home

==Relationship between pronunciation and culture Intro. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between students’ cultural sensitivity and their improvements in pronunciation while abroad. Study abroad is often thought of as the surest way for students to improve their foreign or second language skills and gain critical skills and knowledge in dealing with people of other cultures. Many studies have confirmed that students who go abroad tend to make more progress in improving their language skills than students who remain at home and attend classes on campus (Insert references, Dewey, Freed, 19???, Brecht, et al., 1993). However, in these same studies many of the students who go abroad do not demonstrate significant gains in their oral language skills and some researchers have attempted to determine why (Brecht et al, 1993). Recent evidence has shown that cultural sensitivity is one of the factors that can predict improvements in students’ overall language skills while abroad (Martinsen, 2010). This is perhaps unsurprising given the deep connection between language and culture that has been noted in many disciplines (Sapir Whorf?????) including theoretical and applied linguistics. This study will seek to determine whether or not cultural sensitivity can predict improvements in a specific area of language learning, students’ pronunciation in the target language. Although people who Lit. Rev. Methodology Research Questions/Hypotheses The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship between cultural sensitivity and improvements in students’ pronunciation of Spanish. Specifically, 1. How much does students’ pronunciation improve during short-term study abroad? 2. Does students’ level of cultural sensitivity prior to going abroad predict improvements’ in their pronunciation? Participants The forty-five individuals participating in the study were students from a large university in the southwestern United States enrolled in a six-week summer program in Argentina administered by the students’ home university. All participants were native English speakers between the ages of 18 and 30 who had a minimum of one year of university-level Spanish (many had taken upper-division courses). The students’ home university selected students to participate in the program based on a personal essay, recommendations from faculty, and grade point average. Prior to their departure, students were required to attend one pre-departure meeting in which they received information intended to prepare them for the cultural differences they would experience. During their time abroad individual students were placed with an Argentine host family selected by their home university in conjunction with the host university. The program offered a wide variety of courses from second-year Spanish to upper-division courses for Spanish majors. Students were required to take six credit hours and some took as many as nine. Instruments Test of Oral Language Skills For purposes of this study, language assessment focused on students’ speaking. This seemed reasonable since it is likely that oral skills would allow students to interact more with native speakers and engage in the informal culture learning that occurs in study abroad than reading, writing or grammar. Before studying abroad, students were asked to respond orally in Spanish to two contextualized tasks taken from the OPI (Oral Proficiency Interview) and the TOPT (Texas Oral Proficiency Test), which is a test used in the state of Texas to certify bilingual teachers and is based on the OPI (see appendix, Test of Oral Language Skills - Items). Students’ responses to these two tasks provided a sample of approximately three minutes of each student’s Spanish from before and after their time abroad. Later, a panel of three native speakers of Spanish, and myself the researcher, rated each speech sample on pronunciation. This was done using a scale ranging from 1 to 5In order to score the samples of student speech, I created a rubric with descriptors for the kind of speech that would fall under each level of each of the categories. This rubric was adapted from other rubrics such as that used by the Inter-agency Language Roundtable, in addition to other sources (Higgs; Koren; Okamura) and then used to train the raters and guide them while rating (see appendix – Test of Oral Language Skills - Rubric). Samples were presented to the raters in random order so that the raters were unaware of whether a given sample was taken before or after the student went abroad. In order to increase reliability the raters and I discussed the rubric prior to beginning the rating process. Then raters listened to and rated a sample of the speech of a student who did not participate in the study and discussed where it would fall according to the rubric. After arriving at a consensus, raters rated more practice samples until the scores of the raters were consistently identical or fell next to each other. For example, one rater may place a participant at 3 and another at 2, however, a situation where one rater gave a 4 and another a 2 would be unacceptable and would require more discussion of the rubric. The Test of Oral Language Skills demonstrated extremely high inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability was calculated for each of the five aspects of speech rated. The Cronbach’s Alpha for each is as follows: Pronunciation = .89. Also, assessing oral skills this way has the advantage of high face validity since the students are carrying out an actual communicative task for native speakers. This assessment was developed prior to the actual study in a small pilot study to determine if it would be feasible for use on a larger scale. Three native speakers of Spanish, two males and one female, who were graduate students in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the same university in which the research was conducted, served as raters. Additionally, a faculty member versed in language teaching and assessment and I conducted the training and facilitated discussion of the rubric and ratings. Survey of Motivational Intensity Prior to going abroad and upon completion of their program, students completed a brief questionnaire to determine the intensity of their motivation to learn Spanish. Students responded to a series of descriptive statements regarding motivation, such as, “I really work hard to learn Spanish” and then indicated how true that statement was for them personally on a Likert scale of 1 to 4, with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 4 strongly agree. These statements are based on an investigation of motivation in language learning performed by Gardner (See Appendix, Survey of Motivational Intensity). Because some items were added or modified, reliability was calculated for this instrument as used here with Cronbach’s Alpha of .86. Inventory of Cross-cultural Sensitivity Before and after their sojourn, students completed the Inventory of Cross-cultural Sensitivity (ICCS1), consisting of 32 items corresponding to one of five subscales: Cultural Integration, Behavioral Scale, Intellectual Interaction, Attitude Towards Others, and an Empathy Scale. Combined, these scores yield a total score of cross-cultural sensitivity, which can range from 32 to 224. The ICCS has been examined for both content and construct validity and has been able to accurately distinguish between those with extensive cross-cultural experience and those without such experience with high reliability. This instrument was chosen in part because it seeks to identify a kind of attribute that would be helpful in any type of cross-cultural experience. Also, cultural sensitivity as a skill or characteristic has a broader application than knowledge of specific cultural facts related to a given culture. This type of approach also seemed preferable to a test with a narrower focus, such as knowledge of a specific culture, because it seemed unlikely that very many students would have much concrete knowledge of Argentina prior to going abroad, which would make analysis meaningless. Procedures Forty-five participants completed all of the following measures Inventory of Cross-cultural Sensitivity, the Test of Oral Language Skills, and the Survey of Motivational Intensity before and after their first six weeks abroad. The majority of the pre tests were administered on students’ home campus prior to their departure with a few students receiving the measures shortly after arriving in Argentina. Also, the vast majority of post tests were given a few days before students returned to the U.S. after their time abroad with a few students receiving the measures shortly after arriving home. Research regarding second language acquisition has evolved significantly over the years. Since the context in which a second language is learned is most often in a classroom, various teaching approaches have been studied. Regardless of the teaching method utilized, grammar is traditionally the focus in the classroom and pronunciation is often overlooked (Elliott 1995b). It is common in the field of second language teaching for pronunciation to be thought of as something that students will eventually pick up by spending time with native speakers in settings such as study abroad. Although different instructors focus on pronunciation to differing degrees, Terrell (1989) claims that “a ‘cognitive approach’ (which consists of ‘explain, practice, and apply’ cycles based on a grammatical syllabus) has dominated foreign language textbooks and teaching in the United States since about 1970” (p. 197). Currently in the United States, the trend is to employ various communicative approaches, however according to Terrell, even these methods “have not known what to do with pronunciation” (p. 197). Pennington and Richards (1986) claim that “pronunciation has come to be regarded as of limited importance in a communicatively oriented curriculum” (p. 207). Arteaga (2000) said that “it [is] ironic that the purpose of learning a language is to communicate, and yet if the pronunciation is too far off, you will not be understood no matter how good the grammar and how correct the words you use” (p. 342). Lord (2005) agrees that if a speaker has good grammar and vocabulary but has a horrible accent, he/she may not be understood. It is unfortunate that pronunciation is not a focus in the classroom. In a best case scenario, students take a phonetics course in their 3rd or 4th semester of Spanish (Lord, 2005). Perhaps a reason why pronunciation has been largely ignored in the classroom, is that pronunciation is “more difficult to improve than other target language skills,” especially for adults (Elliott, 1995b, p. 531). One of the reasons for its difficulty is the role of language transfer. This study will seek to determine if students’ pronunciation does improve through their experience abroad and what role cultural sensitivity may play in the improvements that students make in their pronunciation in the L2. Language learning and culture Insert  Language learning and culture in study abroad Martinsen, 2007 Language Transfer Language transfer refers to the idea that when a person is learning a language, he/she will apply the rules and forms of their first language into the second language that they are learning. Often these rules and forms of the first language are out of place in the second language. Language transfer has played a substantial role throughout the history of the study of second language acquisition (SLA). When SLA initially began to be studied, language transfer was considered to be the primary hindering factor in acquiring the second language. This is apparent from a statement made by Sparkman (1926), who said that “even a fairly good pronunciation [of a foreign language] cannot be acquired by imitation” (p. 228). His claim seemed to be that although one’s native language is learned largely through imitation, second language acquisition must be different. Learning one’s native language instills in that person certain grammatical patterns and articulatory routines. Sparkman claimed that speakers transfer those rules and patterns of their native language to the new language they are acquiring. Those patterns and routines that exist from one’s native language are not easily overcome. According to Lado (1956), this could interfere with both a non-native speaker’s ability to understand a native speaker, as well as with a non-native speaker’s ability to be understood. According to these historical views of second language acquisition, if one’s native language is English, then when one sees a grapheme, one automatically correlates it with a particular English sound, or allophone. That is to say that there is a certain correspondence between a grapheme (i.e., orthography) and the resulting phonetics (i.e., pronunciation). Thus when learning a new language, one will “naturally give these same letters their old, or their English values” (Sparkman, 1926, p. 229). In other words, if a word in the new language (e.g., Spanish) is spelled orthographically with a {b}, the native English speaker will pronounce it the way it is pronounced in English. Sparkman claimed that the letters of two different languages never have exactly the same oral value, which is why non-native pronunciation occurs with non-native speakers. However, current knowledge contradicts this view. For example, the grapheme {f} has the same oral value (i.e., [f]) in both English and Spanish. Many of the above mentioned historical viewpoints regarding second language acquisition and language transfer have since been reevaluated and modified. The theory of Contrastive Analysis (CA) is one example of how perspectives of language transfer have changed. This theory was formulated in the 1950s to explain the difficulty of acquiring certain features of L2. It followed the notion that any L2 sounds that were different from the L1 sounds would be difficult to acquire. In other words, language transfer was thought to explain every error. This theory was soon criticized, since “many learners did not make all the errors predicted (e.g., some Japanese learners of English have no /r/ and /l/ difficulties)” (Major, p. 34). In the 1960s and 1970s, people began to realize that there were other factors besides language transfer that contributed to the errors made in learning an L2. However, in the 1980s and 1990s it was realized that although language transfer is not the sole culprit of errors, its influence in SLA is strong (p. 35). As Dussias (2003) says, “Constructs such as language transfer, which were characteristics of early interlanguage studies” have been redefined over the years (p. 254). She agrees that although language transfer has been redefined, it “[continues] to find support in recent research studies” (p. 254). Current research in SLA recognizes the importance of other factors in addition to language transfer. Diaz-Campos (2004) states that “besides transfer there are other factors in the development of L2 phonology” (p. 254). He says that things such as “age of L2 learning, age of immersion and instruction in the L2, and the frequency of L1 use are important predictors of better performance in L2 phonology” (p. 259). Thus there are various factors that influence the acquisition of a second language. However, although language transfer may not be the only factor, Gass and Selinker (1983) claim that “language transfer is indeed a real and central phenomenon that must be considered in any full account of the second language acquisition process” (p. 7). Zampini (1994) agrees that language transfer is important and claims that “the transfer of phonological knowledge from a speaker’s first language (L1) plays an important role in the acquisition of a second or foreign language phonology” (p. 471). The underlying premise of the concept of language transfer is that “the two phonetic subsystems of a bilingual [speaker] interact” (Flege et al, 2003, p. 467). Flege claims that “most theorists have rejected the notion that the L1 and L2 phonetic subsystems of a bilingual can be separated completely” (p. 468-469). He proposed a Speech Learning Model (SLM) (Flege et al, 1995) in which he claimed that “the phonic elements making up the L1 and L2 phonetic subsystems of a bilingual exist in a ‘common phonological space’” (p. 469). This implies that “L2 learners often begin by producing L2 words using unmodified L1 phonetic segments more closely over time as they gain experience in the L2” (p. 469). Major (2001) further clarifies this by stating that The nonnative characteristics of the [interlanguage] of an adult learner are often due to negative transfer or interference from the first language, that is, the system of the first language (L1) is transferred to the second language (L2). When the phenomena of the L1 and L2 are different, errors result (p. 1). Transfer operates any time there are “relevant phenomena to transfer” (Major, 2001, p. 37). The sounds do not need to be identical, but if the L1 sound and the L2 sound are sufficiently similar, the L2 sound will be replaced by the L1 sound (p. 37). Major says that when the L2 sounds are not similar to the L1 sounds, they are acquired in the same manner in which the L1 is acquired. In acquiring a second language, both negative transfer and positive transfer are operational. Terrell (1989) explains that transfer is deemed positive when the result is an acceptable sound in the target language, e.g., use of English /f/ for Spanish /f/, or it may be negative when the consequence is not an acceptable sound in the target language, as when American retroflex is used in place of Spanish flap /r/ or trilled /rr/ (p. 198). As previously noted, there are certain graphemes that are associated with the same sound in two different languages. However, there are also many graphemes that are associated with different sounds. Since variation in the pronunciation of a particular grapheme can be different in each language, those who study a foreign language often have difficulty with the pronunciation of the new language. When one comes across a foreign word containing a sound that does not exist in his or her inventory of possible sounds, one must try to produce the foreign sound based upon the sounds that do exist in the inventory of their native language. Unless one is able to learn and add the new sounds to the inventory, the correct pronunciation will not be produced, resulting in the likelihood of misunderstandings or the detection of a foreign accent. Results Discussion Conclusion==