2014
DOI: 10.1002/tesq.152
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Functional Loads of Pronunciation Features in Nonnative Speakers' Oral Assessment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
32
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
2
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Importantly, this global segmental analysis (i.e., the number of L1 substitution errors divided by the total number of segments articulated) has been widely used in L2 speech literature (e.g., Kang & Moran, 2014). For example, Trofimovich and Isaacs (2012) explained their global segmental analysis by using an example very specific to French learners of English (/θ/ in "think" mispronounced as /t/ in "tink").…”
Section: Segmental Analysis Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Importantly, this global segmental analysis (i.e., the number of L1 substitution errors divided by the total number of segments articulated) has been widely used in L2 speech literature (e.g., Kang & Moran, 2014). For example, Trofimovich and Isaacs (2012) explained their global segmental analysis by using an example very specific to French learners of English (/θ/ in "think" mispronounced as /t/ in "tink").…”
Section: Segmental Analysis Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To ascertain error gravity of minimal pairs, functional load takes into account a series of factors, such as the frequency of the minimal pair in distinguishing between words, its position within a word, and the likelihood that the minimal pair contrast is upheld in different dialectical varieties of English, since listeners are more likely to be able to make perceptual adjustments for sound pairs that are subject to regional variation than for those that are not (Brown, 1988). Kang and Moran (2014) demonstrate an application for assessment by classifying test-takers' error types into high and low functional load on monologic speaking tasks from four Cambridge English exams targeting a range of levels from A2 (Cambridge English: Key) to C2 (Cambridge English: Proficiency) in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). They found a significant drop in high functional load errors as proficiency level increased for all five levels.…”
Section: Functional Load and Guarding Against Accent Reduction Resourmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, a body of L2 intelligibility studies on segmental and supra-segmental features (Munro and Derwing 2006;Saito et al 2017) that cause intelligibility problems provides compelling evidence to build up a part of the construct definition of L2 speaking performance. Recent empirical studies on the analysis of segmental categories in Hong Kong English (Sewell 2013), expanding circle varieties elicited in the Cambridge ESOL exam (Kang and Moran 2014) and in Indian English, all demonstrate that examinees' segmental errors with low-functional load do not impede intelligibility, indicating that L2 examinees should not be penalized if their intended communicative goal is achieved, even though some of their speech features differ from standard English form. Additionally, Sewell's (2013) analysis of segmental categories that focus on the intelligibility of Hong Kong English is aligned to the Lingua Franca Core (LFC) (Jenkins 2000).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%