L2 Perception of three different varieties of Spanish: Intelligibility, Comprehensibility, and Familiarity

Document Type

Paper Presentation

Presenter Language

English

Research Area

Second Language Acquisition

Location

MBSC Omaha Room 304

Start Date

18-10-2024 9:00 AM

End Date

18-10-2024 9:30 AM

Abstract

L2 Perception of three different varieties of Spanish: Intelligibility, comprehensibility, and familiarity

Previous research has analyzed the constructs of intelligibility and comprehensibility in both L1 and L2 contexts. Intelligibility has been defined as “the extent to which a speaker’s message is understood by a listener”, while comprehensibility has been described as “how easy or difficult an utterance is to understand” (Munro & Derwing 1995). Moreover, previous studies have found that these two constructs are generally related to familiarity, which has been defined as the listeners’ previous exposure to an L2, or an L1 variety that is different from the variety of the listener (Adank et al. 2009; Major et al. 2005; Ockey and French 2016). However, most of the existing research focuses on these three factors within the context of L2 English, with fewer studies delving into intelligibility, comprehensibility, and familiarity from the perspective of L2 Spanish listeners. Schoonmaker-Gates (2018) investigated how L2 Spanish listeners' intelligibility of different varieties of Spanish is related to familiarity but did not explore the construct of comprehensibility. The aim of this study is to analyze L2 Spanish listeners’ perception of three different varieties of Spanish (Peninsular, Caribbean, and Argentine). The purpose is to determine whether there is a particular Spanish variety that is more intelligible and comprehensible than others, and whether familiarity with any of these varieties influences their intelligibility and comprehensibility.

To investigate this, 20 L2 listeners were recruited from intermediate Spanish courses at a US university. Participants completed a background questionnaire to elicit their familiarity with different Spanish varieties, a comprehensibility task in which they listened to different Spanish speakers and rated them from 0 to 100 on a sliding scale (where 0 = very difficult to understand and 100 = very easy to understand), and finally, a transcription task to measure intelligibility. Results from a one-way ANOVA analysis, shows that Peninsular Spanish comprehensibility ratings are significantly higher compared to the other two varieties, while intelligibility scores are not significantly different among the three varieties. Furthermore, familiarity seems to play a significant role in the comprehensibility and intelligibility of Peninsular Spanish, but it does not have a significant impact on the other two varieties. 350 words.

References

Adank, P., Evans, B., Stuart-Smith, J., Scotti, S. (2009). “Comprehension of familiar and

unfamiliar native accents under adverse listening conditions”. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35 (2), 520-529.

Derwing, T. M., and Munro, M. J. (1997). “Accent, Intelligibility, and Comprehensibility.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (1), 1-16.

Kang O., Rubin, D., et Pickering, L. (2010). “Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English”. The Modern Language Journal, 94 (4), 554-566.

Kennedy S., & Trofimovich, P. (2008). “Intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness of L2 speech: the role of listener experience and semantic context”. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64 (3), 459-489.

Lipski, John M. 1994. Latin American Spanish. New York, NY: Longman.

Major, R.C., Fitzmaurice, S.M., Bunta, F., Balasubramanian, C. (2005). “Testing the effects of regional, ethnic, and international dialects of English on listening comprehension”. Language Learning, 55 (1), 37-69.

Matsuura, H. (2007). “Intelligibility and Individual Learner Differences in the EIL Context.” System, 35 (3), 293–304.

McBride, K. (2015). “Which features of Spanish learners’ pronunciation most impact listener evaluations?” Hispania, 98 (1), 14-30.

Munro, M.J., & Derwing, T.M. (1995). “Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech”. Language and Speech, 38 (3), 289-306.

Munro, M.J., & Derwing, T.M. (2020). “Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility, redux”. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 6 (3), 283-309.

Nagle, Charles and Huensch, Amanda, “Expanding the scope of L2 intelligibility research” (2020). World Languages and Cultures Publications. 229.

Ockey, G.J., & French, R. (2016). “From one to multiple accents on a test of L2 listening comprehension”. Applied Linguistics, 37 (5), 693-715.

Schoonmaker-Gates, E. (2018). “Dialect Comprehension and Identification in L2 Spanish: Familiarity and Type of Exposure.” Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 11 (1), 193–214.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Oct 18th, 9:00 AM Oct 18th, 9:30 AM

L2 Perception of three different varieties of Spanish: Intelligibility, Comprehensibility, and Familiarity

MBSC Omaha Room 304

L2 Perception of three different varieties of Spanish: Intelligibility, comprehensibility, and familiarity

Previous research has analyzed the constructs of intelligibility and comprehensibility in both L1 and L2 contexts. Intelligibility has been defined as “the extent to which a speaker’s message is understood by a listener”, while comprehensibility has been described as “how easy or difficult an utterance is to understand” (Munro & Derwing 1995). Moreover, previous studies have found that these two constructs are generally related to familiarity, which has been defined as the listeners’ previous exposure to an L2, or an L1 variety that is different from the variety of the listener (Adank et al. 2009; Major et al. 2005; Ockey and French 2016). However, most of the existing research focuses on these three factors within the context of L2 English, with fewer studies delving into intelligibility, comprehensibility, and familiarity from the perspective of L2 Spanish listeners. Schoonmaker-Gates (2018) investigated how L2 Spanish listeners' intelligibility of different varieties of Spanish is related to familiarity but did not explore the construct of comprehensibility. The aim of this study is to analyze L2 Spanish listeners’ perception of three different varieties of Spanish (Peninsular, Caribbean, and Argentine). The purpose is to determine whether there is a particular Spanish variety that is more intelligible and comprehensible than others, and whether familiarity with any of these varieties influences their intelligibility and comprehensibility.

To investigate this, 20 L2 listeners were recruited from intermediate Spanish courses at a US university. Participants completed a background questionnaire to elicit their familiarity with different Spanish varieties, a comprehensibility task in which they listened to different Spanish speakers and rated them from 0 to 100 on a sliding scale (where 0 = very difficult to understand and 100 = very easy to understand), and finally, a transcription task to measure intelligibility. Results from a one-way ANOVA analysis, shows that Peninsular Spanish comprehensibility ratings are significantly higher compared to the other two varieties, while intelligibility scores are not significantly different among the three varieties. Furthermore, familiarity seems to play a significant role in the comprehensibility and intelligibility of Peninsular Spanish, but it does not have a significant impact on the other two varieties. 350 words.

References

Adank, P., Evans, B., Stuart-Smith, J., Scotti, S. (2009). “Comprehension of familiar and

unfamiliar native accents under adverse listening conditions”. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35 (2), 520-529.

Derwing, T. M., and Munro, M. J. (1997). “Accent, Intelligibility, and Comprehensibility.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (1), 1-16.

Kang O., Rubin, D., et Pickering, L. (2010). “Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English”. The Modern Language Journal, 94 (4), 554-566.

Kennedy S., & Trofimovich, P. (2008). “Intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness of L2 speech: the role of listener experience and semantic context”. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64 (3), 459-489.

Lipski, John M. 1994. Latin American Spanish. New York, NY: Longman.

Major, R.C., Fitzmaurice, S.M., Bunta, F., Balasubramanian, C. (2005). “Testing the effects of regional, ethnic, and international dialects of English on listening comprehension”. Language Learning, 55 (1), 37-69.

Matsuura, H. (2007). “Intelligibility and Individual Learner Differences in the EIL Context.” System, 35 (3), 293–304.

McBride, K. (2015). “Which features of Spanish learners’ pronunciation most impact listener evaluations?” Hispania, 98 (1), 14-30.

Munro, M.J., & Derwing, T.M. (1995). “Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech”. Language and Speech, 38 (3), 289-306.

Munro, M.J., & Derwing, T.M. (2020). “Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility, redux”. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 6 (3), 283-309.

Nagle, Charles and Huensch, Amanda, “Expanding the scope of L2 intelligibility research” (2020). World Languages and Cultures Publications. 229.

Ockey, G.J., & French, R. (2016). “From one to multiple accents on a test of L2 listening comprehension”. Applied Linguistics, 37 (5), 693-715.

Schoonmaker-Gates, E. (2018). “Dialect Comprehension and Identification in L2 Spanish: Familiarity and Type of Exposure.” Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 11 (1), 193–214.