Semantic and pragmatic miscues in non-native spoken extended discourse

Cribb, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.10.005

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants were asked to introduce themselves to the researcher and included information regarding the languages they spoke, their English language learning experience, which degree they were taking and why they had chosen to take it in English. This task was used since it has been found that learners are required to maintain longer stretches of speech, thus stimulating the need for increased discourse marking (Cribb 2012;González 2005). On the other hand, the interaction task (henceforth INT) required participants to engage in conversation with another participant.…”

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the relationship between motivations, emotions and pragmatic marker use in English-medium instruction learners

Ament

Barón-Parés

Pérez-Vidal

2020

Language Learning in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study is twofold: first, it compares full-English-medium instruction (EMI) and semi-EMI learners on a series of motivational and emotional factors (the ought to, and the ideal L2 self-motivational orientations, attitudes towards English, and foreign language anxiety and enjoyment). Second, it investigates the relationship between these individual differences (IDs) and pragmatic marker (PM) use. No previous studies have investigated these phenomena among semi and full EMI learners, despite the recognized need for more research into the effects of IDs and pragmatic learning in EMI settings. Participants were second and third-year EMI students. A monologue and an interaction task were used to obtain oral data, and questionnaires were used to gather data on IDs. Results showed that EMI and semi-EMI groups did not differ according to motivational orientation. However, there were significant differences between learner’s motivations depending on the year of study, where third year learners were more ought to self-motivated than second-year learners. Other findings revealed that both strong ought to L2 self-oriented learners as well as learners who enjoyed EMI demonstrated an increased frequency of PM use and that learners with positive attitudes towards English reported stronger ideal L2 selves.

show abstract

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the relationship between motivations, emotions and pragmatic marker use in English-medium instruction learners

Ament

Barón-Parés

Pérez-Vidal

2020

Language Learning in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Coherence can be glossed as how the units in a monologue 'hang together' (Dijk, 1997, 9 ). Cribb (2012) has operationalised this construct based on three criteria: specificity, consistency, and pragmatic relevance. In order to rate each participant for coherence, a rating exercise was undertaken by three raters independently of each other.…”

Section: Coherence Rating Exercisementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because pronunciation and prosody can have such an effect on perceptions of coherence, it was vital that these features were removed from the rating exercise. Thus a procedure initially adopted by Tyler & Bro (1992) and subsequently by Cribb (2012) was utilised in which each ASU in the monologue was presented to the rater in written form rather than aurally. While it is accepted that this is not how we normally judge coherence, in this case the procedure is necessary if we are to focus on the lexico-grammatical aspects of the monologue and not the phonological aspects.…”

Section: Coherence Rating Exercisementioning

confidence: 99%

Making academic vocabulary count through strategic deployment in oral presentations by Chinese students of English

Cribb

Wang²

2019

The Language Learning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Difficulties understanding L2 speech due to discourse- versus word-level elements

Kennedy¹

2021

JSLP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the constructs of intelligibility, comprehensibility, and discourse-level understanding in second language (L2) speech are analyzed for their conceptual and methodological characteristics. The analysis is complemented by a case study of listeners’ understanding of two matched L2 English speakers, who completed three speaking tasks over 17 weeks. One listening task focused on word/phrase recognition and one focused on semantic and pragmatic understanding. Results showed two different profiles for the two speakers. When listeners had difficulty understanding, for one speaker it was often due to word/phrase recognition problems, while for the other speaker it was often due to ambiguity in the pragmatic or functional meaning of the speech. Implications are discussed for the ways in which L2 speech is elicited, evaluated, and taught.

show abstract

Semantic and pragmatic miscues in non-native spoken extended discourse

Cited by 4 publications

References 35 publications

Exploring the relationship between motivations, emotions and pragmatic marker use in English-medium instruction learners

Exploring the relationship between motivations, emotions and pragmatic marker use in English-medium instruction learners

Making academic vocabulary count through strategic deployment in oral presentations by Chinese students of English

Difficulties understanding L2 speech due to discourse- versus word-level elements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About