The Impact of First Language Intonational Clue Selection on Second Language Comprehension
ABSTRACT
Comprehension is closely related not only to the knowledge of words and syntax, but also the pragmatic concerns of the discourse. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the impact of the intonational clues selection of Iranian teenagers' and young adults’ Persian listening comprehension ability on their English learning as a second language. According to Buck (2003), in listening comprehension the input in the form of sounds and intonational clues often conveys additional information. In this study 60 male and female teenagers (13 - 19) and 60 male and female young adults (20 - 26) were selected randomly based on Oxford Placement Test (OPT). Each group was randomly assigned to two sub groups; namely, experimental (EX) and control groups (CG), 15 participants in each group. During the study two fiction and non-fiction passages, at first in Persian and then in English, were read to participants. The passages for participants in CG were read without applying speaker’s intonation changes but they were read for participants in EX with applying speaker’s intonation changes. In this study factors as age and gender are important because the results showed that the difference between two groups with different age ranges was significant, and participants’ inferencing, correct clue selection and listening comprehension ability in the experimental group was superior to the control group in the first language (Persian) and it also influenced positively second language learning and inferencing ability (English).
Comprehension is closely related not only to the knowledge of words and syntax, but also the pragmatic concerns of the discourse. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the impact of the intonational clues selection of Iranian teenagers' and young adults’ Persian listening comprehension ability on their English learning as a second language. According to Buck (2003), in listening comprehension the input in the form of sounds and intonational clues often conveys additional information. In this study 60 male and female teenagers (13 - 19) and 60 male and female young adults (20 - 26) were selected randomly based on Oxford Placement Test (OPT). Each group was randomly assigned to two sub groups; namely, experimental (EX) and control groups (CG), 15 participants in each group. During the study two fiction and non-fiction passages, at first in Persian and then in English, were read to participants. The passages for participants in CG were read without applying speaker’s intonation changes but they were read for participants in EX with applying speaker’s intonation changes. In this study factors as age and gender are important because the results showed that the difference between two groups with different age ranges was significant, and participants’ inferencing, correct clue selection and listening comprehension ability in the experimental group was superior to the control group in the first language (Persian) and it also influenced positively second language learning and inferencing ability (English).
Cite this paper
nullBarati, L. & Biria, R. (2011). The Impact of First Language Intonational Clue Selection on Second Language Comprehension. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 1, 33-38. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2011.12005.
nullBarati, L. & Biria, R. (2011). The Impact of First Language Intonational Clue Selection on Second Language Comprehension. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 1, 33-38. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2011.12005.
References
[1] Adams, M. (2002). Teaching English. Journal of English Linguistics, 30, 353-365. doi:10.1177/007542402237883 [2] Anderson, K., & Lynch, T. (1998). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [3] Anderson, K., & Lynch, T. (2003). Learner/non-teacher interact the contribution of a course assistant to EAP speaking classes. Interaction and Language Learning. TESOL Case Studies in Practice Series. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. [4] Auer, P., & Luzio, A. D. (2009). The contextualization of language. A Methodological Paradigm Discussion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [5] Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [6] Boynton, A., & Blevins, W. (2004). Teaching students to read nonfiction. New York: Scholastic Professional Books. [7] Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8] Buck, G. (2003). Establishing annual measurable objectives for LEP students’ English language proficiency. Paper presented at the National Title Directors’ Conference, Annaheim. [9] Chen, Z. (2009). Language models for contextual error detection and correction, all 13 versions. CLAGI 09 Proceedings of the EACL. Stroudsburg. [10] Clark, B. (2008). The effects of intonation in discourse: The semantics and pragmatics of focus. Past Colloquia Organized by Janet Pierrehum, Northwestern University. [11] Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2001). Interactional linguistics. Studies in Discourse and Grammar, Amsterdam: Benjamins. [12] Duke, N., & Bennett-Armistead, V. (2003). Reading and writing informational text in the primary grades: Research-based practices. New York: Scholastic. [13] Eslami, M., & Bijankhan, M. (2003). Persian intonation system. Iranian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 36-61. [14] Fujio, M. (2007). Communication strategies for the negotiation, establishment, and confirmation of common ground: A longitudinal study of Japanese-British conversational interaction. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Tokyo: The University of Tokyo. [15] Gebhard, M. (2005). Hybrid discourses, and second language literacy and culture faculty. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 187. doi:10.2307/3588308 [16] Genc, B., & Bada, E. (2005). Culture in language learning and teaching. The Reading Matrix, 5, 73-84. [17] Glazer, S., & Burke, M. (1994). An integrated approach to early literacy. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 95-106. [18] Grasser, A., Gernsbacher, R., & Goldman, R. (2003). Theories of social cognition. Learning Technology Center, University of Wisconsin- Madison. [19] Hansen, J. (2000). Inferential comprehension strategy for use with primary grade children. The Reading Teacher, 34, 665-669. [20] Hoek, K., & Kibrik, A. (2000). Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. [21] Huckin, T., & Bloch, J. (2002). Strategies for inferring word meanings in context: A cognitive model. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes and J. Coady (Eds.), Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning (pp. 153-178). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation. [22] Hui, C. (2005). Pragmatic inference based on model [J]. The complementary of cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Washington: University of Washington. [23] Jeo, H. (2007). A phonetic study on phrasing. The 2nd European Conference on Korean Linguistics, 88-101 [24] June, F. (2005). Discourse and computational linguistics. Michigan: Michigan University Press. [25] Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: University Massachusetts Press. [26] Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. [27] Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2009). Social linguistics and litercies Ideology in discourses, Formal and informal measures of reading. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. [28] Lexile (2008). Lexile framework for reading. URL (last checked 5 March 2006) http://www.lexile.com [29] Mahjani, B. (2003). An instrumental study of prosodic features and intonation in modern farsi (persian) supervisor: Robert Ladd Master of Science. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. [30] McCormick, S., & Hill, D. S. (2001). An analysis of the effects of tow procedures for increasing disabled readers inferencing skills. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 219-226. [31] Mewald, C., Gassner, O., & Siggott, G. (2009). Testing listening specifications for the E8-standards listening tests. LTC Technical Report. http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/ltc/downloads/LTC_Technical_Report [32] Mils, K. (2005). Deconstructing binary oppositions in literacy discourse and pedagogy. Journal of Language and Literacy, 28, 67-82. [33] Mish, F. (2005). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. (11th ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc. [34] Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Hopper, R.(2006). Talking, listening and learning: Effective talk in the primary classroom. Maidenhead: Open University Press. [35] Oka, H., & Fujio, M. (2005). How do strategies work? Invest gating practical English ability. Bulletin of the Foreign Language Teaching Association, 9, 1-21. [36] O’Malley, J. (1996). Authentic assessment for language learners. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. [37] Richards, J. C., & Anderson, N. A. (2005). How do you know? A strategy to help emergent readers make inferences. The Reading Teacher, 57, 290-293. [38] Scharer, P., Pinnell, S., Lyons, C., & Fountas, I. (2005). Becoming an engaged reader. Educational Leadership, 63, 24-29. http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.a4db [39] Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3-25. [40] Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context. A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [41] Van, O. H., & Goldman, R. (1999). Text and context in functional linguistics. The construction of mental representations. Washington DC: National Academy Press. [42] Wagner, D. T. (2006). How knowledge helps. http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/sprin [43] Watson, K., & Smeltzer, R. (2000). Different categories about listening comprehension facts: Comparison between students and practitioners. Communication Research Reports, 1, 82-87. [44] Xie, X. (2005). The influence of schema theory on foreign language reading comprehension. The English Teacher, 34, 65-75.
[1] Adams, M. (2002). Teaching English. Journal of English Linguistics, 30, 353-365. doi:10.1177/007542402237883 [2] Anderson, K., & Lynch, T. (1998). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [3] Anderson, K., & Lynch, T. (2003). Learner/non-teacher interact the contribution of a course assistant to EAP speaking classes. Interaction and Language Learning. TESOL Case Studies in Practice Series. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. [4] Auer, P., & Luzio, A. D. (2009). The contextualization of language. A Methodological Paradigm Discussion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [5] Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [6] Boynton, A., & Blevins, W. (2004). Teaching students to read nonfiction. New York: Scholastic Professional Books. [7] Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8] Buck, G. (2003). Establishing annual measurable objectives for LEP students’ English language proficiency. Paper presented at the National Title Directors’ Conference, Annaheim. [9] Chen, Z. (2009). Language models for contextual error detection and correction, all 13 versions. CLAGI 09 Proceedings of the EACL. Stroudsburg. [10] Clark, B. (2008). The effects of intonation in discourse: The semantics and pragmatics of focus. Past Colloquia Organized by Janet Pierrehum, Northwestern University. [11] Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2001). Interactional linguistics. Studies in Discourse and Grammar, Amsterdam: Benjamins. [12] Duke, N., & Bennett-Armistead, V. (2003). Reading and writing informational text in the primary grades: Research-based practices. New York: Scholastic. [13] Eslami, M., & Bijankhan, M. (2003). Persian intonation system. Iranian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 36-61. [14] Fujio, M. (2007). Communication strategies for the negotiation, establishment, and confirmation of common ground: A longitudinal study of Japanese-British conversational interaction. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Tokyo: The University of Tokyo. [15] Gebhard, M. (2005). Hybrid discourses, and second language literacy and culture faculty. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 187. doi:10.2307/3588308 [16] Genc, B., & Bada, E. (2005). Culture in language learning and teaching. The Reading Matrix, 5, 73-84. [17] Glazer, S., & Burke, M. (1994). An integrated approach to early literacy. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 95-106. [18] Grasser, A., Gernsbacher, R., & Goldman, R. (2003). Theories of social cognition. Learning Technology Center, University of Wisconsin- Madison. [19] Hansen, J. (2000). Inferential comprehension strategy for use with primary grade children. The Reading Teacher, 34, 665-669. [20] Hoek, K., & Kibrik, A. (2000). Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. [21] Huckin, T., & Bloch, J. (2002). Strategies for inferring word meanings in context: A cognitive model. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes and J. Coady (Eds.), Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning (pp. 153-178). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation. [22] Hui, C. (2005). Pragmatic inference based on model [J]. The complementary of cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Washington: University of Washington. [23] Jeo, H. (2007). A phonetic study on phrasing. The 2nd European Conference on Korean Linguistics, 88-101 [24] June, F. (2005). Discourse and computational linguistics. Michigan: Michigan University Press. [25] Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: University Massachusetts Press. [26] Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. [27] Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2009). Social linguistics and litercies Ideology in discourses, Formal and informal measures of reading. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. [28] Lexile (2008). Lexile framework for reading. URL (last checked 5 March 2006) http://www.lexile.com [29] Mahjani, B. (2003). An instrumental study of prosodic features and intonation in modern farsi (persian) supervisor: Robert Ladd Master of Science. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. [30] McCormick, S., & Hill, D. S. (2001). An analysis of the effects of tow procedures for increasing disabled readers inferencing skills. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 219-226. [31] Mewald, C., Gassner, O., & Siggott, G. (2009). Testing listening specifications for the E8-standards listening tests. LTC Technical Report. http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/ltc/downloads/LTC_Technical_Report [32] Mils, K. (2005). Deconstructing binary oppositions in literacy discourse and pedagogy. Journal of Language and Literacy, 28, 67-82. [33] Mish, F. (2005). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. (11th ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc. [34] Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Hopper, R.(2006). Talking, listening and learning: Effective talk in the primary classroom. Maidenhead: Open University Press. [35] Oka, H., & Fujio, M. (2005). How do strategies work? Invest gating practical English ability. Bulletin of the Foreign Language Teaching Association, 9, 1-21. [36] O’Malley, J. (1996). Authentic assessment for language learners. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. [37] Richards, J. C., & Anderson, N. A. (2005). How do you know? A strategy to help emergent readers make inferences. The Reading Teacher, 57, 290-293. [38] Scharer, P., Pinnell, S., Lyons, C., & Fountas, I. (2005). Becoming an engaged reader. Educational Leadership, 63, 24-29. http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.a4db [39] Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3-25. [40] Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context. A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [41] Van, O. H., & Goldman, R. (1999). Text and context in functional linguistics. The construction of mental representations. Washington DC: National Academy Press. [42] Wagner, D. T. (2006). How knowledge helps. http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/sprin [43] Watson, K., & Smeltzer, R. (2000). Different categories about listening comprehension facts: Comparison between students and practitioners. Communication Research Reports, 1, 82-87. [44] Xie, X. (2005). The influence of schema theory on foreign language reading comprehension. The English Teacher, 34, 65-75.