding is consistent with Ellis’ argument (1996) that novice

learners process the oral input as a sequence of sounds (i.e., bottom-up process).

212

In other instances, however, the data also indicate that learners have certain

expectations of the L2 based on their grammatical and lexical knowledge and use

this knowledge to interpret the utterances despite their segmenting and phonemic

difficulties, suggesting a top-down processing (i.e., utilization phase). Consider,

for instance, sentence (24b) ¿Crees que Carlos ha sido un buen marinero? ‘Do

you think Carlos has been a good sailor?’ This utterance was taken from the

posttest in Study B and is presented below in the first line. Next, the

syllabification template [kres-ke-kár-lo-sa-si-doun-buén-ma-ri-né-ro] that results

when the sentence is spoken at native speech rate is presented. The third line

shows the output produced by learner EXP-1-3; and, in the fourth line appears the

translation given by the learner: (24b) ¿Crees /que/ Car / lo/ s ha / si / do un / buen / ma / ri / ne / ro? [template] kres / ke / kár / lo/ sa / si / doun / buén / ma / ri / né / ro [EXP-1-3] ¿Crees /que/ Car / lo/ s ha ha/ ci / do / bue / no / di / ne / ro? [learner’s translation] ‘Do you think Carlos has made good money?’

An alignment of the syllabification template with the output produced by

learner EXP-1-3 indicates this learner obtained a fairly close match in terms of the

number of syllables. Notice that (24b) includes a present perfect (the underlined

phrase), with the auxiliary ha ‘has’ in boldface and the past participle sido ‘been’

in italics. The third line shows that informant EXP-1-3 was able to recognize that

the input contained a present perfect and wrote the auxiliary ‘ha’ correctly,

although the learner misunderstood the nonword *hacido as the past participle.

The output produced by the learner indicates a failure to segment the underlined

string [asido] of the template into the two elements of the present perfect (i.e., the

auxiliary ha ‘has’ and the past participle sido ‘been’). Instead, the learner devised

213

the nonword *hacido as the past participle for the verb hacer ‘to make, to do’.

Furthermore, in order to get a “grammatical match” of the present perfect with an

auxiliary and a past participle, this learner added an extra syllable ‘ha’, which

resulted in the string *ha hacido. These findings suggest that the learner was

applying existing grammatical knowledge regarding the formation of the present

perfect in Spanish in spite of segmenting difficulties.

Sentence (24b) also provides an example of how a strong biasing lexical

effect is facilitated by the learners’ underdeveloped vocabulary as well as a

suboptimal phonemic processing that is affected by L1 transfer. The

misinterpretation of the syllable ‘-ri’ in the word marinero as ‘-di’ facilitated the

activation of the wrong word dinero ‘money’ (e.g., lexical effect), contributing to

the overall misinterpretation of the sentence meaning ‘Do you think Carlos has

been a good sailor?’ as ‘Do you think Carlos has made good money?’.

These findings suggest top-down processes conflicting with bottom-up

processes. Although learners try to listen for meaning (i.e., the utilization phase

in Anderson’s framework, 2000) and have certain expectations of the L2, their

interpretation of the oral input is affected by a general underdeveloped knowledge

of the L2 (e.g., perception and parsing difficulties, as well as a lack of

vocabulary). Furthermore, although McQueen et al. (2003) argue that

“(Perceptual) Feedback can never improve recognition of a given word at the time

that the word is heard” (p. 267), their assumption is based on a prelexical level

that operates optimally. The data presented in this dissertation, however, show

that, after four semesters of university Spanish instruction, learners’ perceptual

214

processing (i.e., prelexical processing) in L2 listening comprehension still

operates sub-optimally and facilitates lexically-biased responses as predicted.

The issue as to whether the lexical effects are due to feedback from the lexical to

the prelexical stage (as claimed by interactive models such as the one proposed by

McClelland and Elman, 1986) or due to “merge” processes at phonemic decision

units (as claimed by Norris et al., 2000) goes beyond the scope of this

dissertation.

In sum, the results indicate that idiosyncratic linguistic elements (e.g., the

sound /x/) or those elements that appear to learners to be irregular because they

are expressed differently in the L1 and L2 (e.g., the rules for segmentation) seem

to be acquired through declarative mechanisms, while elements that are associated

with a linguistic rule (e.g., /d/) are acquired by the procedural system. Still other

linguistic elements (e.g., /r/ in intervocalic position) are semi-idiosyncratic and

their acquisition depends on the interaction of both procedural and declarative

learning systems. Furthermore, developmental problems at the lower levels of

processing (i.e., perceptual and parsing) contribute to the overall difficulties

facing learners in the fourth semester of university Spanish instruction as they try

to comprehend Spanish spoken at typical conversation rates. As demonstrated so

far, L1 interference at the perceptual phase and difficulties at the parsing phase

impede learners from recognizing even familiar words. Furthermore, failure to

segment speech contributes to an overload of the working memory capacity

needed for higher level processing. In turn, these cognitive demands at the lower

215

levels of processing hinder learners’ utilization of existing knowledge that could

help in word recognition and utterance interpretation.

4. Does explicit phonological instruction help learners improve their

phonemic awareness of the Spanish phonemes /r/, /d/, and /x/, and their

abilities to segment speech?

As predicted by cognitive models of learning, the results indicate learners’

phonemic awareness of the Spanish phonemes /r/, /d/, and /x/, as well as their

abilities to segment speech, improved as a result of explicit instruction of the

Spanish (L2) phonological system.

Explicit instruction and L2 phonemic awareness

At the perceptual level, the data from both studies indicate that the /d/

segment in intervocalic position is acquired by the procedural system. The

development of phonemic awareness of /r/ and /x/, however, due to their

idiosyncratic nature, requires practice and consciousness raising in order to utilize

fully the associative memory of the declarative system of learning. Recall from

Chapter 1 that the notion of consciousness-raising used in this study adds to

Rutherford and Sharwood-Smith’s (1985) definition in that it involves directing

learners’ attention to linguistic forms in the L2 (new knowledge) and L1 (prior

knowledge). The purpose of raising awareness is to facilitate acquisition by

helping learners to identify their existing knowledge in order to use it as an

‘anchor’ into which the new knowledge is integrated. The results from Study A

216

suggest that learners in the experimental group were responsive to the 17-day

treatment that compared the target sounds to their corresponding orthographic

representations in English and Spanish (i.e., consciousness) and reinforced the

sound-to-script relationships in Spanish with dictations of words and sentences

(i.e., practice). Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show a summary of the results in Study A in

terms of statistical significance at the word level and the sentence level,

respectively. An asterisk in a cell indicates that there was an improvement that

was statistically significant.

/r/ /d/ /x/ all EXP * * * * CON * *

Table 5.1. Difference within subjects at the word level. Study A.

/r/ /d/ /x/ all EXP * * CON * *

Table 5.2. Difference within subjects at the sentence level. Study A.

The results at the word level in Table 5.1 show that the experimental

group had a statistically significant improvement across the board in all phonemes

and in the results for all phonemes together.105 At the sentence level, Table 5.2

shows that the experimental group had a statistically significant improvement in

the results for the /r/ phoneme and in the data for all phonemes together.

105 The tables showing the statistical results of all phonemes together for Study A and Study B appear in Appendix N.

217

The data for CON show a pattern of significance that was similar in both

contexts: only the /r/ segment and the results for all the phonemes combined show

an improvement that was statistically significant.

In comparison, the data from Study B indicate a widespread lack of

significance of the statistical results, as seen in Table 5.3, which presents a

summary of the statistical significance within subjects. An asterisk in a cell

shows that there was an improvement that was statistically significant, while an

asterisk in parenthesis shows a negative difference of means that was statistically

significant.

/r/ /d/ /x/ all EXP-1 * * EXP-2 (*) EXP-3 (*) (*) (*) CON (*)

Table 5.3. Difference within subjects at the sentence level. Study B.

Notice that the only two results that show a main effect of treatment were

obtained by EXP-1 in the data for the /x/ segment and for all the phonemes

combined. The lack of significance in Study B is attributed to a treatment that

was short: 10 days compared to the 17 days in Study A.

Two conclusions emerge when comparing the results from Study A and

Study B. First, the development of the phonemic awareness of the Spanish /x/

seems to be highly responsive to treatment, even if it is a short one. This finding

supports the claim that learning to recognize Spanish /x/ depends on the

declarative memory system and stresses the importance of consciousness raising,

218

more than practice, in the acquisition of the /x/ segment. Second, the present

study suggests that the phonemic awareness development of the /r/ segment

requires more practice than that which was provided in the 10-day treatment in

Study B. As demonstrated earlier, these fourth-semester Spanish learners not

only relate L1 and L2 sounds perceptually at an orthographic level of

representation, but they seem to be in a stage of confusion with respect to what

grapheme corresponds to the flap /r/. Their dictations show they associate the /r/

segment to two or more graphemes (<d>, <t>, <rd>, <rt>, <rr>),106 which

suggests they need more time to understand which orthographic representation

corresponds to the flap in Spanish.

The overall statistical results, together with learners’ responses to the

follow-up questionnaire, indicate that the 10-day treatment in Study B was not as

effective as the 17-day treatment in Study A in making learners conscious of the

differences between L1 and L2 sounds. One learner in Study B, for instance,

commented the following regarding the experiences with the treatment:

(56) [EXP-1-14] I would like to spend a day to review the sounds of

all the letters, like in the mini-lessons, just for review. I have begun to forget stuff from the first time.

The lack of statistical significance in the results of Study B indicates that,

despite the explicit phonological lessons, learners in EXP-1 and EXP-2 were as

unsure about the differences of the phonemes in both languages as the learners in

EXP-3, the partial-treatment group, and CON. For instance, in response to a

106 Although this variability is more noticeable in the results from the pretest in Study A at the word level than at the sentence level, the discrepancy is attributed to more working memory difficulties in processing utterances than words.

219

question asking to compare the sounds of letters in English and Spanish, only

12% of learners (2/17) in EXP-1 and 18% (2/11) in EXP-2 indicated in the

follow-up questionnaire that the three phonemes <d>, <r>, and <h> were different

in both languages,107 compared to 22% (2/9) in EXP-3 and 7% (1/14) in CON

who thought so. These findings indicate that the short treatment was not

successful in making learners in the Study B experimental groups aware of the

differences between the L1 and L2 phonemes.

In comparison, although learners in Study A were not asked to specifically

compare the phonemes in Spanish and English, their statistical results and

responses to the follow-up questionnaire suggest that the longer treatment was

helpful in raising their awareness of the differences of the target phonemes in both

languages. The following are some of their answers to the question “Do you

think you are more conscious of the difference in the pronunciation of letters and

words in English and Spanish?”:

(57) [EXP-8] I now realize there is a difference between certain letters

like ‘h’ and ‘j’, and ‘r’ and ‘rr’; and that helps to understand the language.

(58) [EXP-12] Now I notice the difference sounds g, d, t, r, etc. at least

most of the time.

(59) [EXP-19] I know how to tell the difference between Spanish ‘d’

and ‘t’ now.

107 In the questionnaire before the treatment, however, 18% (3/17) of those learners in EXP-1 and zero learners in EXP-2 stated that the three phonemes were different.

220

(60) [EXP-21] Now I’m more aware of how words seem to run together and the differences between sounds of letters like ‘r’, and ‘d’ and ‘t’.

(61) [EXP-24] I always have trouble with the r, t, d sounds in the middle of the Spanish word and now it’s easier to hear the difference.

The responses from learners in Study A indicate that the development of

phonemic awareness was facilitated by the declarative memory system due to the

consciousness raising and practice effect of the treatment. In fact, learners in

EXP in Study A indicated that awareness of the differences between English and

Spanish sounds helped them improved their recognition of the phonemes /r/, /d/,

and /x/ in Spanish. The following are some of the comments taken from their

follow-up questionnaires:

(62) [EXP-4] Now I know what sounds go with what letters. (63) [EXP-6] With the exercises, I was able to differentiate the

different sounds. (64) [EXP-7] I learned that letters in Spanish now sound different than

in English. (65) [EXP-14] ...we learned the letters that don’t make the same sounds

in both languages. (66) [EXP-24] I think it [the treatment] improves my listening skills

because I can separate the Spanish sounds that are different than English. (67) [EXP-28] ... hearing and trying to write what I heard clearly revealed which letters I easily (and often) confused.

221

In general, learners expressed an overall sentiment that awareness of

“what sounds go with what letters”, as learner EXP-4 stated in (62) above, helped

their listening skills in recognizing not only the sounds, but also more words.

Explicit instruction of parsing

The phonological lessons on syllabification, linking, and coarticulation in

Spanish helped to improve learners’ abilities to segment speech. As mentioned

earlier, learners’ improvement of parsing abilities suggests that acquisition of

segmenting rules in the L2 also depends on the declarative memory system and,

therefore, it is facilitated by instruction that emphasizes consciousness raising and

practice. Although learners in all groups continued having working memory

difficulties in the posttest and the delayed posttest, the analysis of their dictations

indicates learners in the experimental groups were able to attend to, interpret, and

retain more information from the utterances than learners who did not receive the

full treatment. Furthermore, it has been shown that the utilization phase also

became more efficient among learners in the experimental groups as they started

to use contextual information to distinguish the target phrases. The follow-up

questionnaires are consistent with the findings and suggest that, by becoming

aware of the linking processes in Spanish, learners were able to approach the

listening task more efficiently. Some learners, for instance, expressed that

learning how Spanish native speakers “run the words together’ was useful and

helped them to pay more attention to context in listening tasks:

222

(68) [EXP-5] I learned that Spanish speakers tend to connect their words and knowing that helped me distinguish pronunciations. (69) [EXP-7] I’m able to tell when a word begins and stops. (70) [EXP-9] It was really helpful to study the differences between pronunciation between English and Spanish. I really improved by knowing how to break up the words. (71) [EXP-10] We have adapted our listening skills and have learned to listen harder because a lot of native speaker run the words together. (72) [EXP-12] I never knew before this class, that Spanish speakers run the words and syllables together. This information helps a lot! (73) [EXP-21] Now, I’m more aware of how words seem to run together. (74) [EXP-26] The way some words kind of run together in Spanish will be easier to recognize if I speak to a Spanish speaker. (75) [EXP-f1-14] It’s good to know what words can be connected (wrong ‘hacido’; right ‘has ido’) and be able to listen for that.

In comparison, learners in the control groups continued to experience

difficulties in recognizing the target phrases. In particular, the data obtained from

learners in Study C, in which learners were provided with the written context in

the test materials, suggest that learners in the control group continued to disregard

the context as a disambiguating tool to distinguish homophonous phrases (e.g., ha

sido versus has ido; va a hacer versus va a ser). The results for learners in the

experimental group in Study C indicate an effect of treatment because learners

who received the lessons on linking and phonological assimilation processes in

223

Spanish, such as reduction, were able to distinguish the four homophonous

phrases by using the grammatical and semantic context.

In conclusion, the results support the claim that explicit L2 instruction of

the Spanish phonological system contributes to the development of listening skills

that depend on the declarative memory system for acquisition. Thus, although it

has been shown that some knowledge (e.g., phonemic awareness of intervocalic

/d/) can be acquired by the procedural system, the results indicate that the

phonological development of other linguistic elements (e.g., /r/, /x/, lexical

segmentation) are responsive and aided by instruction that provides practice and

promotes consciousness of how Spanish is phonologically structured. At the

perceptual level (i.e., processing of sounds), the phonological lessons facilitated

feedback for learning (McQueen et al., 2003; and Norris et al.,in press) and

helped learners to adjust their phonetic categories of /x/ and /r/ so as to correspond

to the sound-to-script mapping in Spanish. As predicted by the models of spoken

word recognition, the dictation of words and sentences containing the target

phonemes and the explicit feedback have the “longer-term and more general

effect of retuning prelexical processing” (McQueen et al., 2003, p. 261). At the

parsing and utilization levels, explicit instruction also improved learners’

segmenting abilities as they began to use more context to recognize words and

phrases.

224

5. Does explicit instruction of the L2 phonological system facilitate

listening comprehension?

Despite the improvements observed after the treatment at the perceptual

and parsing phases of listening comprehension (Anderson, 2000), the general

results indicate learners continued to face working memory difficulties. It would

be an overstatement to propose that learners in the experimental groups attained a

level of listening comprehension that resembles that of an advanced learner.

Recall that the tests in Study C were designed as cloze tests in order to avoid

overwhelming learners with the cognitive difficulties of the tests in Study A and

Study B. In spite of the limitations of the present study, however, the data suggest

that the learners’ overall listening comprehension improved because their low

levels of processing became more efficient. The explicit instruction provided to

learners in the experimental groups helped to improve their phonemic awareness

and their parsing abilities, allowing them to concentrate on listening for meaning

(i.e., higher levels of processing).

Furthermore, learners in the experimental group in Study A expressed in

their follow-up questionnaires that they noticed an improvement in their overall

listening skills. Some of the comments expressed regarding their experience with

the phonological lessons and the effect on their listening skills are as follows:

(76) [EXP-3] It’s a lot easier to distinguish words now. (77) [EXP-4] I will know what words they are pronouncing if understand how to spell the words. (78) [EXP-5] It made me listen more closely to the words when doing the exercises rather than picking up on key words I know.

225

(79) [EXP-7] I’m able to tell what the words are. (80) [EXP-12] I have to pay a lot of attention, but now I catch more when I hear a Spanish speaker talk. (81) [EXP-19] I got better over time about listening to more than just a few words at a time. (82) [EXP-20] It’s much easier for me to understand words and the Spanish language overall, now that I am aware of how the letters sound. I think it was necessary to be taught ‘how to listen’ in order for me to ever understand the language.

Even learners in Study B, despite receiving a treatment of only 10 days,

noticed some improvement in their listening skills. In response to the question

“Do you think these exercises will improve your listening skills in Spanish?”

some learners answered the following:

(83) [EXP-1-6] So far they have because I learned to use context and listening. (84) [EXP-1-14] (It) helps to be able to know differences and separate words in my mind. (85) [EXP-2-1] It will help me to pick up on words that are strewn

together or silent.

In conclusion, the data indicate that explicit instruction of the L2

phonological system contributes to improvement of the listening skills of novice

learners. The results have demonstrated that by providing strategies to improve

phonemic awareness and lexical segmentation, low levels of processing become

more productive, failures in communication can be minimized, and learners are

226

able to devote more of their working memory capacity to higher levels of

processing.

5.3 IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The findings of the present study suggest several pedagogical

implications. First, one implication is related to the development of L2

phonology; in particular, the acquisition of L2 sounds and segmentation rules.

Ullman’s (2001, 2004) cognitive model claims that processing and learning of a

L2 depend on the declarative and procedural learning systems. The present study

is consistent with these claims and indicates that the development of phonemic

awareness occurs in three different ways: (1) by the procedural memory system

(e.g., intervocalic /d/), (2) the declarative memory system (e.g., /x/), or (3) an

interaction of both systems (e.g., /r/ in intervocalic position). As seen earlier,

proceduralization of the /d/ in intervocalic position occurs implicitly (i.e., not

under conscious control) by a meaningful association of the /d/ phoneme to the

regular form of the Spanish past participle morpheme -ado, ido (morphological

effect). These findings suggest that learners may develop phonemic awareness of

a sound and bypass the need for a conscious phonemic processing. Furthermore,

since a morphological association entails a higher level of processing than that

required at the phonemic level, one may posit that successful recognition of words

(i.e., lexical processing) may not require a phonemic processing that operates

optimally, either. Therefore, as suggested by Goh (2000), a rich background

knowledge could be enough to help learners to engage in top-down processing in

227

spite of difficulties at the phonemic level. There are several problems with this

scenario, however, because learners in the first two years of Spanish are still

beginners and their general knowledge of the language, including vocabulary

development, is minimal, so they “have no choice but to fall back on input-driven

parsing” (Goh, 2000, p.65). In addition, low-level processes, affected by L1

phonemic interference and unfamiliarity with segmentation rules, prevent learners

from being able to use any prior knowledge they have of the L1 and L2 (cognate

recognition, grammatical and lexical contexts, etc.) in listening tasks.

The pedagogical implications with regard to the difficulties at the

perceptual and parsing levels suggest that learners may have not been provided

with the kind of practice needed for proceduralization of the /x/ and /r/ segments

and for segmentation of utterances. If, as Ullman (2004) states, the associative

memory of the declarative mechanism contributes to the rapid learning of

arbitrarily-related information and can be consciously recollected, then it seems

reasonable to raise learners’ conscious awareness of the differences and

similarities of the L1 and L2 phonological systems in order to help them acquire

the L2 sounds and phonological structure. Viewed from the perspective of

Bialystok’s analysis and control model (1994), these data suggest that even

though learners may have some knowledge of the L2, they have not analyzed the

structure of their linguistic knowledge in a way that can be useful to them to form

mental representations in real time (i.e., control). Thus, for instance, the word

jugo ‘juice’ is pronounced in Spanish as [xugo] and confused by L2 learners of

Spanish with the name ‘Hugo’ because they still have not proceduralized the

228

mapping of the sound [x] to the Spanish phoneme /j/.108 At the parsing phase,

although they may know the semantic differences between the phrases that ha

sido ‘s/he has been’ and has ido ‘you have gone’, learners may not be aware that

both phrases are phonologically similar when spoken at normal speech rate and

that context is needed to distinguish them in listening tasks. As seen in the

present study, however, learners are amenable to acquire idiosyncratic linguistic

elements when they participate actively and consciously in listening

comprehension tasks.

These findings are also consistent with Ullman’s (2001) claim of a shift to

a dependence on the declarative memory system for the learning of the L2. He

proposes that this shift may occur as follows:

First, linguistic forms that are compositionally computed in L1 (e.g., walk + -ed) may be memorized in their entirety in L2. Productivity may emerge from the ability of the associative lexical memory to generalize patterns to new forms, and from the learning of abstract structured representations whose frames specify word (sub-)categories. Second, L2 speakers may learn explicitly rules in declarative memory, and use those rules to construct linguistic forms. (pp. 117-118)

Both of Ullman’s proposals suggest that, when adults learn a L2, there is

an initial reliance on the declarative memory system for the conscious learning of

linguistic elements that have not been acquired by the procedural system.

Afterwards, the subsequent proceduralization takes over through practice. The

pedagogical implications with regard to phonemic awareness and acquisition of

segmentation rules, then, indicate the need to increase learners’ exposure to L2

input that promotes proceduralization of L2 idiosyncratic linguistic elements (e.g., 108 This was one of the words presented to learners during the phonological lessons. It did not appear in any of the tests.

229

/r/, /x/, and segmentation rules) at earlier stages of acquisition in order to improve

low levels of processing. The present study, however, researched acquisition of

the targeted elements only among learners in the fourth semester of instruction.

Therefore, future research needs to account for the stage of development of these

linguistic elements at earlier semesters of L2 instruction in order to make better

decisions as to how to improve proceduralization.

Despite the findings of the present study, however, current proficiency

measurements of L2 listening comprehension do not address the failures in

communication that originate in low-level errors. As seen earlier, the ACTFL

General Descriptions for Listening (Omaggio Hadley, 1993) evaluate listening

skills in terms of understanding discourse. Furthermore, as described by Lee and

VanPatten (1995), the ACTFL Guidelines for listening measure an improvement

in listening comprehension as a move “from [understanding] words and

memorized phrases to connected discourse” (p. 80). This approach to L2 listening

focuses on higher-level understanding and fails to recognize how daunting the

task of identifying sounds and words out of the acoustic stream is for beginning

L2 listeners. More importantly, as O’Malley et al. (1995) state, instructional

approaches that assume language acquisition is an implicit process that is

enhanced by extensive exposure to modified teacher input fails to draw upon what

learners can bring to the listening process when they are taught learning

strategies109 to process oral input. As the present investigation has shown, 109 The definition of strategy used in this dissertation is the one Cohen (1998, in Field, 2000) defines in terms of “action taken to enhance the learning or use of a second or foreign language, through the storage, retention, recall and application of information about the language.” Two types of strategies are recognized: learning strategies assist the acquisition of form, while communication strategies are associated with the development of fluency (Field, 2000).

230

however, novice listeners can learn to use strategies to process oral input and

apply them in listening tasks.

5.3.1 Teaching strategies to L2 listening comprehension

Recall from Chapter 1 that previous research on listening comprehension

(O'Malley et al., 1995; Goh, 2000) has reported the use of both top-down and

bottom-up processing strategies by effective listeners and the reliance on bottom-

up processes by less effective listeners. Learners use their world knowledge (i.e.,

schema) when using top-down strategies, which helps them to anticipate what will

be said next and to infer meaning even when a portion of the text was not

completely understood. With bottom-up strategies, however, learners make use

of linguistic knowledge and “are forced to determine the meaning of individual

words and then aggregate upwards to larger units of meaning” (O’Malley et al.,

1995, p. 42). In addition, evidence indicates that at early stages of acquisition

learners have an undifferentiated state of the phonological system of the two

languages (O’Malley et al., 1995; Cook, 1996; Goh, 2000) and their bottom-up

approach to listening is problematic because sounds, segmentations, and linguistic

markers are subject to L1 interference (Byrnes, 1984; cited in O’Malley et al.,

1995). These claims have led to an emphasis in the L2 classroom on listening

tasks that promote listening for meaning (i.e., top-down) but neglect the

development of the low levels of processing (i.e., bottom-up). The data from the

present investigation, however, suggest the learners in the fourth semester of L2

instruction are still at early stages of acquisition with regard to L2 listening

231

comprehension and need help to overcome the difficulties they face at low-levels

of processing (i.e., the perceptual and parsing phases in Anderson’s framework,

2000). In fact, the overall results indicate that the main difficulties presented to

novice listeners are related to working memory limitations because difficulties at

low-levels of processing prevent them from constructing meaningful mental

representations from oral input. These findings emphasize the need to examine

the role that low-levels of processing play in failures in communication and the

development of the overall L2 listening skills. As suggested by Goh (2000), the

purpose is to raise learner’s metacognitive awareness (i.e., self-knowledge about

learning) about L2 listening and to encourage them to be more active in

overcoming some of their listening difficulties. The pedagogical implications of

these findings suggest the need to provide learners with strategies to process L2

sounds and segment speech in an efficient manner, so they can utilize their prior

knowledge while processing the information at higher cognitive levels in listening

exercises.

The validity of teaching listening strategies to L2 learners, however, have

been questioned (Ridgway, 2000) based on the argument that performing two

tasks simultaneously (e.g., “listening and putting into operation a conscious

strategy”) is too demanding of L2 listeners in cognitive terms (p. 180). Although

the difficulty to attend to form and content simultaneously is not a new concern

(VanPatten, 1989), the position adopted here is that different L2 listening tasks

involve different kinds of listening behaviors on the part of learners. Some

listening tasks, such as listening for details, listening for the main idea, emphatic

232

listening, appreciative listening, critical listening, and relational listening (Oxford,

1993), entail top-down processes because they assume meaning is derived from

context and may indeed be too cognitively demanding if paired with conscious

strategies. Other tasks, however, such as those proposed in this study and

presented in the methodology in Chapter 3,110 attempt to call learners’ attention

to how the language is structured phonologically by providing them with practice

that focuses on the bottom-up type of listening (e.g., how Spanish phonemes

sound; how the syllabification and linking in Spanish contributes to reduction in

speech spoken at normal speech rate). These exercises are meant to address the

low-level difficulties faced by novice listeners in order to help them “to gain

independent control over the learning process” as suggested by O’Malley et al.

(1995) while emphasizing also the importance of context in the disambiguation of

reduced speech. This perceptual training, however, is not meant to substitute for

the communicative practices but to supplement them. In this regard, this

dissertation supports Field’s (2003) argument that “Some modicum of perceptual

information, even if only a few words, is clearly needed before contextual

knowledge can be brought to bear” (p. 325).

Furthermore, perceptual listening exercises not only provide strategies and

practice decoding the L2 oral text, but they also ease learners into realistic

expectations of L2 oral input. Despite the obvious advantages of novice learners’

exposure to L2 simplified input (Oxford, 1993), learners need experience with

unsimplified L2 speech. The overall argument proposed is that, with exposure to

110 These are similar to the remedial listening exercises advanced by Field (2003) or the perceptual training proposed by Gonzalez-Bueno (1997).

233

normal speech and an understanding of how the L2 is phonologically structured,

learners are able to develop strategies to interpret the apparent lack of meaning of

oral L2 input, rather than having to guess the missing pieces of the text only from

contextual clues as it is assumed with purely top-down approaches. Therefore,

the considerations with regard to listening tasks in the L2 classroom suggest the

need to provide learners with different kinds of listening tasks. Some listening

tasks provide learners with perceptual training that familiarizes them with the L2

phonology in order to minimize the breaks in communication that originate in

low-levels of processing, while other tasks promote higher-levels of processing

where learners are able to relate their existing knowledge or schema to the oral

input.

Another important pedagogical implication is related to the emotional

effect that listening comprehension exercises have on learners. Horwitz (1989)

claims that listening comprehension tasks are frequently cited by learners as a

source of anxiety because of difficulties identifying the sounds and structures “or

grasping the meaning of their teacher’s target language utterances. In fact, many

students claim to have little or no idea of what the teacher is saying in extended

target language discourse” (p.53).111 Furthermore, Horwitz argues that learners

become uncomfortable with listening exercises, which is related to their fear of

losing control over their learning. The data from the present study, in particular

the negative responses and results obtained from learners in the partial-treatment

group in Study B, support these claims. An important implication concerning

111 Horwitz’s (1989) study included learners in beginning language classes at the University of Texas.

234

these findings is related to the need for instructors and teachers of a L2 to be

aware that the difficulties experienced by novice listeners (i.e., at the perceptual

and parsing levels) are related to difficulties decoding the speech signal and not

necessarily to learners’ neglect of vocabulary and grammatical information. This

situation is illustrated by the following example, in which learners heard the

phrase ¿Qué harás este fin de semana? ‘What will you do this weekend?’ in a

listening comprehension exercise and failed to recognize the verb harás (2nd

person singular ‘do’-future) and the meaning of the utterance because the mental

representation they formed out of the acoustic speech was [addás].112

These findings underscore the need for providing learners with exercises

and instruction of the L2 phonological system in order to raise their metacognitive

awareness about “learning to listen” as suggested by Goh (2000, p. 73) and to

minimize the unpleasantness associated to listening tasks. Furthermore, the data

from learners who received the partial treatment suggest that providing learners

with listening exercises at normal speech rates, while denying them explicit

instruction about the L2 phonological system, is counterproductive and

exacerbates sentiments of resentment and negative responses towards the listening

comprehension exercises.

Finally, from the findings related to misunderstandings due to L1

interference at the sound level (e.g., marinero ‘sailor’ misunderstood as más

dinero ‘more money’; or moralista ‘moralist’ as mona lisa) and failures in

segmenting speech (e.g., has ido ‘you have gone’ misunderstood as *hacido), it

112 This situation was encountered frequently by the researcher of this dissertation with some of her students during the oral portion of tests.

235

becomes evident that more research is necessary to identify the L2 sounds and

structures that present more difficulties to learners of a given L2. For instance,

the conclusions of the present study with regard to the recognition of the /d/

phoneme are related only to the fricative allophone [d] in intervocalic position.

Therefore, future research should account for the perception of this segment in

other contexts such as in clusters like <dr> in cedro ‘cedar’ or <rd> cerdo ‘pig’,

or in absolute final position as in imperative plural amad ‘you all love!’. In

addition, the findings with regard to cognates (e.g., justificar ‘justify’, virilidad

‘virility’, etc.) indicate the need to bring the issues addressed in the field of

spoken word recognition to the study of listening comprehension in the L2

classroom in order to broaden our understanding of the cognitive processes

involved in L2 phonology and the development of listening comprehension. The

importance of word-initial information in lexical recognition, for instance, has

been researched for more than 20 years in the field of spoken word recognition

(see, for instance, the cohort model proposed by Marslen-Wilson and Welsh, 1978

that has been influential in this field). Notions such as the uniqueness point of a

word (i.e., the sequential point at which a word is unique), for example, address

the importance of the initial segments in the recognition of a word. Thus, the

uniqueness point of a word like Christmas is the ‘m’ because listeners can

identify the word after they heard /krism/ since no other English word would

match that string of phonemes in the mental lexicon.113 This information is

consistent with the findings of the present study that show that when learners

113 Example taken from McQueen et al. (1995).

236

misunderstand the initial /x/ of the cognate justificar ‘justify’ for an <h>, for

instance, they are less likely to identify the cognate than when they write

something like ‘justificious’, ‘justifaricas’, or ‘justifices’, which illustrate that the

final segments are misunderstood.114

The present study also addresses the importance of real-time parsing in L2

listening comprehension, an issue that has been examined by O’Malley et al.

(1995), Goh (2000), and Field (2003). The results from this study support Goh’s

(2000) claims that novice learners are caught between perception and parsing and

rarely are able to process information at higher levels of processing. Furthermore,

although she recognizes that it is possible to develop listening exercises to

improve the learners’ aural perception, with respect to parsing exercises she

observes:

.... it is difficult to teach real-time parsing. We do not know enough about how learners form mental representations from syntactic or semantic cues and how this process actually breaks down. Nevertheless, we can teach learners to use appropriate comprehension strategies to exploit whatever input they manage to process and to cope with imperfect processing. Apart from enhancing perception and utilisation, it is possible that these strategies can facilitate parsing as well. (p. 71)

Although some proposals (Field, 2000, 2003) have been offered as to how

to teach parsing to L2 learners of English, the present study is valuable because it

examines parsing difficulties faced by learners of Spanish. In particular, this

study identifies some of the areas of difficulty for learners (e.g., confusing ha sido

‘s/he has been’ and has ido ‘you have gone’ with the nonword *hacido) and

proposes a treatment aimed at helping learners to overcome these real-time 114 The reader may recall that in Chapter 4, in the section “Cognates,” some phonemes were found to be more important that others in word recognition.

237

parsing difficulties. It is obvious, however, that this area requires further

investigation in the future.

5.4 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

The present study has a number of limitations that are methodological in

nature; therefore, the conclusions presented should be considered tentative. The

most significant limitation is related to learners’ difficulties attending to the oral

input and retaining the information in working memory long enough to process it.

Consequently, many learners failed to write some portions of the utterances that

contained the target phonemes and a more accurate analysis of learners’

perceptual skills was not obtained. In future research, testing materials should be

carefully developed in order to avoid the difficulties encountered in this study.

Furthermore, as explained earlier, the listening conditions during the tests

may have affected the data collection because factors such as external noise and

acoustics of the room were not controlled. Therefore, it is suggested that in the

future, the tests should be implemented in a more controlled environment (e.g.,

using recordings of the testing materials) in order to prevent the influence of other

external factors on the results.

Finally, the conclusions for the development of awareness of the Spanish

phonemes studied here must be corroborated with additional data collected at

each semester of university Spanish instruction. Moreover, the reader should

keep in mind that other variables such as the nationalities of the previous

instructors may have impacted the results obtained in the present study. If

238

possible, a longitudinal study could provide more details of the development at

different stages of acquisition and could control for the effect of previous

instructors.

5.5 CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this dissertation was to gain insight into how beginning

learners perceived Spanish sounds and the cognitive processes involved in the

acquisition of L2 phonology and the development of L2 listening skills. In

addressing the objectives stated in Chapter 1, the following has been

accomplished:

(1) the present study has described the listening skills learners have in

their fourth semester of studying Spanish at the university level. In particular, this

dissertation has proposed an account of learners’ phonemic awareness of L2

sounds and segmenting abilities as related to the development of their L2 listening

comprehension;

(2) the study has proposed and tested a perceptual treatment aimed at

raising learners’ metalinguistic awareness of the Spanish phonological system in

order to facilitate listening comprehension; and

(3) it has examined the development of learners’ listening skills within the

framework of cognitive models of learning and listening comprehension.

This study is valuable because it provides insights as to some of the

difficulties with listening comprehension faced by learners in the fourth semester

of university Spanish instruction. It also suggests how formal instruction of a L2

phonology helps to increase the learner’s analyzed knowledge by a comparison of

239

the differences between the L1 and L2 phonological systems that subsequently

facilitates listening comprehension skills. The proposed treatment provides

learners with practice in the perception of those Spanish phonemes and structures

that have been identified as problematic because their acquisition requires a

frequency of input not found in the L2 classroom. This dissertation has also

shown how practice with syllabification and linking in Spanish, together with the

awareness of the importance of context, provides learners with strategies for

segmenting running speech (e.g., homophonous phrases) more efficiently. Thus,

by increasing the learner’s analysis of linguistic knowledge, the study has shown

that low levels of processing are proceduralized and listening comprehension

becomes more effective.

Moreover, considering that the communicative environment of today’s L2

classrooms promote negotiation of meaning and interaction, the present study

provides suggestions as to how to introduce learners into the realities of speech

spoken at normal rates through the development of classroom activities that ease

the anxiety learners undergo through listening comprehension exercises.

240

Appendix A

Research Procedure for Study A

Day 1. 1/16/02

a. Dictation of words: darte, tito, tardes, torta, dito, todas, hada, cada, seda, cara, pared, raro, pera, tira, aro

b. Dictation of phrases: 1. Cada día me das el periódico caro ‘Every day you give me an expensive newspaper’ 2. Cuando te pide la tela, te da ira ‘When he asks you for the cloth, it angers you’ 3. La pera está cara y me da ira ‘The pear is expensive, and it angers me’

c. Feedback. d. Contrast of sounds in Spanish and English. Explicit instruction of pronunciation and perception of /t/, /d/ in Spanish and English. Compare phonemes /rr/ and /r/ in intervocalic position. Compare the stop allophone of [d] to fricative allophone [δ] in intervocalic position. d. Repeat dictation. Learners write dictation on the other side of the page where they write and compare first and second dictation.

Day 2. 1/18/02

a. Review pronunciation and perception of /t/, /d/, /rr/, /r/ in Spanish. b. Dictation of words: total, vara, tela, dame, arena, dado, pido, edito, era, pito c. Review past participles in Spanish and the fricative allophone [δ] of the phoneme /d/ in intervocalic position:

-ar verbs → ado, estudiar → estudiado -er verbs → ido, entender → entendido -ir verbs → ido, salir → salido Ask: ‘You know La Sierra Nevada, in California. What Spanish verb does the word Nevada come from?” Day 3. 1/23/02

a. Review pronunciation and perception of /t/, /d/, /VdV/, /VrV/ in Spanish and English. b. Dictation of words: tedio, gota, cera, araña, haba, puro, hugo, caridad, apurada,

vino c. Feedback.

241

d. Contrast of sounds in Spanish and English. Explicit instruction of pronunciation and perception of Spanish phonemes /b/, /d/, /g/. Compare stop allophones [b], [d], [g] to fricative allophones [β], [δ], [γ] in intervocalic position using words of dictation. Day 4. 1/25/02

a. Review pronunciation and perception of /t/, /d/, /rr/, /r/, /b/, /g/ in Spanish. b. Dictation of words: embudo, adorar, ego, atado, viña, gana, evento

Day 5. 1/28/02

a. Dictation of words: deseoso, fabada, tesoro, consigo, ají, embolia, garboso, huevos, ajeno, arado

b. Feedback. c. Contrast of sounds in English and Spanish. Explicit instruction of pronunciation and perception of phonemes /x/ and its correspondence in Spanish to grapheme <j> not to <h>, a letter that is not pronounced in Spanish. Day 6. 1/30/02

a. Dictation of words: seguro, duende, juicio, ruina, abanico, idolatra, ambiente, hormona, galeno

b. Feedback Day 7. 2/1/02

a. Dictation of words: jurado, ovación, habitual, burlarse, jugo, ególatra, dote b. Feedback.

c. Explicit instruction of syllabification in Spanish as explained in Chapter 3: Tendency of Spanish syllables to end in a vowel as in ju-ra-do ‘jury’; do-te ‘dowry’, ju-go ‘juice’, o-va-ción ‘ovation’.

Day 8. 2/4/02

a. Dictation of phrases: - El jornalero ruidoso está adolorido hoy ‘The day worker is in pain today’

- Ven y dime si crees que va a llover otra vez ‘Come and tell me if you think is going to rain again’

- Juan y Pedro estudian alemán juntos antes de clase ‘Juan and Pedro study German together before class’

b. Feedback. c. Explicit instruction of linking. Review of syllabification. Participants learned the syllabification seen the previous day is carried across word boundaries in Spanish. Therefore, the sentence va a llover otra vez would be linked by a Spanish speaker as <va-llo-ve-ro-tra-vez>.

242

Day 9. 2/ 11/02

a. Dictation of phrases: - Mis pies están entumidos por el frío ‘My feet are numb because of the cold’

- Me da coraje que en Holanda los abrigos sean caros ‘It angers me that coats are expensive in Holland’ b. Feedback Day 10. 2/13/02

a. Dictation of phrases: - ¿Creen que va a hacer frío otra vez? ‘Do you think is getting cold again?’

- Los humanos están enojados ‘Humans are angry’ - ¿Tus padres están jubilados? ‘Are your parents retired?’ b. Feedback Day 11. 2/22/02

a. Dictation of phrases: - Disfruto el aroma de las uvas ‘I enjoy the aroma of grapes’

- El ajedrez es un juego agotador ‘Chess is an exhausting game’ - Me siento atareada y agobiada ‘I feel busy and overwhelmed’ Day 12. 2/27/02

a. Dictation of phrases: -. ¿Has oído la gotera que está en el baño? ‘Have you heard the leak in the bathroom?’

-. Pedro tiene coraje porque está lloviendo ‘Pedro is angry because is raining’ Day 13. 3/1/02

a. Dictation of phrases: -. Es habitual vestirse con vestidos azules de Viena ‘It is usual to get dress with blue dresses from Vienna’

-. El señor húngaro no vino el jueves ‘The Hungarian man did not come on Thursday’ -. Los pericos de la señora están adoloridos ‘The woman’s parakeets are in pain’ Day 14. 3/20/02 a. Situations. The instructor reads a short situation (in brackets below) and then ask learners a question (in parentheses below). Learners choose an answer from a multiple choice quiz: 1. [Sergio compró una acarana. Tenía mucha hambre pero ahora no quiere comer porque encontró una cucaracha ahí.] (¿Qué compró Sergio?) ‘Sergio bought an ‘acarana’. He was hungry, but he does not want to eat now because he found a cockroach there’ (What did Sergio buy?’)

243

a. Una acarrana. b. Una acadana. c. Una acarana d. Una acattana

2. [Cristina jaló el sofá el viernes, y ahora no lo puede usar, por eso llamó a Diego quien la ayudó otra vez.] (¿Qué hicieron Diego y Cristina con el sofá?) ‘Cristina pulled the sofa on Friday, and now she can not use it; so she called Diego who helped her again’ (What did Diego and Cristina do with the sofa?) a. Haladon el sofá. b. Jalaron el sofá. c. Jalatton el sofá. d. Halarron el sofá. 3. [Mi esposo me invitó a un viaje a Irapuato. Viajamos por tres meses y visitamos castillos antiguos, paseamos cerca del río y nos divertimos mucho.] (¿A dónde me invitó mi esposo?) ‘My husband invited me for a trip to Irapuato. We traveled for three months and visited old castles; we walked near the river and had a lot of fun’ (Where did my husband invite me to go?) a. A Irapuato. b. A Irapuatho. c. A Idapuato. d. A Irrapuato. Day 15. 3/22/02 a. Situations. The instructor reads a short situation (in brackets below) and then ask learners a question (in parentheses below). Learners choose an answer from a multiple choice quiz: 1. [Mi tía trabaja muy duro y no tiene tiempo de pasear. Está muy atareada y quiere ir de viaje. Ahora dice que va a visitar Europa.] (¿Cómo está mi tía?) ‘My aunt works very hard and has no time to travel. She is very busy and wants to travel. Now, she says she is going to Europe’ (How is my aunt?) a. Muy atareada. b. Muy atadeatha. c. Muy athadatha d. Muy aterrada. 2. [A mi amigo le gusta mucho el ajetreo de la calle seis. Va todos los fines de semana y se divierte muchísimo.] (¿Qué le gusta a mi amigo de la calle seis?) ‘My friend likes the fuss on Sixth Street. He goes there on weekends and has a lot of fun’ (What does my friend like to do on Sixth Street?)

244

a. el ahetreo. b. el ajetrreo. c. el ajetreo. d. el ahethreo. 3. [El novio de tu mejor amiga es un hombre iracundo y ahora sufre mucho por él. Tú le recomiendas que rompa con él.] (¿Cómo es el novio de tu mejor amiga?) ‘My best friend’s boyfriend is an irate man; and, now, she suffers a lot because of him. You advise her to break up with him’ (How is your best friend’s boyfriend?) a. Idacundo. b. irdacuntho. c. irracuntho. d. iracundo Day 16. 3/25/02 a. Situations. The instructor reads a short situation (in brackets below) and then ask learners a question (in parentheses below). Learners choose an answer from a multiple choice quiz: 1. [A Pedro le gusta mucho el jugo. Todos los días toma un vaso antes de desayunar.] (¿Qué le gusta a Pedro?) ‘Pedro likes juice. Every day he drinks a glass of juice before breakfast.’ (What does Pedro like?). a. el jugo. b. el huggo. c. el juggo. d. el hugo. 2. [ Mis padres estaban apenados porque no pudieron ir a la fiesta de graduación de su sobrino. Ahora no saben qué hacer.] ( ¿Cómo estaban mis padres?) ‘My parents were sorry that they could not attend the graduation of their nephew. Now, they don’t know what to do.’ (How were my parents?) a. hapenathos. b. hapenadhos. c. apenados. d. apenathos. 3. [Los hombres han arruinado la vida de los ciudadanos y ahora no podrán ver sus sueños hechos una realidad.] (¿Qué han hecho los hombres?) ‘Men have ruined the life of citizens and now, they will not be able to see their dreams come true.’ (What have men done?)

245

a. Ha narruinatho la vida de los ciudadanos. b. Ha narduinatho la vida de los ciudadanos. c. Han arduinado la vida de los ciudadanos. d. Han arruinado la vida de los ciudadanos. Day 17. 3/27/02 a. Situations. The instructor reads a short situation (in brackets below) and then ask learners a question (in parentheses below). Learners choose an answer from a multiple choice quiz: 1. [Los vestidos alemanes de la señora están en el aparador de lujo y no los puede pagar.] (¿En dónde están los vestidos de la señora?) ‘The German dresses that belong to the woman are in the luxurious showcase and she cannot pay for them.’ (Where are the woman’s dresses?) a. En el lapaddador de luho. b. En el aparathor de luho. c. En el aparador de lujo. d. En el laparathor de lujo. 2. [La novia tiene un bello ajuar pero no está listo todavía y no sabemos cuándo podrá verlo y comprarlo.] (¿Qué tiene la novia?) ‘The bride has a beautiful trousseau, but it is not ready yet. We don’t know when she will be able to see it and buy it.’ (What does not bride have?). a. Un bello huar. b. Un bello ajuar. c. Un bello ahhuar. d. Un bello jwar. 3. [Los muchachos, aunque están cansados, están en la galera esperando a que lleguen las muchachas para bailar y cantar.] (¿En dónde están los muchachos?) ‘The young men, although married, are waiting for the young women in the galley, so they go dancing and singing.’ (Where are the young men?) a. Están en lagaledra. b. Están en lagaledda. c. Están en la galedda. d. Están en la galera.

246

Appendix B

Research Procedure for Study B

Day 1. 9/11/02 a. Visual input. Show a picture of a dog and a watch. b. Listening. Ask students: ¿En qué foto tengo una pera? ‘In which picture do I have a pear?’ c. Reinforcing listening. Ask learners: ¿Es una pera o una perra? ‘Is this a pear or a female dog?’ d. Contrast of sounds in Spanish and English. (See Research Procedure for Study A, day 1) e. Dictation of words: tato, atorar, dado, parras, dato, paras, ira, ida, adorar, rato, puro, pudo, caridad Day 2. a. Review and feedback of dictation from previous day.

Day 3. 9/16/02 a. Dictation: 1. Words: cara, cada, cora, corra, carda, cata 2. Phrases: - Los carros son elegantes ‘The cars are elegant’ - Su cara es bonita ‘His face is pretty’ b. Feedback.

c. Explicit instruction of syllabification and linking in Spanish (See Research Procedure for Study A, day 7 and day 8.) Therefore, the sentence los carros son elegantes would

be linked by a Spanish speaker as <los-ca-rro-so-ne-le-gan-tes>. d. Strategy: Emphasize importance of context.

*Day 4.115 a. Review linking in Spanish. b. Strategy: Remind learners of importance of context. 115 An asterisk indicate that the lesson was removed from the procedures because of a lack of time.

247

c. Listen and write the following sentences:

- CV linking116 1. ¿Has ido a Europa? ‘ Have you gone to Europe?’ 2. ¿Has sido un buen estudiante? ‘Have you been a good student?’

3. Pedro ha sido un buen estudiante. ‘Pedro has been a good student’

- VV linking 4. Va a ser un buen estudiante. ‘S/he is going to be a good student’ 5. Hoy va a hacer calor hoy. ‘Today is going to be a hot day’

*Day 5. a. Dictation of sentences: 1. Josefina, ve a la casa de Rocío y Ana. ‘Josephine, go to Rocio and Ana’s house’ 2. La universidad está en Jamaica. ‘The university is in Jamaica’ 3. Juan va a entrar a la iglesia. ‘Juan is going to enter the church’

b. Feedback. Day 6. 9/18/02 a. Dictation of sentences:

1. Yo cedo mis posesiones a Ana y Graciela. ‘I bequeath my possessions to Ana and Graciela’ 2. El cerro es un tipo de montaña. ‘The hill is a type of mountain’ 3. El cerdo va a hacer travesuras. ‘The pig is going to be mischievous’

4. El cedro es un árbol que causa alergias. ‘The cedar is a tree that causes alergies’ 5. El cero ha sido un número interesante. ‘Zero has been an interesting number’ b. Feedback. c. Ask: ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for zero?’ Day 7. 9/23/02 a. Dictation of sentences: 1. ¿Te atas los tenis esta mañana? ‘Do you tie your shoes this morning?” 2. Las hadas van a hacer un baile en Versalles. ‘The fairies are going to throw a dance in Versailles’ 3.¿Qué harás esta noche en Vancouver? ‘What will you do tonight in Vancouver?’ 4. Las arras han sido unas monedas importantes. ‘The arras have been important coins’ b. Ask: ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for will do?’ c. Feedback.

116 C = consonant; V = vowel.

248

d. Contrast of sounds in English and Spanish. Explicit instruction of phonemes /b/ and graphemes <b,v> as in vaca, and bueno. Day 8. 10/7/02 a. Visual input. Show a piece of paper of the color purple and another of the color orange. Ask learners ¿Cuál es el color violeta? ‘Which paper is purple?’ b. Review instruction of graphemes <b,v> and phoneme /b/. c. Dictation of words:

burro, vara, buda, brisa, violeta, benigno, volumen

d. Dictation of sentences: 1. La cera se usa para hacer velas. ‘Wax is used to make candles’ 2. La seda ha sido un material caro. ‘Silk has been an expensive material’ 3. En la sierra (Sierra Nevada) va a hacer frío. ‘In the mountain range is going to be cold.’ e. Ask: ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for silk?’ f. Feedback. Day 9. 10/9/02 a. Visual input. Show a picture of a glass of orange juice and a picture of a man with the word ‘Hugo’ under the picture. Ask learners: ¿Qué es un jugo: una persona o una bebida? ¿Y Hugo? ‘What is jugo a person or a drink? And Hugo?’ b. Contrast of sounds in English and Spanish. Explicit instruction of pronunciation and perception of phonemes /x/ and its correspondence in Spanish to grapheme <j> not to <h>, a letter that is not pronounced in Spanish. c. Dictation of words:

jueves, huevos, ají, ahí, Holanda, ajeno, jamás d. Feedback. e. Strategy. Write on blackboard: ‘olanda’ and ask learners whether they know the meaning of word. Then, add an <h> to form word ‘Holanda’ and ask again. f. Dictation of sentences:

1. El vicio de fumar va a dañar a los humanos. “The vice of smoking is going to hurt humans’ 2. ¿Tú has ido a trabajar al batallón juvenil? ‘Have you gone to work at the battalion for young people?’ 3. La humedad ha sido buena para cultivar uvas. ‘Moisture has been good to cultivate grapes’

g. Ask: ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for battalion?’

249

‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for humidity?’ ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for vice?’

h. Feedback. Day 10. 10/14/02 a. Dictation of sentences:

1. La jabonera está en el baño. ‘The soap dish is in the bathroom’ 2. Ana y Gracia son hipersensibles. ‘Ana and Gracia are very sensitive’ 3. La naranja de Valencia es muy jugosa. ‘Oranges from Valencia are

very juicy’ 4. El boxeador es húngaro. ‘The boxer is Hungarian’

5. Es vital que Héctor llegue al hospital. ‘It’s vital that Hector arrive at the hospital. 6. Debes tener una vida con buena salud. ‘You should have a healthy life’ b. Ask: ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for juicy?’

‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for to soap dish?’ ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for hypersensitive?’ ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for Hungarian?’ ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for life?’ ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for vital?’

c. Feedback. Day 11. 10/16/02 a. Ask students: ¿Qué es un gota: una letra del español o una parte de un líquido? ¿Y una jota? ‘What’s a gota: a letter in Spanish or a part of a liquid? And a jota?’ b. Contrast of sounds in English and Spanish. Explicit instruction of pronunciation and perception of phonemes /x/ and its correspondence in Spanish to grapheme <j> in words like jueves ‘Thursday’ or grapheme <g> in words like gente ‘people. Emphasize that it does not map to <h>, a letter that in Spanish is not pronounced. c. Dictation of following words: paga, paja, bajedad, garrote, vaguedad, garrote, jarrote d. Feedback. Day 12. 10/21/02 a. Dictation of sentences:

1. El higo es una fruta deliciosa. ‘The fig is a delicious fruit’ 2. El hijo de Luis llegó tarde a clase. Luis’ son arrived late to class’ 3. Cuando pague el dinero estaré mejor. ‘Whenever I pay the money, I will be better’ 4. El paje es un tipo de sirviente. ‘The valet is a kind of servant’ 5. Tengo mucho gusto de ir a la fiesta. ‘I’m very pleased to go to the party’ 6. No es justo que no pueda ir a la playa. ‘It’s not fair that I/he/she can not go to the beach’

250

7. La arrogancia de Pedro me molesta. ‘Pedro’s arrogance bothers me’ 8. El arrojar piedras al agua es divertido. ‘Throwing stones in the water is fun’ b. Ask: ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for fig?’ ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for to pay?’

‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for just?’ ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for arrogance?’

c. Feedback. *Day 13. a. Dictation of phrases: 1. Juan y Héctor están en Ecuador. ‘Juan and Hector are in Ecuador’ 2. El juicio de derechos humanos es en Honduras. ‘The trial of human rights is in Honduras’ b. Ask learners to translate sentences. c. Feedback.

251

Appendix C

Research Procedure for Study C

Day 1. a. Visual input. Show a picture of a dog and a watch. b. Listening. Ask students: ¿En qué foto tengo una pera? ‘In which picture do I have a pear?’ c. Reinforcing listening. Ask learners: ¿Es una pera o una perra? ‘Is this a pear or a female dog?’ d. Contrast of sounds in Spanish and English. (See Research Procedure for Study A, day 1). e. Exemplify: Phrase: Todos los toros tienen cuatro patas ‘All bulls have four legs’ Minimal pairs: pera/perra, caro/carro, cara/cada, Roberto, rosa, roto Day 2. 2/5/03 a. Review minimal pairs: pera/perra, caro/carro, cara/cada, Roberto, rosa, roto b. Dictation of words: tato, dado, parras, dato, paras, rato, pared

c. Feedback.

Day 3. 2/7/03 a. Dictation of words: ira, ida, puro, pudo, caridad, coro, corro, codo b. Feedback Day 4. 2/10/03 a. Dictation of words: atenas, arenas, rema, duna, tuna, piedad, aros, arroz b. Feedback Day 5. 2/12/03 a. Dictation of sentences: a. El poro del porro es grande. ‘The pore of ‘porro’ is big’ b. Yo podo los árboles. ‘I trim the trees’ c. Digo atorar y entiende adorar. ‘I say ‘atorar’ and s/he understands adorar’ d. La mora no está de moda. ‘The blackberry is not in fashion’ b. Feedback

252

Day 6. 2/14/03 a. Dictation of sentences: a. Tú aras la tierra de las hadas. ‘You plow the land of the fairies’

b. El arroz está en los aros. ‘The rice is in the loops’ c. Yo no curo al pobre curro. ‘I don’t cure the poor ‘curro’’ d. El doma al muchacho de Roma. ‘He tames the youg boy from Roma’

b. Feedback

Day 7. 2/17/03 a. Dictation of sentences: a. En Atenas hay arena. ‘In Athens there is sand’

b. Yo le pido que me dé el pito. ‘I ask him/her to give me the whistle’ c. La barra de chocolate está en la vara. ‘The chocolate bar is in the pole’ d. En el vado hay mucho barro. ‘In the ford, there’s a lot of mud’

b. Feedback

Day 8. 2/24/03 a. Dictation of sentences: a. El atado del muchacho está en el arado. ‘In the bundle of the young boy is the plow’

b. El burro está en el buró. ‘The donkey is on the night table’ c. Es difícil la trama del drama. ‘It is hard, the plot of the drama’ d. No quiero que pierdas esa piedra. ‘I don’t want you to lose that stone’

b. Feedback c. Explicit instruction of syllabification and linking in Spanish (See procedures for Study A, day 7 and day 8). d. Strategy. Emphasize importance of context as a listening strategy. Day 9. 2/28/03 a. Review linking: a. Los -ca-rro-s so-n e-le-gan-tes b. Dictation of sentences: 1. El cerdo está en el cerro. ‘The pig is in the hill’ 2. ¿Digo cerdos o cedros? ‘Do I say ‘cerdos’ or ‘cedros’?’ 3. La cera cayó en la seda? ‘Did the wax fall on the silk?’ c. Feedback. Day 10. 3/3/03 a. Dictation of sentences: a. Las caras asustadas tienen miedo. ‘The fearful faces are afraid’

253

b. Cada niño tiene miedo de algo diferente. ‘Every child is afraid of something different’ c. Pedro vino con Cora. ‘Pedro came with Cora’ d. Cada cara es bonita de diferente manera. ‘Every face is pretty in a different way’ b. Feedback

Day 11. 3/5/03 a. Review linking in Spanish and importance of context as listening strategy. b. Dictation of following phrases in order to compare the role of context:

- CV linking117 a. ¿Has ido a comer hoy? ‘Have you gone to eat today?’ b. ¿Has sido un buen estudiante? ‘Have you been a good student?’

c. Pedro ha sido un buen estudiante. ‘Pedro has been a good student’

- VV linking d. Juan va a ser un buen doctor. ‘Juan is going to be a good doctor’ e. Hoy va a hacer calor hoy ‘Today is going to be hot’

Day 12. 3/7/03 a. Review linking in Spanish. b. Dictation of sentences: a. Cora va a hacer un pastel... ‘Cora is going to bake a cake... b. .... porque va a ser su cumpleaños. ‘...because it’s going to be her birthday’ c. ¿Has ido a correr al parque? ‘Have you run in the park?’

d. ...¿o ha sido Juan? ‘... or, has it been Juan?’ e. Juan va a entrar a la iglesia. ‘Juan is going to enter the church’

Day 13. 3/17/03) a. Dictation of sentences. Fill in the blank exercises: **** Tell learners that there may be more than one word in a blank.

1. Yo cedo mis posesiones a Ana y Graciela. ‘I bequeth my possessions to Ana and Graciela’ 2. El cerdo va a hacer travesuras. ‘The pig is going to be mischievous’ 3. El cerro es un tipo de montaña. ‘The hill is a type of mountain’ 4. Pedro va a ser profesor de matemáticas. ‘Pedro is going to be a math professor’

b. Ask: ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for pig?’ c. Feedback.

117 C = consonant; V = vowel.

254

Day 14. 3/19/03 a. Listen and write the following sentences: 1. Tú has ido a ver el cedro alto. ‘Have you gone to see the tall cedar’ 2. ¿Es un cero o es un cedro o es un cerdo? ‘Is it a zero or a cedar or a pig?’ 3. El cero ha sido un número interesante. ‘Zero has been an interesting number’ b. Ask: ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for zero?’ c. Feedback. Day 15. 3/21/03) a. Listen and write the following sentences: a. ¿Cuándo harás el trabajo de las hadas? ‘When will you do the job of the fairies?’ b. Las hadas dicen que van a hacer un baile. ‘The fairies say they are going to throw a ball’ c. Las arras son un tipo de monedas. ‘The ‘arras’ are a kind of coins’ d. La ida al campo le causó ira. ‘Going to the field caused him anger’ b. Ask: ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for will do?’ c. Feedback.

Day 16. 3/24/03 a. Listen and write the following sentences: a. La cera se usa para hacer velas. ‘Wax is used to make candles’ b. En la sierra creo que va a hacer frío. ‘I believe it’s going to be cold in the mountain range’ c. ¿Tú has ido a ver el museo? ‘Have you gone to see the museum/” d. ¿Quién va a ser policía? ‘Who is going to be a policeman?’ e. La seda siempre ha sido un material caro. ‘Silk has always been an expensive material’ b. Ask: ‘In which sentence am I saying the Spanish word for silk?’ c. Feedback.

255

Appendix D

Cloze Tests for Study C

A. Pretest For students

**** Remember that this is not graded Instructions: Listen to the phrases that the instructor is going to read twice. Write down the word or phrases in the blank in each sentence in line (a); in line (b) give a translation to the phrase. Answer questions (c) thru (f). *** It does not matter if you hear and translate only pieces of the word(s); write somthing, since I'm interested in what you hear and what you understand of what you hear. 1. (a) Le dije que ________________ pero me trajo la ________________. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________

(c) Did you already know the words in the blank before taking the test? Yes ___ No ____

(d) If you knew the words, write their meaning here: _____________________, ___________________

(e) If you did not know the words, please write here what you think the meaning is:

___________________, ________________

(f) If you did not know the words, how did you guess the meaning of the words?

_______________________________________________________________________

2. (a) Le pedí su _________________ y me dio su ___________________. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________ 3. (a) Quiere _____________________ pero no puede ____________________. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________



256


___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________ 4. (a) Te _____________________ los zapatos con las ___________________. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________

5. (a) De que _________________ estudia el ______________________. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________

6. La _______________________ me pegó con la ________________________. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________

7. (a) Carla __________________ una buena estudiante y tú _________________ con ella al parque. (b) Translate: ____________________________________________________________________

8. (a) ¿Crees que Miguel ____________________ la tarea y ____________________ un buen doctor? (b) Translate: ____________________________________________________________________

257

Transcript for Instructors - Pretest118

1. Le dije que mida pero me trajo la mirra. ‘I told him to measure but he brought me the myrrh’ 2. Le pedí su parecer y me dio su padecer. ‘I asked him for his opinion and gave me his suffering’ 3. Quiere varear pero no puede vadear. ‘He wants to beat but cannot ford’ 4. Te atas los zapatos con las arras. ‘You tie your shoes with the ‘arras’’ 5. ¡De qué modo estudia el moro! ‘The way the Moor studies!’ 6. La dama me pegó con la rama. ‘The lady hit me with the branch’

7. Carla ha sido una buena estudiante y tú has ido con ella al parque. ‘Carla has been a good student and you have gone with her to the park’

8. Creo que Miguel va a hacer la tarea y va a ser un buen doctor. “I believe that Miguel is going to do the homework and he is going to

be a good doctor’

118 As explained in Chapter 3, only sentences 7 and 8 were used in the final analysis.

258

B. Posttest for Study C

For students **** Remember that this is not graded

Instructions: Listen to the phrases that the instructor is going to read twice. Write down the word or phrases in the blank in each sentence in line (a); in line (b) give a translation to the phrase. Answer questions (c) thru (f). *** It does not matter if you hear and translate only pieces of the word(s); write something, since I'm interested in what you hear and what you understand of what you hear. 1. (a) Con las ___________________ dices que te _____________________ los zapatos. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________

2. (a) Con tu _________________ me das tu ___________________. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________

3. (a) Mario __________________ su mejor amigo pero tú _________________ con él a comer. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________

4. (a) Digo que ________________ la nueva ________________. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________

259


_______________________________________________________________________

5. (a) El _________________ tiene ese ______________________ de estudiar. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________

6. (a) Para ________________________ tienes que _________________ . (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________ 7. (a) Tomás ________________________ ejercicios porque ______________________ un atleta. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________

8. Esa _______________________ tiene una ________________________. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________

260

Transcript for Instructors - Posttest119

1. Con las arras dices que te atas los zapatos. ‘With the ‘arras’ you say you tie your shoes’ 2. Con tu padecer me das tu parecer. ‘With your suffering, you gave me your opinion’ 3. Mario ha sido su mejor amigo pero tú has ido con él a comer. ‘Mario has been his best friend, but you have gone with him to eat’ 4. Digo que mida la nueva mirra. ‘I say that he measures the new myrrh’ 5. El moro tiene ese modo de estudiar. ‘The Moor has that way of studying’

6. Para varear tienes que vadear. ‘In order to beat, you need to ford’ 7. Tomás va a hacer ejercicios porque va a ser un atleta. ‘Tomas is going to exercise because he is going to be an athlete’ 8. Esa dama tiene una rama. ‘That lady has a branch’


261

C. Delayed Posttest for Study C

For students **** Remember that this is not graded

Instructions: Listen to the phrases that the instructor is going to read twice. Write down the word or phrases in the blank in each sentence in line (a); in line (b) give a translation to the phrase. Answer questions (c) thru (f). *** It does not matter if you hear and translate only pieces of the word(s); write somthing, since I'm interested in what you hear and what you understand of what you hear. 1. (a) Con la _______________ me dio una _________________. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________ 2. (a) El señor ____________________un turista porque ___________________ un viaje. (b) Translate: ____________________________________________________________________________

3. (a) Su _______________ es como su ____________________. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________ 4. (a) Pedro _________________ un buen profesor y tú _______________ a estudiar con él. (b) Translate: _________________________________________________________________________

5. (a) Le pedí las _________________con que _________________ los libros. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________



262


___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________

6. (a) Sé que el _________________ hace de ese ________________ la tarea. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________

7. (a) En la _______ hay mucha ______. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________

8. Tiene que _____________________ cuando puede _____________________. (b) Translate: ___________________________________________________________________




___________________, ________________


_______________________________________________________________________

263

Transcript for Instructors -Delayed posttest120

1. Con la dama me dio una rama. ‘With the lady, he gave me a branch’

2. El señor va a ser un turista porque va a hacer un viaje. ‘The man is going to be a tourist because he is going to travel’ 3. Su padecer es como su parecer. ‘Your suffering is like your opinion’ 4. Pedro ha sido un buen profesor y tú has ido a estudiar con él. ‘Pedro has been a good professor and you have gone to study with him’ 5. Le pedí las arras con que atas los libros. ‘I asked him for the ‘arras’ with which you tie the books’ 6. Sé que el moro hace de ese modo la tarea. ‘I know the Moor does the homework that way’ 7. En la vida hay mucha birra. ‘In life there is a lot of beer’

8. Tiene que vadear cuando puede varear. ‘He has to ford when he can beat’


264

Appendix E

Background Questionnaire121

1. Age: ___________________________________________________________

2. Native language: _________________________________________________

3. Language spoken at home: _________________________________________

4. Approximately how old were you when you first began studying Spanish? _________________

5. When you were a child (before age 12), did any of your close friends or relatives use Spanish around you?

(circle one) Yes-frequently Yes-occasionally No

6. Are you of Spanish-speaking background? (circle one) Yes No

7. Are you: (circle one): Male Female

8. Years of High School Spanish: ________________________________

9. Semesters of College Spanish (including this semester):_____________

10. Do you have a family member(s) that speaks Spanish? (circle one)

Yes, my ___________________ No ____________________

11. Do you speak Spanish with that family member? ___________________

12. Do you speak/hear Spanish outside class? _____________________

13. If yes to question 13, explain with whom and how often (hours per day):

___________________________________________________________

14. Are you fluent in any other language other than English and Spanish (circle one)

Yes, in ____________________ No _______________

15. Have you ever studied in another country? (circle one)

Yes, in __________ for _______ months No ______________

121 This questionnaire was given to learners in Study B and Study C. Study A was a pilot study.

265

Appendix F

Questionnaire about experiences with Listening Exercises

A. Study A

1. Do you think you are more conscious of the difference in the pronunciation of letters and words in English and Spanish?

Yes _______ No ______ I do not know _______

Why? _________________________________________________________ 2. Do you think these exercises will improve your listening skills in Spanish?


Why? _________________________________________________________ 3. Do you think that improvement of your listening skills in Spanish will help you understand better the speech of a Spanish native speaker?

Yes _______ No ______ I do not know _______ Why? _________________________________________________________ 4. Do you think that improvement of your listening skills in Spanish will help you improve your pronunciation in Spanish?

Yes _______ No ______ I do not know _______ Why? _________________________________________________________ 5. Please, feel free to add any comments or suggestions regarding your experience with the listening exercises we did in class. _____________________________________________________________________

266

B. Study B122

Please, answer the following questions regarding your experience with this exercise. 1. When you hear an unfamiliar word in Spanish, what of the following strategies do you use to understand the word? (Please rate the following strategies. Circle the number that indicates how frequently you use that particular strategy.)

2. Do you use the strategies sequentially (one strategy first, then another one, and then another one, etc.? (circle one)

Yes No, explain: ____________________________________

3. If yes, in what order do you use the strategies? (Please, put the strategies in order, starting with the one you think you use first. You can use the letters above): 1. ______________ 4. ______________

2. ______________ 5. ______________

3. ______________ 6. ______________

122 This questionnaire was administered after the pretest in Study B. Questions 1 through 6 made up the follow-up questionnaire given after the posttest in order to compare whether instruction had made a difference in learners’ responses.

STRATEGIES

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Always

a. I rely on the sounds to come up with Spanish spelling; then I try to understand the word.

1 2 3 4 5

b. When I hear the sounds, I "see" the word in my mind. 1 2 3 4 5

c. I try to understand the word from the context 1 2 3 4 5

d. I try to remember if I have heard the word before. 1 2 3 4 5 e. I try to remember if the word is similar to an English word.

1 2 3 4 5

f . I usually translate word by word when I listen to Spanish.

1 2 3 4 5

g . Other (explain):_____________________________

____________________________________________

1 2 3 4 5

267

4. How do you feel about listening exercises? (Please circle the number that indicates your feelings)

FEELINGS

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

a. Happy 1 2 3 4 5 b. Stressed out 1 2 3 4 5

c. Accomplished 1 2 3 4 5 d. Nervous 1 2 3 4 5 e. Anxious 1 2 3 4 5 f. Other (explain) : _____

____________________

1 2 3 4 5

5. Why? ________________________________________________________________

6. In both Spanish and English (mark only ONE answer):

_____ a. All letters sound the same. _____ b. All letters sound different. _____ c. Some letters sound the same and some different. *** Note: If you marked (c), please do the following:

From the following list of letters, circle the letters that sound the same in both English and Spanish:

a b c ch d e f g gh h i j k l ll

m n o p ph q r rr s sh t th u

v w x y z

From the following list of letters, circle the letters that sound different in both English and Spanish:



v w x y z



268

Why? _________________________________________________________

8. Do you think these exercises will improve your listening skills in Spanish?


Why? _________________________________________________________ 9. Do you think that improvement of your listening skills in Spanish will help you understand better the speech of a Spanish native speaker?

Yes _______ No ______ I do not know _______ Why? _________________________________________________________ 10. Do you think that improvement of your listening skills in Spanish will help you improve your pronunciation in Spanish?

Yes _______ No ______ I do not know _______ Why? _________________________________________________________ 11. Please, feel free to add any comments or suggestions regarding your experience with the listening exercises we did in class. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

269

C. Study C123



Why? _________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2. Do you think these exercises will improve your listening skills in Spanish?


Why? _________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 3. Do you think that improvement of your listening skills in Spanish will help you understand better the speech of a Spanish native speaker?


Why? _________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 4. Do you think that improvement of your listening skills in Spanish will help you improve your pronunciation in Spanish?


Why? _________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 5. Of the following statements, mark only ONE:

_____ a. Sounds in both English and Spanish are the same.

123 This questionnaire was administered after the pretest in Study C. Questions 5 through 11 made up the follow up questionnaire given after the posttest in order to compare whether instruction had made a difference in learners’ responses.

270

_____ b. Sounds in both English and Spanish are different. _____ c. Some sounds in both English and Spanish are the same and some different.

*** Note: If you marked (c), please do the following: Circle the sounds that are the same in both English and Spanish



v w x y z

Circle the sounds that are different in both English and Spanish:



v w x y z

6. When you hear an unfamiliar word in Spanish, what of the following strategies do you use to understand the word? (Please rate the following strategies. Circle the number that indicates how frequently you use that particular strategy.) STRATEGIES

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Always

a. I rely on the sounds to come up with Spanish spelling; then I try to understand the word.

1 2 3 4 5

b. When I hear the sounds, I "see" the word in my mind. 1 2 3 4 5

c. I try to understand the word from the context 1 2 3 4 5

d. I try to remember if I have heard the word before. 1 2 3 4 5 e. I try to remember if the word is similar to an English word.

1 2 3 4 5

f . I usually translate word by word when I listen to Spanish.

1 2 3 4 5

g . Other (explain):_____________________________

_____________________________________________

1 2 3 4 5

271

7. Do you use the strategies sequentially (one strategy first, then another one, and then another one, etc.? (circle one)

Yes No, explain: ____________________________________

8. If yes, in what order do you use the strategies? (Please, put the strategies in order, starting with the one you think you use first. You can use the letters above): 1. ______________ 4. ______________

2. ______________ 5. ______________

3. ______________ 6. ______________

9. How do you feel about listening exercises?

(Please circle the number that indicates your feelings)

FEELINGS

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

a. Happy 1 2 3 4 5 b. Stressed out 1 2 3 4 5

c. Accomplished 1 2 3 4 5 d. Nervous 1 2 3 4 5 e. Anxious 1 2 3 4 5 f. Other (explain) : ________

_______________________

1 2 3 4 5

10. Why? ________________________________________________________________

11. Please, feel free to add any comments or suggestions regarding your experience with the listening exercises we did in class. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

272

Appendix G

Scores for Study A - word level

A. Phoneme /VrV/

Student pre (6)

d-post (5)

Student pre (6)

d-post (5)

Student pre (6)

d-post (5)

Exp-1 0.66 1.00 Exp-11 1.00 1.00 Exp-21 0.00 0.80 Exp-2 0.16 1.00 Exp-12 0.33 0.80 Exp-22 0.16 0.80 Exp-3 0.66 0.80 Exp-13 0.50 0.80 Exp-23 0.33 0.40 Exp-4 0.66 1.00 Exp-14 0.66 1.00 Exp-24 0.00 0.80 Exp-5 0.50 1.00 Exp-15 0.66 0.80 Exp-25 0.83 1.00 Exp-6 0.50 0.80 Exp-16 0.66 0.80 Exp-26 0.83 0.00 Exp-7 0.33 0.80 Exp-17 0.50 1.00 Exp-27 0.66 0.60 Exp-8 0.83 0.80 Exp-18 1.00 0.80 Exp-28 0.50 0.80 Exp-9 0.83 1.00 Exp-19 0.66 1.00 Exp-29 0.50 0.40 Exp-10 0.83 1.00 Exp-20 0.66 1.00

Table G.1. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group.124 Phoneme /VrV/.

Student pre (6)

d-post (5)

Student pre (6)

d-post (5)

Con-1 0.83 1.00 Con-9 0.66 1.00 Con-2 0.66 0.80 Con-10 0.83 0.80 Con-3 0.83 1.00 Con-11 0.83 1.00 Con-4 0.66 1.00 Con-12 1.00 1.00 Con-5 0.50 1.00 Con-13 1.00 1.00 Con-6 0.33 0.80 Con-14 0.66 1.00 Con-7 0.33 1.00 Con-15 1.00 0.80 Con-8 0.66 1.00

Table G.2. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /VrV/.

124 The first column identifies the learner and the group (e.g., Exp-1 identifies learner 1 in EXP). The second column shows the learner’s score in the pretest based on the number of tokens tested (i.e., the number in parentheses). For example, EXP-1 had a 0.66 score because the learner identified 4 tokens out of 6 (e.g., 4 /6 = 0.66). The third column presents the score in the posttest.

273

B. Phoneme /VdV/

Student pre (2)

d-post (4)

Student pre (2)

d-post (4)

Student pre (2)

d-post (4)


Table G.3. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. Phoneme /VdV/ at the word level in Study A.

Student pre

(2) d-post (4)

Student pre (2)

d-post (4)


Table G.4. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /VdV/ at the word level in Study A.

274

C. Phoneme /x/

Student pre (2)

d-post (1)

Student pre (2)

d-post (1)

Student pre (2)

d-post (1)


Table G.5. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. Phoneme /x/ at the word level in Study A.

Student pre

(2) d-post (1)

Student pre (2)

d-post (1)


Table G.6. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /x/ at the word level in Study A.

275

D. All phonemes together

Student pre (10)

d-post (10)

Student pre (10)

d-post (10)

Student pre (6)

d-post (5)


Table G.7. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. All phonemes together at the word level in Study A.

Student pre (10)

d-post (10)

Student pre (10)

d-post (10)


Table G.8. Scores for learners in the Control Group. All phonemes together at the word level in Study A.

276

Appendix H

Scores for Study A - sentence level

A. Phoneme /VrV/

Student pre (2)

d-post (2)

Student pre (2)

d-post (2)

Student pre (2)

d-post (2)

Exp-1 1.0 1.0 Exp-11 1.0 1.0 Exp-21 05 1.0 Exp-2 0.5 1.0 Exp-12 0.5 1.0 Exp-22 1.0 1.0 Exp-3 0.5 1.0 Exp-13 0.5 1.0 Exp-23 0.0 1.0 Exp-4 0.5 1.0 Exp-14 0.5 1.0 Exp-24 0.0 1.0 Exp-5 0.0 1.0 Exp-15 0.5 1.0 Exp-25 0.5 1.0 Exp-6 0.0 1.0 Exp-16 0.5 1.0 Exp-26 0.0 1.0 Exp-7 0.0 1.0 Exp-17 1.0 1.0 Exp-27 0.5 1.0 Exp-8 0.0 1.0 Exp-18 0.0 1.0 Exp-28 0.5 1.0 Exp-9 0.5 1.0 Exp-19 0.0 1.0 Exp-29 0.0 0.5 Exp-10 0.5 1.0 Exp-20 0.5 0.5

Table H.1. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. Phoneme /VrV/.

Student pre

(2) d-post (2)

Student pre (2)

d-post (2)


Table H.2. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /VrV/.

277

B. Phoneme /VdV/

Student

pre (3)

d-post (5)

Student pre (3)

d-post (5)

Student pre (3)

d-post (5)


Table H.3. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. Phoneme /VdV/ at the sentence level in Study A.

Student pre (3)

d-post (5)

Student pre (3)

d-post (5)


Table H.4. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /VdV/ at the sentence level in Study A.

278

C. Phoneme /x/

Student

pre (1)

d-post (1)

Student pre (1)

d-post (1)

Student pre (1)

d-post (1)


Table H.5. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. Phoneme /x/ at the sentence level in Study A.

Student pre (1)

d-post (1)

Student pre (1)

d-post (1)


Table H.6. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /x/ at the sentence level in Study A.

279


Student pre (6)

d-post (8)

Student pre (6)

d-post (8)

Student pre (6)

d-post (8)


Table H.7. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group. All phonemes together at the sentence level in Study A.

Student pre

(6) d-post (8)

Student pre (6)

d-post (8)


Table H.8. Scores for learners in the Control Group. All phonemes together at the word sentence in Study A.

280

Appendix I

Scores for Study B - sentence level

A. Phoneme /VrV/

Student pre (3)

post (3)

d-post (3)

Student pre (3)

post (3)

d-post (3)

Exp-1-1 0.33 0.66 1.0 Exp-1-10 0.33 0.0 0.0 Exp-1-2 0.66 0.33 0.33 Exp-1-11 0.33 0.33 0.0 Exp-1-3 0.33 0.66 0.33 Exp-1-12 0.66 0.66 0.66 Exp-1-4 0.33 1.0 0.66 Exp-1-13 0.66 0.33 0.66 Exp-1-5 0.66 0.33 0 Exp-1-14 0.33 0.33 0.66 Exp-1-6 1.0 0.66 0.66 Exp-1-15 0.66 0.33 0.66 Exp-1-7 1.0 0.66 0.66 Exp-1-16 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-8 0.33 0.33 0.33 Exp-1-17 0.66 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-9 0.66 0.33 0.66

Table I.1. Scores for learners in EXP-1, full-treatment group. Phoneme /VrV/.

Student pre

(3) post (3)

d-post (3)

Exp-2-1 0.66 0.66 0.66 Exp-2-2 0.66 0.33 0.0 Exp-2-3 0.0 0.0 0.33 Exp-2-4 0.33 0.33 0.0 Exp-2-5 1.0 0.66 0.66 Exp-2-6 1.0 0.33 0.33 Exp-2-7 1.0 0.33 1.0 Exp-2-8 0.66 0.33 0.33 Exp-2-9 1.0 0.66 1.0 Exp-2-10 1.0 0.33 0.66 Exp-2-11 0.33 0.33 0.33

Table I.2. Scores for learners in EXP-2, full-treatment group. Phoneme /VrV/.

281

Student pre

(3) post (3)

d-post (3)

Exp-3-1 1.0 0.66 0.0 Exp-3-2 0.66 1.0 0.0 Exp-3-3 0.66 0.33 0.0 Exp-3-4 0.66 0.33 0.0 Exp-3-5 0.66 0.66 0.33 Exp-3-6 0.33 0.0 0.33 Exp-3-7 1.0 1.0 0.66 Exp-3-8 1.0 0.33 0.33 Exp-3-9 1.0 0.33 0.0

Table I.3. Scores for learners in EXP-3, partial-treatment group. Phoneme /VrV/ at the sentence level in Study B.

Student pre

(3) post (3)

d-post (3)

Student pre (3)

post (3)

d-post (3)

Con-1 0.33 0.33 0.66 Con-8 0.33 0.33 0.33 Con-2 0.33 0.66 0.66 Con-9 0.66 1.0 1.0 Con-3 0.66 1.0 0.66 Con-10 0.66 1.0 0.33 Con-4 1.0 0.66 0.66 Con-11 1.0 0.33 1.0 Con-5 0.33 0.33 0.33 Con-11 0.66 0.66 0.33 Con-6 0.66 0.66 1.0 Con-12 1.0 0.66 1.0 Con-7 0.33 0.66 0.33 Con-14 0.33 0.0 0.0

Table I.4. Scores for the Control Group. Phoneme /VrV/ at the sentence level in Study B.

282

B. Phoneme /VdV/

Student pre (2)

post (2)

d-post (2)

Student pre (2)

post 2)

d-post (2)

Exp-1-1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-10 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-2 1.0 0.5 1.0 Exp-1-11 0.5 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-3 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-12 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-4 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-13 1.0 1.0 0.5 Exp-1-5 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-14 0.5 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-6 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-15 0.5 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-7 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-16 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-8 0.5 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-17 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-9 0.5 1.0 1.0

Table I.5. Scores for learners in EXP-1, full-treatment group. Phoneme /VdV/ at the sentence level in Study B

Student pre

(2) post (2)

d-post (2)


Table I.6. Scores for learners in EXP-2, full-treatment group. Phoneme /VdV/ in Study B.

283

Student pre (2)

post (2)

d-post (2)

Exp-3-1 1.0 1.0 0 Exp-3-2 1.0 1.0 0.5 Exp-3-3 0.5 1.0 0.0 Exp-3-4 1.0 1.0 0.5 Exp-3-5 0.5 1.0 0.5 Exp-3-6 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-3-7 0.5 1.0 0.5 Exp-3-8 1.0 1.0 0.5 Exp-3-9 1.0 1.0 0.5

Table I.7. Scores for learners in EXP-3, partial-treatment group. Phoneme /VdV/ at the sentence level in Study B.

Student pre

(2) post (2)

d-post (2)

Student pre (2)

post (2)

d-post (2)


Table I.8. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /VdV/ at the sentence level in Study B.

284

C. Phoneme /x/

Student pre (3)

post (3)

d-post (3)

Student pre (3)

post (3)

d-post (3)

Exp-1-1 0.33 0.33 1.0 Exp-1-10 0.33 0.33 0.66 Exp-1-2 0.33 0.66 1.0 Exp-1-11 1.0 0.66 1.0 Exp-1-3 0.33 0.66 0.66 Exp-1-12 1.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-1-4 0.66 0.66 0.66 Exp-1-13 0.66 0.33 1.0 Exp-1-5 0.33 0.66 0.33 Exp-1-14 0.33 0.66 1.0 Exp-1-6 0.66 0.66 1.0 Exp-1-15 0.33 0.66 1.0 Exp-1-7 1.0 0.66 1.0 Exp-1-16 0.66 0.66 1.0 Exp-1-8 0.66 0.66 1.0 Exp-1-17 0.33 0.66 0.66 Exp-1-9 0.33 0.66 0.33

Table I.9. Scores for learners in EXP-1, full-treatment group. Phoneme /x/ at the sentence level in Study B.

Student pre

(3) post (3)

d-post (3)


Table I.10. Scores for learners in EXP-2, full-treatment group. Phoneme /x/ at the sentence level in Study B.

285

Student pre

(3) post (3)

d-post (3)


Table I.11. Scores for learners in EXP-3, partial-treatment group. Phoneme /x/ at the sentence level in Study B.

Student pre

(3) post (3)

d-post (3)

Student pre (3)

post (3)

d-post (3)

Con-1 0.33 0 0.66 Con-8 0.0 0.66 0.33 Con-2 0.66 0.66 1.0 Con-9 0.66 1.0 0.66 Con-3 0.66 0.66 0.66 Con-10 0.66 0.66 0.33 Con-4 0.66 0.66 0.66 Con-11 0.33 0.66 0.66 Con-5 0.33 0.33 0.33 Con-12 0.66 0.33 0.66 Con-6 0.66 0.66 0.66 Con-13 0.66 0.33 0.66 Con-7 0.66 0.66 0.66 Con-14 0.33 0.0 0.33

Table I.12. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Phoneme /x/ at the sentence level in Study B.

286


Student pre (8)

post (8)

d-post (8)

Student pre (8)

post (8)

d-post (8)

Exp-1-1 0.5 0.62 1.0 Exp-1-10 0.5 0.37 0.5 Exp-1-2 0.62 0.5 0.75 Exp-1-11 0.62 0.62 0.62 Exp-1-3 0.5 0.75 0.62 Exp-1-12 0.87 0.87 0.87 Exp-1-4 0.62 0.87 0.75 Exp-1-13 0.75 0.5 0.75 Exp-1-5 0.62 0.62 0.37 Exp-1-14 0.37 0.62 0.87 Exp-1-6 0.87 .075 0.87 Exp-1-15 0.5 0.62 0.87 Exp-1-7 1.0 0.75 0.87 Exp-1-16 0.87 0.87 1.0 Exp-1-8 0.5 0.62 0.75 Exp-1-17 0.62 0.87 0.87 Exp-1-9 0.5 0.62 0.62

Table I.13. Scores for learners in the EXP-1. All phonemes together at the sentence level in Study B.

Student pre

(8) post (8)

d-post (8)


Table I.14. Scores for learners in EXP-2. All phonemes together at the sentence level in Study B.

287

Student pre

(8) post (8)

d-post (8)


Table I.15. Scores for learners in EXP-3. All phonemes together at the sentence level in Study B.

Student pre

(8) post (8)

d-post (8)

Student pre (8)

post (8)

d-post (8)


Table I.16. Scores for the Control Group. All phonemes together at the sentence level in Study B.

288

Appendix J

Scores for Study B in Recognition of Chunks

Student pre

(2) post (2)

d-post (2)

Student (2)

pre (2)

post (2)

d-post (2)

Exp-1-1 0.0 0.0 0.5 Exp-1-10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Exp-1-2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Exp-1-11 0.0 0.5 0.0 Exp-1-3 0.5 0.0 0.0 Exp-1-12 0.0 0.5 0.0 Exp-1-4 0..0 0.5 0.0 Exp-1-13 0.0 0.5 0.0 Exp-1-5 0.0 0.0 0.5 Exp-1-14 0.0 0.0 0.0 Exp-1-6 0.0 0.0 0.5 Exp-1-15 0.0 0.5 0.0 Exp-1-7 0.5 0.5 0.0 Exp-1-16 0.5 0.5 0.0 Exp-1-8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Exp-1-17 0.0 0.0 0.5 Exp-1-9 0.0 0.5 0.5

Table J.1. Scores for learners in EXP-1, full-treatment group. Recognition of chunks in Study B.

Student pre

(2) post (2)

d-post (2)


Table J.2. Scores for learners in EXP-2, full-treatment group. Recognition of chunks in Study B.

289

Student pre (2)

post (2)

d-post (2)


Table J.3. Scores for learners in EXP-3, partial-treatment group. Recognition of chunks in Study B.

Student pre

(2) post (2)

d-post (2)

Student

pre (2)

post (2)

d-post (2)


Table J.4. Scores for learners in the Control Group. Recognition of chunks in Study B.

290

Appendix K

Scores for Study C in Recognition of Chunks

Student pre

(4) post (4)

d-post (4)

Exp-1 0.0 0.75 0.25 Exp-2 0.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-3 0.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-4 0.0 0.75 0.25 Exp-5 0.0 1.0 0.75 Exp-6 0.0 1.0 1.0 Exp-7 .5 0.75 1.0 Exp-8 0.0 1.0 1.0

Table K.1. Scores for learners in the Experimental Group.

Student pre

(4) post (4)

d-post (4)

Con-1 0.25 0.0 0.5 Con-2 0.25 0.25 0.25 Con-3 0.0 0.25 0.25 Con-4 0.25 0.25 1.0 Con-5 0.5 0.5 0.75 Con-6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Con-7 0.0 0.25 0.0 Con-8 0.0 0.0 0.25 Con-9 0.75 0.5 0.75 Con-10 0.5 1.0 0.75 Con-11 0.0 0.0 0.25 Con-12 0.0 0.0 0.0 Con-13 0.75 0.75 0.75

Table K.2. Scores for learners in the Control Group.

291

Appendix L

Statistical results for Study A and Study B

All phonemes together

EXP CON

z -4.324 -2.777

p 0.000* 0.005*

Table L.1. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for all phonemes together at the word level in Study A.

EXP CON

z -3.844 -2.703

p 0.000* 0.007*

Table L.2. Wilcoxon test. Statistical results within subjects for all phonemes together at the sentence level in Study A.


Chi-Square 6.830 4.421 7.563 2.133

df 2 2 2 2

P 0.033* 0.110 0.023(*) 0.344

Table L.3. Friedman test. Statistical results within subjects for all phonemes together at the sentence level in Study B.

292

References

Altarriba, J. (1992). The representation of translation equivalents in bilingual memory. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (Vol. 83, pp. 157-174). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications (5 ed.). New York, NY: Worth.

Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, and W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge (pp. 415-431). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Aoyama, K., Flege, J. E., Guion, S. G., Akahane-Yamada, R., and Yamada, T. (2004). Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: The case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 233-250.

Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., and Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch. Evidence for a parallel dual route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94-117.

Bahrick, H. P., Hall, L. K., Goggin, L. E., Bahrick, L. E., and Berger, S. A. (1994). Fifty years of language maintenance and language dominance in bilingual Hispanic immigrants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 264-283.

Bard, E. G., Shillcock, R. C., and Altmann, G. T. M. (1988). The recognition of words after their acoustic offsets in spontaneous speech: Effects of subsequent context. Perception and Psychophysics, 44, 395-408.

Barrutia, R., and Schwegler, A. (1994). Fonética y fonología españolas (2 ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Batstone, R. (2002). Making sense of a new language: A discourse perspective. Language Awareness, 11(4), 14-29.

Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95-127.

293

Best, C. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influence in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In H. Nusbaum, J. Goodman, and C. Howards (Eds.), The Transition from Speech Sounds to Spoken Words: The Development of Speech Perception (pp. 167-224). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realistic view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research (pp. 171-206). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Best, C. T., and Strange, W. (1992). Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 305-330.

Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., and Sithole, N. M. (1988). Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 345-360.

Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, 69-84.

Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157-168.

Bialystok, E., and Sharwood-Smith, M. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation of the construct for second-language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6, 101-117.

Bird, H., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Seidenberg, M. S., McClelland, J. L., and Patterson, K. (2003). Deficits in phonology and past-tense morphology: What’s the connection? Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 502-526.

Bolonyai, A. (1998). In-between languages: Language shift/ maintenance in childhood bilingualism. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 2, 21-43.

Borden, G. J. (1980). Use of feedback in established and developing speech. In N. Lass (Ed.), Speech and Language (Vol. 3, pp. 233-242). New York: Academic.

294

Bradley, D. C., Sánchez-Casas, R. M., and García-Albea, J. E. (1993). The status of the syllable to the perception of Spanish and English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 197-233.

Brovetto, C., and Ullman, M. T. (2005). The mental representation and processing of Spanish verbal morphology. In D. Eddington (Ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 98-105). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Brown, C. (2000). The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition from infant to adult. In J. Archibald (Ed.) Second Language Acquisition and Theory (pp. 4-63). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Brown, R. (1973). A First Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Byrnes, H. (1984). The role of listening comprehension: A theoretical base. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 317-329.

Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79,179-193.

Call, E. (1985). Auditory short term memory, listening comprehension, and the Input Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 765-781.

Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., and Schumann, J. (1974). Testing hypotheses about second language acquisition, Working Papers on Bilingualism, 3, 8-96.

Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., and Schumann, J. (1978). The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In E. Hatch (Ed.). Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., and Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297-332.

Carr, T., and Curran, T. (1994). Cognitive factors in learning about structured sequences: Applications to syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 205-230.

295

Cazden, C., Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., and Schumann, J. (1975). Second Language Acquisition Sequences in Children, Adolescents and Adults, Final Report, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Chastain, K. (1971). The Development of Modern Language Skills: Theory to Practice, Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.

Cheng, A. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85, 308-323.

Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B. F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior. Language. 35, 26-58.

Chowdhury, M. R. (2000). Colourless green ideas: Teaching grammar in the EFL class: rethinking. Dhaka University Studies, 58(2), 33-53.

Chowdhury, R. (2003). International TESOL training and EFL contexts: The cultural disillusionment factor. Australian Journal of Education, 47(3), 283-302.

Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2: 223-250.

Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Harlow: Longman.

Cook, V. (1985). Universal grammar and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 2-18.

Cook, V. (1996). Second Language Learning and Teaching (2 ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

Corder, P. (1976). The study of interlanguage. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics (pp. 4-36). Stuttgart: Hochshulverlag.

Cutler, A., and Clifton, C. J. (1999). Comprehending spoken language: A blueprint of the listener. In C. M. Brown, and P. Hagoort (Eds.), The Neurocognition of Language (pp. 123-155). Oxford University Press.

Cutler, A., and Norris, D. G. (1979). Monitoring sentence comprehension. In W. E., Cooper, and E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence Processing:

296

Psycholinguistic Studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp.113-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cutler, A., and Norris, D. G. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113-121.

Cutler, A., Murty, L., and Otake, T. (2003). Rhythmic similarity effect in non-native listening? Paper presented at the Fifteenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona: Causal Productions.

Davis, M. H, Gareth, G. M., and Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1997). Learning to recognize embedded words in connected speech. Paper presented at the First Computational Psycholinguistics workshop, Berkeley, CA, August, 1997.

DeKeyser. R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., and Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten’s “Processing instruction: An update.” Language Learning, 52(4), 805-823.

Dijkstra, A. F. J. (2003). Lexical storage and retrieval in bilinguals. In R. W. N. M. Van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, and R. Towell (Eds.), The Lexicon-syntax Interface in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 129-150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dulay, H., and Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53.

Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315-330.

Eckman, F. R,. and Elreyes, A. (2003). Some principles of second language phonology. Second Language Research, 19(3), 169-208.

Eckman, F. R., and Bell, L., and Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1-20.

Edge, J. (1996). Cross-cultural paradoxes in a profession of values. TESOL Quarterly, 3, 9-31.

297

Ellis, N. (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning-- An overview. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 1-31). London: Academic Press.

Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91-126.

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Learning in the Classroom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Field, J. (2000). ‘Not waving but drowning’: A reply to Tony Ridgway. ELT Journal, 54(2), 186-195.

Field, J. (2003). Promoting perception: Lexical segmentation in L2 listening. ELT Journal, 57(4), 325-334.

Fiske, S. T., and Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social Cognition. New York: Random House.

Flege, J. E. (1981). The phonological basis of foreign accent: A hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 443-453.

Flege, J. E. (1987a). Effects of equivalence classification on the production of foreign language speech sounds. In A. James., and J. Leather (Eds.), Sound Patterns in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 10-39). Dordrecht: Foris.

Flege, J. E. (1987b). The production of ‘new’ and ‘similar’ phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47-65.

Flege, J. E. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research (pp. 233-272). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Flege, J. E. (1999). Age of learning and second language speech. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 101-131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Frazier, L. (1979). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.

298

Garant, M. (2003). Expanding the language teaching and learning knowledge base. (Editorial). Academic Exchange Quarterly. 7(1), 4.

Gass, S. (1979a). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington.

Gass, S. (1979b). Language transfer and universal grammar relations. Language Learning, 29, 327-344.

Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198-217.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gass, S. M., and Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (2 ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gass, S., and E. Varonis. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283-302.

Gass, S., Svetics, I., and Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential effects of attention. Language Learning, 53(3), 497-545.

Goh, C. C. M. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28, 55-75.

Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., and Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Priming lexical neighbours of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 501-518.

González-Bueno, M. (1997). The effects of formal instruction on the acquisition of Spanish stop consonants. In W. Glass, and A. Pérez-Leroux (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish (Vol. 2, pp. 57-76). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.

Grosjean, F. (1985). The recognition of words after their acoustic offset: Evidence and implications. Perception and Psychophysics, 38, 299-310.

299

Guion, S. G., Flege, J. E., and Loftin, J. D. (2000). The effect of L1 use on pronunciation in Quichua-Spanish bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 27-42.

Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language learning. Language Learning, 24, 287-297.

Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a second language. Language Learning, 26, 321-351.

Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1994a). Phonological transfer in second language perception and production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1994b). Segment transfer: A consequence of a dynamic system. Second Language Research, 10 (3), 241-269.

Hastie, R. (1981). Schematic principles in human memory. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, and M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 135-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heredia, R. (1995). Concreteness effects in high frequency words: A test of the revised hierarchical and the mixed models of bilingual memory representations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Hernandez, A. E., Bates, E., and Avila, L. X. (1996). Processing across the language boundary: A cross modal priming study of Spanish-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 846-864.

Hernandez, A. E., and Kohnert, K. J. (1998). Aging and language switching in bilinguals. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 6, 69-83.

Horwitz, E. (1989). Recent research on second language learners: Beliefs and anxiety. In D. Koike. and A. R. M. Simões (Eds.), A Special Edition of Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education. In Proceedings of the Conference on Portuguese Language: Teaching and Testing (pp. 51-60). Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.

Huebner, T. (1979). Order-of-acquisition vs. dynamic paradigm: A comparison of method in interlanguage research. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 21-28.

300

Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.

Iskold, L. V. (2003). Theoretical perspectives on second language learning, Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(1), 97-101.

James, A. (1986). Phonic transfer and phonological explanation: Some theoretical and methodological issues. In E. Kellerman, and M. Sharwood-Smith (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 134-149). Oxford: Pergamon.

Jennings, F., Randall, B., and Tyler, L. K. (1997). Graded effects of verb subcategory preferences on parsing: Support for constraint-satisfaction models. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 485-504.

Kehoe, M. (2002). Developing vowel systems as a window to bilingual phonology. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(3), 315-335.

Kehoe, M., Trujillo, C., and Lleó, C. (2001). Bilingual phonological acquisition: An analysis of syllable structure and VOT. In K. F. Cantone and M.-O. Hinzelin (Eds.), In Proceedings of the Colloquium on Structure, Acquisition and Change of Grammars: Phonological and Syntactic Aspects, Universität Hamburg: Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, 27, 38-54.

Khattab, G. (2004, June 24-26). Variation in vowel production by English-Arabic bilinguals. Paper presented at the 9th Conference on Laboratory Phonology, Urbana, IL.

Knorre, M., Dorwick, T., Pérez-Gironés, A. M., Glass, W. R., and Villarreal, H. (2001). Puntos de Partida (6 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kohler, K. (1971). On the adequacy of phonological theories for contrastive studies. In G. Nickel (Ed.), Papers in Contrastive Linguistics (pp. 83-88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kohnert, J. K., and Bates, E. (2002). Balancing bilinguals II: Lexical comprehension and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Languages, and Hearing Research, 45(2), 347-359.

Kohnert, K. J., Hernandez, A. E., and Bates, E. (1998). Bilingual performance on the Boston Naming Test: Preliminary norms in Spanish and English. Brain and Language, 65, 422-440.

301

Kohnert, K. J., Bates, E., and Hernandez, A. E. (1999). Balancing bilinguals: Lexical-semantic production and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1400-1413.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.

Krashen, S., and Terrell, T. (1984). The Natural Method: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.

Kuhl, P. K., and Iverson, P. (1995). Linguistic experience and the “perceptual magnet effect.” In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research (pp. 121-154). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1975). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 409-430.

Leather, J., and James, A. (1991). The acquisition of second language speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 305-341.

Lee, J. F., and VanPatten, B. (1995). Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.

Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. Seliger, and M. Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 217-243). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Lleó, C. (2002). The role of markedness in the acquisition of complex prosodic structures by German-Spanish bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(3), 291-314.

302

Lleó, C., and Kehoe, M. (2002). On the interaction of phonological systems in child bilingual acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(3), 233-238.

Luce, P. A. (1986). A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 39, 155-158.

Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge University Press.

Major, R. (1986). The ontogeny model: Evidence from L2 acquisition of Spanish r. Language Learning, 36, 453-504.

Major, R. (2001). Foreign accent: The Ontogeny and Phylogency of Second Language Phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Major, R. C., and Kim, E. (1996). The similarity differential rate hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 465-496.

Marcel, A. J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking and word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 197-237.

Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25, 71-102.

Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1990). Activation, competition and frequency in lexical access. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing (pp. 148-172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2001). Access to lexical representations: Cross-linguistic issues. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16 (5/6), 699-708.

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., and Welsh A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29-63.

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Brown, C. M., and Tyler, L. K. (1988). Lexical representations in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 1-16.

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., and Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3-33.

303

Maye, J. C. (2000). Learning speech sound categories from statistical information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.

Mayo, C., Scobbie, J. M., Hewlett, N., and Waters, D. (2003). The influence of phonemic awareness development on acoustic cue weighting strategies in children’s speech perception. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(5), 1184-1196.

McClelland, J. L., and Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.

McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113-128.

McQueen, J. M., Norris, D. G., and Cutler, A. (1994). Competition in spoken word recognition: Spotting words in other words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 621-638.

McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., Briscoe, T., and Norris, D. (1995). Models of continuous speech recognition and the contents of the vocabulary. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 309-331.

McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., and Norris, D. (2003). Flow of information in the spoken word recognition system. Speech Communication, 41, 257-270.

Mehler, J., Dommergues, J.-Y., Frauenfelder, U. H., and Segui, J. (1981). The syllable’s role in speech segmentation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 298-305.

Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., and Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109-135.

Mendelsohn, D. J. (1984). There ARE strategies for listening. TEAL Occasional Papers 8, 63-76.

Miller, G. A., and Nicely, P. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustics Society of America, 27, 338-352.

Miller, J. L., and Eimas, P. D. (1995). Speech perception: From signal to word. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 467-492.

304

Miller, S. (1991). Experimental Design and Statistics (2 ed.). London/New York: Routledge.

Monsell, G., and Caramazza, A. (1985). Dissociation of inflectional and derivational morphology. Brain and Language, 35, 24-65.

Morais, J., and Kolinsky, R. (1994). Perception and awareness in phonological processing: The case of the phoneme. Cognition, 50, 287-297.

Navarro Tomás, T. (1991). Manual de pronunciación española (25 ed.). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

Nemser, W. (1971). An Experimental Study of Phonological Interference in the English of Hungarians. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Neumann, O. (1996). Theories of attention. In O. Neumann, and A. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Action (Vol. 3, pp. 389-446). New York: Academic Press.

Newmark, L., and Reibel, D. (1968). Necessity and sufficiency in language learning, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 6, 145-164.

Norris, D. G. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189-234.

Norris, D. G., and Cutler, A. (1985). Juncture detection. Linguistics, 23, 689-705.

Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., and Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 299-370.

Norris, D. G., McQueen, J. M., and Cutler, A. (in press). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology.

Núñez Cedeño, R. A., and Morales-Front, A. (1999). Fonología generativa contemporánea de la lengua española. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Olivares, R. A. (2002). Communication, constructivism and transfer of knowledge in the education of bilingual learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 5(1), 4-19.

305

Omaggio Hadley, A. (1993). Language Teaching in Context. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

O’Malley, J. M., and Chamot, A. (1993). Learner characteristics in second language acquisition. In A. Omaggio Hadley (Ed.), Research in Language Learning: Principles, Processes, and Prospects (pp. 96-123). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U, and Küpper, L. (1995). Listening comprehension strategies in second language acquisition. In H. D. Brown, and S. Gonzo (Eds.), Readings on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 138-160). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Otake, T., Hatano, G., Cutler, A., and Mehler, J. (1993). More or syllable? Speech segmentation in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 358-378.

Otake, T., Hatano, G., and Yoneyama, K. (1996). Speech segmentation by Japanese listeners. In T. Otake, and A. Cutler (Eds.), Phonological Structure and Language Processing: Cross-linguistic Studies (pp. 183-201). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Oxford, R. C. (1993). Research update on teaching L2 listening. System, 21(2), 205-211.

Pegg, J. E., and Werker, J. F. (1997). Adults and infant perception of two English phones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102(6), 3742-3753.

Peperkamp, S., and Dupoux, E. (in press). Learning the mapping from surface to underlying representations in an artificial language. In J. Cole, and J. Hualde, (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 9. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Peretz, I., Lussier, I., and Béland, R. (1996). The roles of phonological and orthographic code in word stem completion. In T. Otake, and A. Cutler (Eds.), Phonological structure and language processing: Cross-linguistic Studies (pp. 217-226). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Posner, M. I., and Peterson, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25-42.

306

Posner, M. I., and Snyder, C. (1975) Attention and cognitive control. In R. Solso (Ed.), Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pullen, P. C., and Justice, L. M. (2003). Enhancing phonological awareness, print awareness, and oral language skills in preschool children. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(2), 87-98.

Quilis, A., and Fernández, J. A. (1996). C.urso de fonética y fonología expañolas (15 ed.). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

Reeder, J. (1997). Mimephonic ability and phonological performance in adult learners of Spanish. In W. Glass, and A. Pérez-Leroux (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (Vol. 2, pp. 77-90). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Reeder, J. T. (1998). An acoustic description of the acquisition of Spanish phonetic detail by adult English speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas, Austin.

Richgels, D. J. (2001) Phonemic awareness. The Reading Teacher, 55(3), 274-278.

Ridgway, T. (2000). Listening strategies -- I beg your pardon? ELT Journal, 54(2), 179-185.

Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory in SLA. In C. Doughty, and M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 631-678). New York: Blackwell.

Rochet, B. (1995). Perception and production of second-language speech sounds by adults. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research (pp. 379-410). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Roelofs, A., and Baayen, H. (2002). Morphology by itself in planning the production of spoken words. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(1), 132-138.

Rumelhart, D. L. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, and W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 161-188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

307

Rumelhart, D. E., and Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson R. J. Spiro, and W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge (pp. 99-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rutherford, W., and Sharwood-Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness raising and Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 272-282.

Sagey, E. (1986). The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451.

Sanders, L.D., Neville, H. J., and Woldorff, M. G. (2002). Speech segmentation by native and non-native speakers: The use of lexical, syntactic, and stress-pattern cues, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 519-530.

Scarcella, R. C. and Oxford, R. L. (1992). The Tapestry of Language Learning: the Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Schafer, A., Carter, J., Clifton, C., Jr., and Frazier, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 135-163.

Schallert, D. L., and Martin, D.B. (2003). A psychological analysis of what teachers and students do in the language arts classroom. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R. Squire, and J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (pp. 31-45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 127-158.

Scholes, R. J. (1967). Phoneme categorization of synthetic vocalic stimuli by speakers of Japanese, Spanish, Persian, and American English. Language and Speech, 10, 46-68.

Schriefers, H., Zwitserlood, P., and Roelofs, A. (1991). The identification of morphologically complex spoken words: Continuous processing or decomposition? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 26-47.

308

Scott, D. R., and Cutler, A. (1984). Segmental phonology and the perception of syntactic structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 450-466.

Sebastian-Gallés, N., Dupoux, E., Segui, J., and Mehler, J. (1992). Contrasting syllabic effects in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 18-32.

Segui, J., Frauenfelder, U. H., and Mehler, J. (1981). Phoneme monitoring, syllable monitoring and lexical access. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 471-477.

Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-168.

Snow, K. (1963). A detailed analysis of articulation responses of ‘normal’ first grade children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 6, 277-290.

Stockwell, R., and Bowen, J. D. (1965). The Sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Schole, R. J. (1967). Phoneme categorization of syntactic vocalic stimuli by speakers of Japanese, Spanish, Persian, and American English. Language and Speech, 10, 46-68.

Tarone, E., Cohen, A., and Dumas, G. (1976). A closer look at some interlanguage terminology: A framework for communication strategies, Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 76-90.

Taylor, S. E., and Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, and M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 89-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tomlin, R., and Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.

Treiman, R., and Cassar, M (1997). Can children and adults focus on sound as opposed to spelling in a phoneme counting task? Developmental Psychology, 33(5), 771-780.

309

Tyler, L. K. (1989). The role of lexical representation in language comprehension. In W. D. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical Representation and Process (pp. 439-462). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ullman, M.T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122.

Ullman, M.T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231-270.

VanPatten, B. (1989). Can learners attend to form and content while processing input? Hispania, 72, 409-417.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammatical Instruction: Theory and Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

VanPatten, B. (2000). Thirty years of input (or intake, the neglected sibling). In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee, and E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and Cognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 287-311). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

VanPatten, B. (2002a). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755-803.

VanPatten, B. (2002b). Processing the content of input-processing and processing instruction research: A response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, and Harrington. Language Learning, 52(4), 825-831.

VanPatten, B. (2002c). Processing instruction, prior awareness and the nature of second language acquisition: A (partial) response to Batstone. Language Awareness, 11(4), 240-258.

VanPatten, B., and Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.

Wagner-Gough, K. (1975). Comparative Studies in Second Language Learning, CAL-ERIC/CLL Series on Language and Linguistics, 26. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Wagner-Gough, K., and Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297-308.

310

Weber, A., and Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 1-25.

Weinreich, U. (1953). Language in Contact. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.

Weinstein, C., and Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3 ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Wheat, J. M. (2001). The effects of formal phonological instruction on the pronunciation of beginning Spanish learners. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Texas, Austin.

Whitman, R. (1970). Contrastive analysis: Problems and procedures. Language Learning, 20, 191-197.

Whitman, R., and Jackson, K. L. (1972). The unpredictability of contrastive analysis. Language Learning, 22, 29-41.

Whitney, P., McKay, T., Kellas, G., and Emerson, W. A. (1985). Semantic activation of noun concepts in context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 126-135.

Wickens, C. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasureman, and D. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of Attention (pp. 63-102). New York: Wiley.

Wode, H. (1976). Developmental sequences in naturalistic L2 acquisition. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 11, 1-13.

Wode, H. (1995). Speech perception, language acquisition, and linguistics: Some mutual implications. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research (pp. 321-347). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Zampini, M. (1998). The relationship between production and perception of second language Spanish stops. In D. A. Koike, and Carpenter, M. (Eds.), Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education (Vol. 3, pp 85-100). Austin: The University of Texas at Austin.

Zwitserlood, P. (2004). Sublexical and morphological information in speech processing. Brain and Language, 90, 368-377.

311

Zwitserlood, P., Boelte, J., and Dohmes, P. (2000). Morphological effects on speech production: Evidence from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4/5), 563-591.

Zwitserlood, P., Drews, E., and Bolwiender, A. Separate contribution of morphology, form and meaning? Evidence from Dutch. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Zwitserlood, P., Schriefers, H., Lahiri, A., and van Donselaar, W. (1993). The role of syllables in the perception of spoken Dutch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 260-271.

312

Vita

María del Socorro Mayberry was born in Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico

on November 10, 1960, the daughter of Rubén Darío Ramírez Ramírez and Liba

Perales Goitia. After graduating from the Instituto Universitario Justo Sierra in

1977, she entered the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de

Monterrey. She received the degree of Licenciada en Ciencias de la

Comunicación in 1981. From 1981 until 1985 she worked as a newspaper

reporter for El Norte in Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico. From 1986 until 1990,

she attended English as a Second Language classes at San Antonio Community

College, and she received an Associate of Arts degree in Computer Programming

in 1990. During the following three years she worked as a bilingual Eligibility

Specialist for the Texas Department of Human Services in Austin, Texas. In

1994, she entered The University of Texas at Austin, and she received the degree

of Bachelor of Arts in Spanish in 1996. In the Fall of the same year, she entered

the Graduate School of The University of Texas where she completed a Master of

Arts degree in Spanish Linguistics in May 2000.

Permanent address: Kant Strasse 27, Saarbrücken, 66111, Germany

This dissertation was typed by the author.

copyright by maría del socorro mayberry 2006

Documents