Book contents
- Language Change
- Language Change
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Pooling Perspectives
- Part II Zooming in on ELF
- 7 ELF, Language Change, and Social Networks
- 8 ELF and Language Change at the Individual Level
- 9 Are Multilinguals the Better Academic ELF Users?
- 10 The Role of Co-Textual and Contextual Cues for Intelligibility in ELF Interactions
- 11 Exploring the Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated English as a Lingua Franca Communication
- 12 Development of Shared Multilingual Resources in ELF Dyadic Interaction
- 13 The Role of Translanguaging in ELF Advice Sessions for Asylum Seekers
- Index
- References
10 - The Role of Co-Textual and Contextual Cues for Intelligibility in ELF Interactions
from Part II - Zooming in on ELF
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 December 2020
Book contents
- Language Change
- Language Change
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Pooling Perspectives
- Part II Zooming in on ELF
- 7 ELF, Language Change, and Social Networks
- 8 ELF and Language Change at the Individual Level
- 9 Are Multilinguals the Better Academic ELF Users?
- 10 The Role of Co-Textual and Contextual Cues for Intelligibility in ELF Interactions
- 11 Exploring the Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated English as a Lingua Franca Communication
- 12 Development of Shared Multilingual Resources in ELF Dyadic Interaction
- 13 The Role of Translanguaging in ELF Advice Sessions for Asylum Seekers
- Index
- References
Summary
It has been suggested that co-textual and contextual cues do not contribute much to phonological intelligibility in ELF interactions, since many non-native ELF users seem largely unable to draw on such cues when processing each other’s accents (Jenkins 2000). This small-scale, qualitative study investigates the role played by co-textual and contextual information in instances of phonological unintelligibility in ELF interactions. The results suggest that the non-native ELF users in this study tend to ‘interpret’ rather than ‘decode’ the incoming acoustic signal in relation to co-textual and contextual cues, provided they are available. The findings also indicate that such cues are not always beneficial to the listener, as they can also ‘mislead’ them by supporting an incorrect identification of a word.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language ChangeThe Impact of English as a Lingua Franca, pp. 267 - 290Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Anderson, Anne H., Bader, Miles, Bard, Ellen Gurman, Boyle, Elizabeth, Doherty, Gwyneth, Garrod, Simon, Isard, Stephen, Kowtko, Jacqueline, McAllister, Jan, Miller, Jim, Sotillo, Catherine, Thompson, Henry S. & Weinert, Regina. 1991. The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech 34(4), 351–366.Google Scholar
Altieri, Nicholas, Gruenenfelder, Thomas & Pisoni, David B.. 2010. Clustering coefficients of lexical neighborhoods: Does neighborhood structure matter in spoken word recognition? The Mental Lexicon 5(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartlett, Frederic C. 1932 [reissued 1995]. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bobrow, Daniel G. & Collins, Allan (eds.). 1975. Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2016. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.16. www.praat.org/ (retrieved 6 April 2016).Google Scholar
Brown, Adam. 1989. Some thoughts on intelligibility. The English Teacher XVIII. www.melta.org.my/ET/1989/main4.html (16 January 2016).Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian & Yule, George. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani & Mintz, Toben H.. 2010. Discovering Speech, Words, and Mind. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catford, John C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 1999. Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics 31(6), 753–762.Google Scholar
Drager, Kathryn D. R., Clark-Serpentine, Elizabeth A., Johnson, Kate E. & Roeser, Jennifer L.. 2006. Accuracy of repetition of digitized and synthesized speech for young children in background noise. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 15(2), 155–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deterding, David. 2013. Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Deterding, David & Sharbawi, Salbrina. 2013. Brunei English: A New Variety in a Multilingual Society. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deterding, David & Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2006. Emerging South-East Asian Englishes and intelligibility. World Englishes 25(3–4), 391–409.Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod & Barkhuizen, Gary P.. 2005. Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2004. Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Field, John. 2004. An insight into listeners' problems: Too much bottom-up or too much top-down? System 32(3), 363–377.Google Scholar
Field, John. 2008. Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, John R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics: 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, Alan. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26(2), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, Jane M. & Cannito, Michael P.. 1996. Influence of verbal and nonverbal contexts on the sentence intelligibility of a speaker with dysarthria. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 39(4), 750–760.Google Scholar
Gass, Susan M. & Varonis, Evangeline M.. 1984. The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning 34(1), 65–87.Google Scholar
Gass, Susan M. & Varonis, Evangeline M.. 1991. Miscommunication in nonnative speaker discourse. In Coupland, Nikolas, Giles, Howard & Wiemann, John M. (eds.), "Miscommunication" and problematic talk, 121–145. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications .Google Scholar
Gass, Susan M. & Mackey, Alison. 2000. Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grønnum, Nina. 2009. A Danish phonetically annotated spontaneous speech corpus (DanPASS). Speech Communication 51(7), 594–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gureckis, Todd M. & Goldstone, Robert L. 2011. Schema. In Hogan, Patrick C. (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, 725–727. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gu, Peter Y., Hu, Guangwei & Zhang, Lawrence J.. 2005. Investigating language learner strategies among lower primary school pupils in Singapore. Language and Education 19(4), 281–303.Google Scholar
Hansen, Christa & Jensen, Christine. 1994. Evaluating lecture comprehension. In Flowerdew, John (ed.), Academic Listening: Research Perspectives, 241–268. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1999. The notion of ‘context’ in language education. In Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.), Text and Context in Functional Linguistics, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hustad, Katherine C. & Beukelman, David R.. 2001. Effects of linguistic cues and stimulus cohesion on intelligibility of severely dysarthric speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 497–510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hymes, Dell. 1977. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaur, Jagdish. 2011. Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(1), 93–116.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Sara. 2012. When non-native speakers misunderstand each other: Identifying important aspects of pronunciation. Contact 38(2), 49–62.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Sara. 2017. Using stimulated recall to explore the use of communication strategies in English lingua franca interactions. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 6(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Luce, Paul A. & Pisoni, David B.. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Luchini, Pedro L. & Kennedy, Sara. 2013. Exploring sources of phonological unintelligibility in spontaneous speech. International Journal of English and Literature 4(3), 79–88.Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 1995. Troubles with mutualities: Towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication. In Marková, Ivana, Graumann, Carl F. & Foppa, Klaus (eds.), Mutualities in Dialogue, 176–213. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2015. Mishearings are occasioned by contextual assumptions and situational affordances. Language & Communication 40, 24–37.Google Scholar
Magnuson, James S. 2017. Mapping spoken words to meaning. In Gaskell, M. Gareth & Mirkovic, Jelena (eds.), Speech Perception and Spoken Word Recognition, 76–96. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2006(177), 123–150.Google Scholar
Minsky, Marvin. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, Patric H. (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision, 211–277. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Osimk, Ruth. 2009. Decoding sounds: An experimental approach to intelligibility in ELF. Vienna English Working Papers 18(1), 64–89.Google Scholar
Pickering, Lucy. 2009. Intonation as a pragmatic resource in ELF interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2), 235–255.Google Scholar
Pietikäinen, Kaisa S. 2018. Misunderstandings and ensuring understanding in private ELF talk. Applied Linguistics 39(2), 188–212.Google Scholar
Pisoni, David B. & McLennan, Conor T.. 2016. Spoken word recognition: Historical roots, current theoretical issues, and some new directions. In Hickok, Gregory & Small, Steven L. (eds.), Neurobiology of Language, 239–253. Tokio: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in International Business: Resolving Miscommunication and Reaching Shared Understanding. Saarbrücken: VDM Müller.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David E. 1980. Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Spiro, Rand J., Bruce, Bertram C. & Brewer, William F. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, 33–58. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schank, Roger C. & Abelson, Robert P.. 1975. Scripts, plans and knowledge. In Johnson-Laird, Philip N. & Wason, Peter C. (eds.), Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, 151–157. Tbilisi, USSR.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Larry E. 1992. Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In Kachru, Braj B. (ed.), The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 75–90. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1993. What's in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Framing in Discourse, 14–56. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah & Wallat, Cynthia. 1993. Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Framing in Discourse, 57–76. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsui, Amy B. M. & Fullilove, John. 1998. Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics 19(4), 432–451.Google Scholar
Vandergrift, Larry & Goh, Christine C. M.. 2012. Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening: Metacognition in Action. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, Michael S. & Luce, Paul A.. 1999. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighbourhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 40(3), 374–408.Google Scholar
VOICE Project. 2007. Mark-up conventions. VOICE Transcription Conventions [2.1]. www.univie.ac.at/voice/documents/VOICE_mark-up_conventions_v2-1.pdf (14 March 2018).Google Scholar
Warren, Richard M. 1970. Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science 167(3917), 392–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weigand, Edda. 1999. Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 763–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, Henry G. 1983. Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry G. 2004. Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry G. 2011. Context and co-text. In Hogan, Patrick Colm (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, 221–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zielinski, Beth. 2006. Reduced Intelligibility in L2 Speakers of English. Phd thesis. Bundoora, Victoria: La Trobe University.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by