12.791, Qs: Phonological Recall Task, 2nd Lang/Canada

[The LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-12-791. Thu Mar 22 2001. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 12.791, Qs: Phonological Recall Task, 2nd Lang/Canada

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	Lydia Grebenyova, EMU		Jody Huellmantel, WSU
	James Yuells, WSU		Michael Appleby, EMU
	Marie Klopfenstein, WSU		Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.


* The LINGUIST Fund Drive for 2001 has begun!  We need your help to
* continue providing the LINGUIST services.  Please go to the URL
* http://linguistlist.org/funddrive.html and make a donation.


Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then  strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list.   This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:52:51 +0000
From:  "Catherine Walter" <cwalter at place-farm.demon.co.uk>
Subject:  Phonological similarity: recall and production

2)
Date:  Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:21:05 -0500
From:  "Auger, Julie" <jauger at indiana.edu>
Subject:  Second language instruction in Canada

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:52:51 +0000
From:  "Catherine Walter" <cwalter at place-farm.demon.co.uk>
Subject:  Phonological similarity: recall and production

I am looking for any references to work relevant to some unexpected
findings in a recall task for second-language learners.  The task was
recall of sequences of four visually-presented CVC words in the second
language (English).  Each sequence of four words was generated
randomly from a pool of eight words, and there were three of these
pools, corresponding to three conditions.

In one ('Dissimilar') condition, the eight words in the pool were
maximally phonologically dissimilar: 8 different initial consonants, 8
different vowels, 8 different final consonants.  In the second
('Similar') condition, there were only 2 initial consonants, 2 vowels
(the vowels in 'met' and 'might'), and 2 final consonants, for the
eight words.  The third ('Similar+') condition was like the Similar
condition (2 initial consonants, 2 vowels, 2 final consonants), but
the vowels in this conditions ones that I expected the (French L1)
participants to have more difficulty with (the vowels in 'coat' and
'caught').

There were two groups of participants, at lower- and
upper-intermediate levels of English proficiency; there was also a
control group of native English speakers.  This replicates, with some
refinements, a classic first-language experiment of Baddeley's (1966)
in which he found that there was a large adverse effect of
phonological similarity on recall of word sequences, but no comparable
effect of semantic similarity.

As expected, all participants did better on the Dissimilar sequences
than on the others; but some of the other results were puzzling.  On
the hypothesis that their recall would be based on phonemic
representation and storage, I had expected that the native English
speakers' performance on the Similar and Similar+ sequences would be
identical.  I had expected that problems with phonological
representation would make the Similar+ sequences more difficult for
the L2 speakers.

But what happened is this:
   Only the upper-intermediate L2 participants performed as expected:
well on the Dissimilar sequences, less well on the Similar sequences,
and even less well on the Similar+ sequences.

   The lower-intermediate L2 participants performed fairly well on the
Dissimilar sequences, but poorly, and equally poorly, on the Similar
and Similar+ sequences - and this although 1) they distinguished the
two vowels in the Similar condition in production and 2) problems with
grapheme-to-phoneme conversion were eliminated as a factor.

The native English speakers' performance was virtually identical to
the upper-intermediate participants': good on Dissimilar, less good on
Similar, and, suprisingly, less well (as poor as the
upper-intermediate L2 participants) on Similar+.

It looks as if the fact that the vowels in 'coat' and 'caught' are
more similar than the vowels in 'met' and 'might' is affecting the
performance of the native speakers - suggesting that their storage of
to-be-remembered words is in some way not phonemic.  Likewise, it
looks as if, even thought the lower-intermediate L2 participants
differentiated the met/might vowels in production, their
representation of these vowels for recall is not well differentiated.

Does anyone know of any work that has been done in this area?  I have
consulted with a phonologist colleague who has suggested that I look
at the work of David Pisoni; any other suggestions would be greatly
appreciated.

I'd appreciate it if you'd address any answers to my e-mail address; I
will send to this list a summary of any answers I receive.

Many thanks in advance,
Catherine


- ---------------
Dr C. Walter
Visiting Scholar
The University of Cambridge
  Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics

<cwalter at place-farm.demon.co.uk>
- -------------



-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:21:05 -0500
From:  "Auger, Julie" <jauger at indiana.edu>
Subject:  Second language instruction in Canada

Hello,
	Could someone please tell me if all provinces and territories in
Canada mandate the study of the other official language by all high school
students?  I know that in Québec, all French speaking children must study
English and all English speakers must study French.  But what about other
provinces?  I'd appreciate any information or references that you can
provide me about specific provinces or Canada in general.
	Thanks in advance!

- ------------------------------
Julie Auger
Depts. of French & Italian and Linguistics
Indiana University
Ballantine Hall 642
1020 E. Kirkwood Ave.
Bloomington, IN 474057103
USA

Phone:  (812) 855-7958/7293
Fax:      (812) 855-5363
Email:   jauger at indiana.edu



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-12-791