28.4357, Review: Applied Linguistics; Language Acquisition; Psycholinguistics; Sociolinguistics: Isaacs, Trofimovich (2017)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-4357. Fri Oct 20 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.4357, Review:  Applied Linguistics; Language Acquisition; Psycholinguistics; Sociolinguistics: Isaacs, Trofimovich (2017)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:51:02
From: Joan Bajorek [bajorek at email.arizona.edu]
Subject: Second Language Pronunciation Assessment

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36306437


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-121.html

EDITOR: Talia  Isaacs
EDITOR: Pavel  Trofimovich
TITLE: Second Language Pronunciation Assessment
SUBTITLE: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
SERIES TITLE: Second Language Acquisition
PUBLISHER: Multilingual Matters
YEAR: 2017

REVIEWER: Joan Palmiter Bajorek, University of Arizona

REVIEWS EDITOR: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

Second Language Pronunciation Assessment, by Isaacs and Trofimovich, is
compilation of 14 chapters dedicated to second language (L2) pronunciation
assessment for researchers and educators which synthesizes knowledge from over
five decades of research in this field (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2017; Lado,
1961). Uniting a breadth of interdisciplinary work from the perspectives of
Second Language Acquisition (SLA), speech and hearing sciences,
psycholinguistics, English and French lingua franca communication studies, and
sociolinguistics, the editors set forth goals to consolidate knowledge,
modernize the field, define baseline standards, foster scholarly dialogue, and
chart the course for future research. 

Editors and well-established scholars in the SLA pronunciation field, Isaacs
and Trofimovich, spearhead this ambitious project. The 23 other contributors
of the volume comprise of researchers from the Canada, Europe, Hong Kong, and
the United States. Research outlined in this volume builds upon qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed method research. Academics, researchers, teachers, and
language professionals are the audience of this volume. Five main sections of
the book organize the chapters and “can be read in sequence or as stand-alone
units” (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016c, p. 7) 

Part 1: Introduction

This section gives a broad overview of the current state of L2 pronunciation
research where it defines and operationalizes how pronunciation is assessed
via machine and human measures.

In Chapter 1, “Key Themes, Constructs and Interdisciplinary Perspectives in
Second Language Pronunciation Assessment,” the editors outline the scope of
the book, the authors’ goals, the book’s intended audience, the organizational
scheme of the book, and the definition of its core terminology. Thus, this
chapter provides a backbone and framework for the volume.

Clarifying the terms used in the book’s title and throughout the work, the
authors define “second language” in the “broadest possible sense” involving
situations where the language is non-native (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016c, p.
ii). “Pronunciation” is defined as individual consonant and vowel segments and
larger units that encompass “word stress, rhythm and intonation” (Isaacs &
Trofimovich, 2016a, p. 9). “Assessment” refers to elicitation of linguistic
performance as delineated by scores and numerical measures. 

In Chapter 2, “What Do Raters Need in a Pronunciation Scale? The User’s View,”
Harding uses data from a focus group to consider the usability of the
“Phonological control scale” of the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFRL) from the perspective of raters using the scales (Harding,
2016, p. 15). The goal of this study was to consider the problematic aspects
of the scales and set forth generalizable principles for future pronunciation
scales. 

Building off of a previous analysis of the International English Language
Testing System (IELTS) (Yates, Zielinski, & Pryor, 2011), Harding elicited
data from “nine experienced raters” and identified four major themes that
influenced scale usability (Harding, 2016, p. 18). These themes included
clarity/coherence, conciseness, intuitiveness, and theoretical currency.
Specifically, terms such as “natural” and “noticeable” were deemed ambiguous
and potentially anachronistic in nature. Harding concludes with technical
recommendations for improving the CEFRL standards and future assessment tools
(Harding, 2016).

Part 2: Insights from Assessing Other Language Skills and Components

This section of the book draws upon insights from other fields of L2
assessment including fluency, writing, and listening that provide data that
can help to inform future research.

In Chapter 3, “Pronunciation and Intelligibility in Assessing Spoken Fluency,”
Browne and Fulcher investigated fluency and the interaction of 87 raters’
familiarity with the L2 accent and rating of L1 Japanese learners of English.
The authors problematized the concepts of “fluency” and “intelligibility” as
subjective constructs relating to the idea of “nativeness,'' all three of
which are terms without agreed-upon definitions in the field.

When the 87 raters of varied home countries and familiarity with the Japanese
language rated five L2 English learners, scores for pronunciation and
intelligibility were correlated with listener familiarity. Raters who had more
experience with L1 Japanese, L2 English learners were more severe in their
grading style than those with less experience with this demographic. Since
“familiarity” was a key factor in rating rather than student production,
future rating of learner pronunciation might benefit from objective computer
automated speech rating rubrics.

In Chapter 4, “What Can Pronunciation Researchers Learn From Research into
Second Language Writing?” Knoch discusses how advances in L2 writing
assessment can aid pronunciation research. The chapter covers, “(a) rating
scale development and validation; (b) rater effects and rater training; (c)
task effects; and (d) issues in classroom-based assessment” to provide
background and inform for future research in this field (Knoch, 2016, p. 54).

Work on L2 writing can be translated into L2 pronunciation assessment
contexts. These aspects include the development of rubrics and rating scales,
“holistic and analytical scales,” “corpus linguistic techniques,”
mixed-methods approaches to validation of scoring, and peer feedback, (Knoch,
2016, pp. 55, 57). The author calls for an expansion of approaches to L2
pronunciation assessment that incorporates varied techniques and considers the
roles and backgrounds of the rater, speaker, and peer interlocutors in
classroom contexts.

In Chapter 5, “The Role of Pronunciation in the Assessment of Second Language
Listening Ability,” Wagner and Toth explored the features of pronunciation
that influence scripted and unscripted L2 listening assessment of L2 Spanish
learners in survey data. The authors consider characteristics of authentic and
inauthentic spoken production including connected speech, planned speech,
“spoken grammar,” vocabulary from oral genres, “rate of speech,” and aspects
of hesitation (Wagner & Toth, 2016, p. 76).

In this study, L2 listeners were able to differentiate between authentic,
unscripted audio and inauthentic, revised audio. The authors found that
authentic listening materials were more difficult for L2 listeners’
comprehension due to the unplanned nature of the speech that included
“elision, intrusion, assimilation, juncture,” and other spontaneous speech
features (Wagner & Toth, 2016, p. 76). If the pronunciation goals of L2
students include intelligibility, then spontaneous, unscripted, authentic L2
listening materials should be prioritized in L2 classroom and test-taking
environments.

Part 3: Perspectives on Pronunciation Assessment from Psycholinguistics and
Speech Sciences

This section explores the psycholinguistic and speech sciences aspects of
pronunciation, problematizing the “objective and subjective” empirical
measures by which pronunciation is measured (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016a, p.
7). 

In Chapter 6, “The Relationship Between Cognitive Control and Pronunciation in
a Second Language,” Mora and Darcy investigated “the relationship between
cognitive control and L2 pronunciation accuracy” (Mora & Darcy, 2016, p. 112).
In this study of 49 L2 English learners, the authors explored the “attention
control, phonological short-term memory,” and inhibitory language control as
related to assessed L2 pronunciation (Mora & Darcy, 2016, p. 98). 

Participants from Seville and Barcelona, Spain were grouped into four groups
as related to their language backgrounds: monolingual, bilingual, balanced
bilingual, and unbalanced bilingual. The study included a production task,
perception task, attention control task, inhibition task, and vocabulary task.
Building from psycholinguistic linguistics studies of multilinguals
(Bialystok, 2011), data from this study suggest a positive correlation between
working memory capacity and target-like L2 production. The authors state,
“better phonological memory capacity and stronger attention control produced
more target-like” vowel durations (Mora & Darcy, 2016, p. 112). This research
is correlational, not explanatory in nature, but has implications for future
research in this vein.

In Chapter 7, “Students’ Attitudes Towards English Teachers’ Accents: The
Interplay of Accent Familiarity, Comprehensibility, Intelligibility, Perceived
Native Speaker Status, and Acceptability as a Teacher,” Ballard and Winke
approach L2 pronunciation from a sociolinguistic framework to investigate
students’ perceptions, desires, and motivations related to the accents of L2
teachers. Students are key stakeholders in language education and thus their
perceptions significantly impact the language field. Accent bias and the
“native speaker fallacy” affect perception about the quality of instructors
and their employment (Ballard & Winke, 2016, p. 134).

The authors collected data from a survey with audio clips and Likert scale
judgments of 157 participants. Data indicate that NNSs struggled to identify
the native/non-native status of speakers (68% correct) and accent of origin
(26% correct) (Ballard & Winke, 2016, p. 130). The authors found a positive
correlation between perceived teacher acceptability and accentedness,
intelligibility and comprehensibility ratings. This study bolstered previous
work on accent stereotyping and listener perceptions (Arteaga, 2000; Derwing &
Munro, 1997; Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010; Kang, 2012; Markley, 2000; Scales,
Wennerstrom, Richard, & Wu, 2006), where non-native accent significantly and
negatively impacts other attitudes of students consciously or implicitly.
Findings suggest a need for longitudinal perception data in L2 classrooms and
ratings from different L1 backgrounds.

In Chapter 8, “Re-examining Phonological and Lexical Correlates of Second
Language Comprehensibility: The Role of Rater Experience,” Saito, Trofimovich,
Isaacs, and Webb discuss the connection between rater experience,
comprehensibility ratings, and aspects of L2 speech. The study considered
“expert” and 5 “novice” raters as they rated 40 short audio recordings and
transcribed production of L1 French, L2 English speakers (Saito, Trofimovich,
Isaacs, & Webb, 2016, pp. 144-145)

Echoing the findings of Ballard and Winke’s work on rater “familiarity” (2016,
p. 121), the data from this study suggest that “expert” raters with explicit
coursework and training in L2 speech assessment were more lenient in their
rating of comprehensibility than their “novice” counterparts. By “evaluating
both audio samples and transcriptions of speech,” the authors found evidence
that raters prioritized word stress over segmental accuracy and several
lexical variables, including vocabulary diversity, polysemy, lemma
appropriateness, and morphological accuracy (Saito et al., 2016, p. 150). This
“difference in rater behavior” of the same student production supports the
idea that rater background should be considered for consistency in L2
assessment. 

In Chapter 9, “Assessing Second Language Pronunciation: Distinguishing
Features of Rhythm in Learner Speech at Different Proficiency Levels,”
Galaczi, Post, Li, Barker, and Schmidt explored rhythm and L2 speech as a
function of learner proficiency levels. Analyzing the audio files of 20 L2
English learners, this study considered five rhythmic properties of the
learner speech including vowel reduction, syllable structure complexity,
durational marking of accentuation, and final lengthening of syllables
(Galaczi, Post, Li, Barker, & Schmidt, 2016, p. 160).

Results from the study suggest a positive correlation of oral production
features and higher CEFR proficiency levels of the students, namely faster
speech rate and appropriate durational patterns for syllables at different
positions. Learners with higher proficiency had more fluency in their
pronunciation than learners with lower proficiency. Rater L1 backgrounds
(German, Spanish, and Korean) were a significant factor of comprehensibility
judgments of the L2 English speech, echoing the findings of Browne and Fulcher
in Chapter 3. Thus, it is recommended that learner speech rate and durational
patterns as well as rater background should all be controlled for in further
research.

Part 4: Sociolinguistic, Cross-cultural and Lingua Franca Perspectives in
Pronunciation Assessment

This section explores the contemporary sociolinguistic, multilingual, and
cross-cultural implications of pronunciation teaching and assessment.

In Chapter 10, “Commentary on the Native Speaker Status in Pronunciation
Research,” Davies debates the term “native speaker” and why it is “both
contentious and necessary” (2016, p. 185). In this brief chapter, Davies
discusses how the term “native speaker” in no way encompasses the range of
high-level speakers, i.e. early childhood exposure by birth, native user of a
language, exceptional learners, and long residency in an adopted language
society and culture. 

According to the author, the term “native speaker” is “more political than
linguistic” and from a “postcolonial, even racist” framework (Davies, 2016, p.
186), that is “pointless” (Chomsky, 1986, p. 57) and merely a “mystique”
(Ferguson, 1983, p. vii). Problematized by prestige accents, “markers of
status and class,” and a lack of a universally accepted standards for most
languages, Davies claims that “native speaker” is fundamentally related to
sociolinguistics and “national and ethnic identity” (2016, pp. 187, 189;
Eades, 2005). Davies concludes by supporting Moyers’ call for the
disambiguation of the terms “accent,” “intelligibility,” and “proficiency” as
they exist today in modern society as frequent tools of discrimination,
racism, and classism (Davies, 2016, p. 190; Moyer, 2013, p. 172).

In Chapter 11, “Variation or ‘Error’? Perception of Pronunciation Variation
and Implications for Assessment,” Lindemann investigates linguistic variation
through a discussion of the term “standard” as applied to English and the
perception of variation in native and nonnative speech. A large amount of
variation naturally occurs in pronunciation as influenced by “social class,
ethnicity, gender, age,” “region of origin,” “interlocutors,” and “status of
the statement,” among others (Lindemann, 2016, p. 194).

Lindemann argues that accent perception is a conduit for stereotyping,
discrimination, and racism against nonnative speakers and less prestigious
dialectal varieties. Even in circumstances where speakers are intelligible and
miscommunications are infrequent, speakers are “heard differently” depending
on the perceived identity of the speaker, native or nonnative (Lindemann,
2016, p. 200). This bias is “especially against that spoken by non-White
speakers” and reveals underlying prejudice of listeners (Lindemann, 2016, p.
201). Additionally, “social attractiveness qualities,” ratings of competence,
educational background, friendliness, integrity, intelligence, and
pleasantness are all influenced by the hypothetical identity of the speaker.
The author makes recommendations for screening examiners of high stakes tests
of intelligibly. 

In Chapter 12, “Notes on Teacher-Raters’ Assessment of French Lingua Franca,”
Kennedy, Blanchet, and Guénette conducted a case study of pronunciation
assessment through qualitative measures of experienced L2 French
teacher-raters. The authors highlight the importance of French worldwide as a
Lingua Franca, noting the over 40 countries where it is habitually spoken. It
is projected that the population of French-speaking Africa “will double by
2060,” augmenting the importance of French language research.

The four constructs of accentedness, comprehensibility, fluidity, and
communicative effectiveness were studied in respect to qualitative data of 4
teacher-raters. Data collected indicate that teacher-raters made explicit
distinctions between accentedness and comprehensibility measures. Despite
their extensive training in phonetics and pronunciation assessment, there was
subjective bias in rating norms. The authors noted the paucity of research on
L2 pronunciation assessment in regards to raters and called for more studies
of this nature, especially in respect to the French language.

In Chapter 13, “Pronunciation Assessment in Asia’s World City: Implications of
a Lingua Franca Approach in Hong Kong,” Sewell calls for a “lingua franca
approach” to English pronunciation where intelligibility is the key factor on
which to value and center (2016, p. 237). The author advocates a feature-based
approach that evaluates pronunciation based on priorities of functional loads
combined with “pragmatic awareness of local and global influences” (Sewell,
2016, p. 252).

In a global society where English is a Lingua Franca, World Englishes and
associated pronunciation variation is subject to the “effects of
superdiversity” (Sewell, 2016, p. 237).  In international contexts, such as
Hong Kong, where English pronunciation varies highly, the author considers
what features are important for teaching and assessment. While some features
are less essential for intelligibility, they still hold significant
sociolinguistic weight, i.e. interdental fricatives, vowel length, and nuclear
stress. The author concludes that in the context of pronunciation, acceptance
of variation and diversity, as well as “adaptability and flexibility,”  “are
paramount” to listener and speaker accommodation (Sewell, 2016, p. 252).

Part 5: Concluding Remarks

In Chapter 14, “Second Language Pronunciation Assessment: A Look at the
Present and the Future,” Trofimovich and Isaacs provide a general overview of
all of the chapters comprised in the volume, summarizing their most important
insights and contributions to the field. The authors note that current trends
in the L2 pronunciation assessment field include greater focus on
intelligibility, specified descriptors of linguistic features that influence
comprehensibility, emphasis on pronunciation standards and raters, the
importance of lingua franca pronunciation in today’s global world, the
sociolinguistic implications of the terms “native” and “nonnative,” the racism
and discrimination intertwined in pronunciation biases, and the consideration
of individual differences.

The authors also note that the L2 pronunciation assessment field can benefit
from the advances in assessment in L2 writing and L2 listening, specifically
including “self-assessment,” “paired assessment,” and authentic versus
modified pedagogical materials (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016b, p. 264).
Variability of L2 pronunciation performance can also be considered from a
psycholinguistic viewpoint where vast individual differences in cognitive
variables, such as attention control, short-term memory, and inhibitory
control, provide evidence against a “one-size-fits-all” model for
pronunciation teaching and assessment (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016b, p. 265).

The summary chapter concludes with a series of questions which delve into the
nature of stakeholders, the role of technology, screening for rater bias,
which features to prioritize, ecological validity, authentic materials, the
theorization of language learning, form-focused instruction, the integration
of pronunciation into other pedagogical material and research, and literacy
practices among other issues.

EVALUATION

Valuable Resource

This volume is invaluable to the L2 pronunciation assessment field and its
future directions. Organizing and synthesizing knowledge from over five
decades of research from several perspectives, the content is useful across a
wide variety of contexts. The introduction is strong, vibrant, and linear,
giving a broad overview of topics to be covered that help to orient readers to
which chapters are most pertinent for them, whether for research, assessment
purposes, or graduate seminar settings.

Consensus and Scope

One of the greatest strengths of this volume is the diversity of topics
covered, SLA, speech sciences, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic viewpoints
of L2 pronunciation assessment. Most of the authors’ main arguments center
around five main topics: A Call for Better Rubrics, Explicit Rater Background
Information, Broader Understandings of the Term “Native” Speaker, Focus on
Intelligibility, and Theoretical Frameworks. Most contributors of this volume
agreed that assessment rubrics needed to be more specific and complete in
descriptions. They called for greater consideration of rater background and
explicit training practices to minimize bias and inter-rater reliability.
There were also calls for broader definitions of the terms “native” speakers,
a greater focus of the field on intelligibility over native-speaker
constructs, and the need for theoretical frameworks in the field. The
resounding consensus was a need for greater focus on L2 pronunciation
assessment and for that emphasis ripple throughout teaching material,
assessment practices, and intelligibility of pronunciation as the goals of
students and instructors.

Editing Issues: Organization and Clarity

This volume would have benefitted from stronger editing for structure,
organization, and clarity of concepts. The editors write that chapters “can be
read in sequence or as stand-alone units” (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016c, p. 7).
However, titles for the chapters were often vague and too broad. For example,
scholars researching the CEFR scales would not know that Harding in Chapter 2
would even discuss them because neither the title nor paragraph of
introduction mentions it, instead choosing the phrasing “a particular
pronunciation scale” (Harding, 2016, p. 12). The ability for research to be
generalizable is helpful, however obfuscation is not. This style and
organization of writing can hinder potential readers from finding and
interpreting important content efficiently. Abstracts or short summaries at
the beginning of each chapter would have been helpful.

Almost Exclusively about English 

One of the shortcomings of this volume is the heavy emphasis on English. This
lack of linguistic variety is fully acknowledged by the editors who write,
“research into the assessment of pronunciation in languages other than English
is virtually non-existent” (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016b, p. 266). The notable
exception is the treatment of French in this volume (Kennedy, Blanchet, &
Guénette, 2016). However, even this inclusion of French in North America
maintains a white, Western, academic-context norm. Forthcoming research in
multilingual and diverse contexts should be better covered in the future.

Scant Coverage of Technology

An additional gap in knowledge was the lack of L2 assessment technology in
this volume. If the editors indeed want to “include state-of- the-art”
material of this field, the paucity of coverage of this topic is problematic
(Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016c, p. 6). If the editors note that there is
currently a “rigorous field-wide debate on machine-mediated automated scoring
in the first decade of the 21st century,” then at least one chapter out of 14
should have discussed it at length (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016a, p. 5).
Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) is already prevalent in the field for TOEFL
tests and Pearson’s Versant tests (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016b). A wide
variety of research is being conducted on ASR in pedagogical contexts (Hincks,
2003; Kim, 2006; Liakin, Cardoso, & Liakina, 2015; Wang & Young, 2015). One
chapter of this volume noted that rampant human rater bias and variation in
cognitive abilities have direct implications for objective assessment measures
such as ASR software to “play a central role” in future assessment (Galaczi et
al., 2016, p. 179). However, this was a small section in the discussion
section of the chapter. This lack of content about this L2 pronunciation
assessment technology will be a disappointment to some readers and a motivator
for others for future research in this field.  

Overall, this volume is an invaluable resource to those in the L2
pronunciation assessment field and those who are new to the topic. In these
chapters, decades of research about the topic from varying perspectives are
analyzed and organized to outline future research agendas. Many researchers
will rely on this as the future of this field continues to blossom in the 21st
century. 

REFERENCES

Arteaga, D. L. (2000). Articulatory Phonetics in the First-Year Spanish
Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 339-354. 

Ballard, L., & Winke, P. (2016). Students’ Attitudes Towards English Teachers’
Accents: The Interplay of Accent Familiarity, Comprehensibility,
Intelligibility, Perceived Native Speaker Status, and Acceptability as a
Teacher. In T. Isaacs & P. Trofimovich (Eds.), Second Language Pronunciation
Assessment: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 288). Bristol, UK, Blue Ridge
Summit, US: Multilingual Matters.

Bialystok, E. (2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism.
Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie
expérimentale, 65(4), 229. 

Browne, K., & Fulcher, G. (2016). Pronunciation and Intelligibility in
Assessing Spoken Fluency. Second Language Pronunciation Assessment, 37. 

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use:
Greenwood Publishing Group.

Davies, A. (2016). Commentary on the Native Speaker Status in Pronunciation
Research. Second Language Pronunciation Assessment, 185. 

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, Intelligibility, and
Comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 1-16.
doi:10.1017/S0272263197001010

Eades, D. (2005). Applied linguistics and language analysis in asylum seeker
cases. Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 503-526. 

Ferguson, C. (1983). Language Planning and Language Change. Progress in
language planning: International perspectives, 29-40. 

Galaczi, E., Post, B., Li, A., Barker, F., & Schmidt, E. (2016). Assessing
Second Language Pronunciation: Distinguishing Features of Rhythm in Learner
Speech at Different Proficiency Levels. Second Language Pronunciation
Assessment, 157. 

Gluszek, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2010). Speaking with a nonnative accent:
Perceptions of bias, communication difficulties, and belonging in the United
States. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(2), 224-234. 

Hincks, R. (2003). Speech Technologies for Pronunciation Feedback and
Evaluation. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 15(1), 3-20.
doi:10.1017/S0958344003000211

Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2016a). Key Themes, Constructs and
Interdisciplinary Perspectives in Second Language Pronunciation Assessment.
Second Language Pronunciation Assessment, 1. 

Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2016b). Second Language Pronunciation
Assessment: A Look at the Present and the Future. In T. Isaacs & P.
Trofimovich (Eds.), Second Language Pronunciation Assessment (pp. 259).
Bristol, UK, Blue Ridge Summit, US: Multilingual Matters.

Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2016c). Second Language Pronunciation
Assessment: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Bristol, UK, Blue Ridge Summit,
US: Multilingual Matters.

Kang, O. (2012). Impact of Rater Characteristics and Prosodic Features of
Speaker Accentedness on Ratings of International Teaching Assistants' Oral
Performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(3), 249-269.
doi:10.1080/15434303.2011.642631

Kennedy, S., Blanchet, J., & Guénette, D. (2016). Teacher-Raters’ Assessment
of French Lingua Franca Pronunciation. In T. Isaacs & P. Trofimovich (Eds.),
Second Language Pronunciation Assessment (pp. 210). Bristol, UK, Blue Ridge
Summit, US: Multilingual Matters.

Kim, I.-S. (2006). Automatic Speech Recognition: Reliability and Pedagogical
Implications for Teaching Pronunciation. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 9(1). 

Knoch, U. (2016). What Can Pronunciation Researchers Learn From Research into
Second Language Writing? Second Language Pronunciation Assessment, 54. 

Liakin, D., Cardoso, W., & Liakina, N. (2015). Learning L2 Pronunciation with
a Mobile Speech Recognizer: French /y. CALICO Journal, 32(1), 1.
doi:10.1558/cj.v32i1.1-25

Lindemann, S. (2016). Variation or ‘Error’? Perception of Pronunciation
Variation and Implications for Assessment. Second Language Pronunciation
Assessment, 193. 

Markley, E. D. (2000). Regional accent discrimination in the hiring process a
language attitude study.  Available from http://worldcat.org /z-wcorg/
database. 

Mora, J. C., & Darcy, I. (2016). The Relationship Between Cognitive Control
and Pronunciation in a Second Language. Second Language Pronunciation
Assessment, 95. 

Moyer, A. (2013). Foreign accent: The phenomenon of non-native speech:
Cambridge University Press.

Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Webb, S. (2016). Re-examining
phonological and lexical correlates of second language comprehensibility: The
role of rater experience. Second Language Pronunciation Assessment, 141. 

Scales, J., Wennerstrom, A., Richard, D., & Wu, S. H. (2006). Language
learners' perceptions of accent. Tesol Quarterly, 40(4), 715-738. 

Sewell, A. (2016). Pronunciation Assessment in Asia’s World City: Implications
of a Lingua Franca Approach in Hong Kong. Second Language Pronunciation
Assessment, 237. 

Wagner, E., & Toth, P. D. (2016). The Role of Pronunciation in the Assessment
of Second Language Listening Ability. Second Language Pronunciation
Assessment, 72. 

Wang, Y. H., & Young, S. S. C. (2015). Effectiveness of feedback for enhancing
English pronunciation in an ASR‐based CALL system. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 31(6), 493-504. doi:10.1111/jcal.12079

Yates, L., Zielinski, B., & Pryor, E. (2011). The assessment of pronunciation
and the new IELTS pronunciation scale. IELTS Research Reports Volume 12, 2011,
1.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

A Portland native, Bajorek is a doctoral student in the Second Language
Acquisition and Teaching Program at the University of Arizona (UA). A Finalist
in the UA Grad Slam Competition in 2017, her research explores data-driven
language education and pronunciation development, in the vein of Rosetta Stone
and Duolingo. Bajorek earned an MA in Linguistics in 2016 from the University
of California, Davis, where she worked as an Associate Instructor of French.
She is the lead curriculum designer for a language education juvenile prison
project in Tucson. After her PhD, Bajorek plans to work in language technology
research and development.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-4357	
----------------------------------------------------------