1. The Impact of Two Modes of Input and Task Repetition on Story Retellings Sachiyo Nishikawa Lancaster University, UK PhD student s.nishikawa@lancaster.ac.uk 1

2. The purpose of this study The role of oral vs. textual input: a lack of research … – L2 listening and reading comprehension (Lund, 1991) Data: L1 Written output Findings: Readers -> details, Listeners -> main ideas Fundamental differences between oral and textual input – Processing of input (single word processing model, Martin & Wo, 2005: 384) To investigate the impact of oral vs. textual input and task repetition on L2 speech production. Phonological input Orthographic input Semantic system Phonological output Heard wordWritten word Speech Orthography- Phonology Conversion 2

3. Task repetition Types of repetition 1. Simultaneous repetition e.g. Shadowing (Kurz, 1992; Murphey, 2001) 2. Overlapping repetition e.g. A-> A+B -> A+B+C-> A+B+C+D…. 3. Interactive repetition e.g. Poster carousel (Lynch & Maclean, 1994) 4. Delayed repetition e.g. Week 10 (Bygate, 2001), Week 1 (Gass et al., 1999) The impact of task repetition “Greater capacity to bring together and structure relevant information, greater speed of access, greater ability to attend to their performance” (Bygate, 2007) 3

4. Research Questions 1. What impact does oral input have on speech production compared to textual input? 2. Does task repetition have an overall effect on speech production? Rationale summarised Oral input provides a trigger for such phonological information, but textual input DOES NOT provide this trigger. Through task repetition, a capacity for processing of input could increase. Rationale summarised Oral input provides a trigger for such phonological information, but textual input DOES NOT provide this trigger. Through task repetition, a capacity for processing of input could increase. Hypotheses : Oral input -> greater fluency in speech production than textual input. Task repetition -> greater fluency, complexity, accuracy on second performance. Task repetition -> differently affect the impact of oral and textual input (i.e. interaction). 4

5. Methodology Participants – 2 nd year Japanese sociology undergraduates (N=24) 18 males, 6 females Study design – Participants grouped based on a 3000 word vocabulary test (Nation, 2001), 2 groups with the comparable vocab. level – Time 1 – Time 2 Task repetition (one week later) Textual input Group 2 (N=12) Story retelling (×4 sub tasks ) Reordering pictures Oral input Group 1 (N=12) 5

6. Tasks & Materials Story retelling with visual aids (sequenced pictures) 1. Dog’s story 2. Businessman’s story DP1 DP2 BP1 BP2 4 sub tasks Part 1 Part 2 6

7. Data & Analysis procedures Story retelling recorded, transcribed (Soundscriber/Transcriber) Segmented into AS-units (Foster et. al, 2000) Utterances and pauses measured – Praat (www.praat.org) – cut-off = 0.25 sec. (Goldman- Eisler, 1968; Towell, 1987) 8 measures of fluency, complexity and accuracy (described in detail below) – 4 selected for statistical analysis Computed the overall scores (i.e. mean scores of four sub tasks) Inter-rater reliability tests for complexity and accuracy measures – Agreement: 94% (complexity), 84% (accuracy) 7

8. Measures DimensionMeasure FluencySpeech output 1. Speech Rate (SR) [syll./min.] 2. Articulation Rate (AR) [syll./min.] 3. Phonation Time Ratio (PTR) [%] 4. Mean Length of Run (MLR) [syll.] Pause 5. Mean Length of Pause (MLP) [sec.] 6. Number of Silent Pauses per Minute (NSPM) Complexity 7. Number of Clauses per AS-unit (NCAS) Accuracy 8. Percentage of Target-Like Finite Verbs (PTLFV) [%] 8

9. Statistical analysis DimensionMeasureSelecting 4 measures Fluency(1) Speech Output 1. Speech Rate (SR) Selected one sensitive measure by RMs MANOVA 2. Articulation Rate (AR) 3. Phonation Time Ratio (PTR) 4. Mean Length of Run (MLR) (2) Pause 5. Mean Length of Pause (MLP) Selected one sensitive measure by RMs MANOVA 6. Number of Silent Pauses per Minute (NSPM) (3) Complexity 7. Number of Clauses per AS-unit (NCAS) Used this measure (4) Accuracy 8. Percentage of Target-Like Finite Verbs (PTLFV) Used this measure 9

10. RMs MANOVA results to select a speech output measure DimensionMeasureEffect InputTime Input×Time Fluency (Speech output) SRns F=45.312 p=.000* ns AR F=4.484 p=.046* F=30.928 p=.000* ns PTRns F=22.426 p=.000* ns MLRnsF=22.247 p=.000* F=5.657 p=.026* *p <.05. 10

11. RMs MANOVA results to select a pause measure DimensionMeasureEffect InputTime Input×Time Fluency (Pause) MLPns F=11.694 p=.002* Partial Eta Squared=.347 ns NSPMnsF=15.526 p=.001* Partial Eta Squared=.414 ns *p <.05. 11

12. Selected four measures DimensionMeasure FluencySpeech output 1. Articulation Rate (AR) [syll./min.] Pause 2. Number of Silent Pauses per Minute (NSPM) Complexity 3. Number of Clauses per AS-unit (NCAS) Accuracy 4. Percentage of Target-Like Finite Verbs (PTLFV) [%] 12

13. Results (Descriptive Statistics of four selected measures) DimensionMeasureInput (O=12, T=12) Time 1 Mean S.D. Time 2 Mean S.D. FluencySpeech output AR oral 130.6422.82143.2423.78 textual 112.5219.26125.1820.45 Pause NSPM oral 19.315.4122.574.99 textual 20.025.4422.366.46 Complexity NCAS oral 1.210.071.190.09 textual 1.220.131.230.13 Accuracy PTLFV oral 64.3713.6768.1514.22 textual 66.5419.6374.8316.74 13

14. DimensionMeasure Effect InputTimeInput × Time FluencySpeech output AR F=4.484 p=.046* Textual<Oral F=30.928 p=.000* T1<T2 ns Pause NSPM ns F=15.526 p=.001* T1<T2 ns Complexity NCAS ns Accuracy PTLFV nsF=6.762 p=.016* T1<T2 ns RMs MANOVA Results *p <.05. 14

15. DimensionMeasure Effect InputTimeInput × Time FluencySpeech output AR F=4.484 p=.046* Textual<Oral F=30.928 p=.000* T1<T2 ns Pause NSPM ns F=15.526 p=.001* T1<T2 ns Complexity NCAS ns Accuracy PTLFV nsF=6.762 p=.016* T1<T2 ns RMs MANOVA Results (Possible Trade-off) *p <.05. 15

16. Summary of results Research questionsResults RQ1. What impact does oral input have on speech production compared to textual input? Effect on AR (Greater increase in fluency) RQ2. Does task repetition have an overall effect on speech production? Yes. (+) Fluency (speech output) & Accuracy (-) Fluency (pause) increased. Familiar information ---> More F & A, not C (Foster & Skehan,1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997) Complex trade-off? 16

17. Discussion & Conclusion Main findings Model input (oral / textual) Task repetition Gains in fluency & accuracy + familiar context + familiar task + focus on linguistic needs Oral input may promote fluency on the AR level. 17

18. Limitations and further research Limitations – Small sample size (N=12 for each group) – English oral proficiency Further research – Different oral proficiency level: intermediate and advanced level of speakers – + input (oral/textual) & task repetition vs. - input (visual) & task repetition Further analysis – Qualitative analysis: interviews To be continued……. 18

19. Thank you! Sachiyo Nishikawa s.nishikawa@lancaster.ac.uk 19

20. References Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2008). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.0.35) [Computer program]. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.praat.org/http://www.praat.org/ Bygate, M. (2001) Effect of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.) Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing: 23-48. Harlow, England; New York: Longman. Bygate, M. (2007, January) Linking empirical research to the development of language pedagogy: the case of task repetition. Paper presented at the Language Learning Pedagogy Research Group, Lancaster University, UK. Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performances. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A. & Wigglesworth, G. (2000) Measuring spoken language : A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 354-375. Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M.J. & Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999) The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49 (4), 549-581. Goldman- Eisler, F. (1968) Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. New York: Academic Press. Kurz, I. (1992) ‘Shadowing’ exercises in interpreter training. In Dollerup, C. & Loddegaar, A. (eds.) Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience: 245-250. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Lund, R.J. (1991) A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 75 (2), 196-204. Lynch, T. & Maclean, J. (1994) Poster carousel. In Bailey, K. and Savage, L. (eds.) New Ways of Teaching Speaking: 108-109. TESOL. Martin, R.C. & Wu, D.H. (2005) The cognitive neuropsychology of language. In Lamberts, K. & Goldstone, R.L. (eds.) Handbook of Cognition: 382-404. London: SAGE. Murphey, T. (2001) Exploring conversational shadowing. Language Teaching Research, 5 (2), 18-155. Nation, I.S.P. (2001) Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1 (3), 185-212 Tavakoli, P & Skehan, P. (2005) Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In Ellis, R. (ed.) Planning and Task Performance in Second Language: 239-273. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Towell, R. (1987) Approaches to the analysis of the oral language development of the advanced learner. In Coleman, J.A. & Towell, R. (eds.) The Advanced Language Learner: 157-181. London: C.I.L.T. 20