You Know in L1 and L2 English

This thesis is a study of students’ experiences as learners of Standard Australian English (SAE) as an additional language or dialect in early years classrooms in an Australian Aboriginal community. It takes as its starting point reports that English‐lexified varieties spoken in many Aboriginal communities are not explicitly recognised as systematically different from SAE within the formal education system. That is, that the status and needs of Aboriginal students as learners of SAE may be ‘invisible’ in classroom interactions which make up a large part of these children’s educational experiences (Angelo & Hudson 2018; Dixon & Angelo 2014; McIntosh, O’Hanlon & Angelo 2012; Sellwood & Angelo 2013). These issues were explored through two research questions and five sub‐questions: 1) How are students choosing between variants in their linguistic repertoires as they talk during class time at school, a. Do students choose variants associated with SAE or the community variety according to interlocutor, topic of talk or the type of activity they are engaged in?; b. Are there changes in students’ rate of use of SAE and non‐SAE variants in their speech in the classroom over three years? 2) To what extent, and how, do teachers present SAE (as an additional language/dialect) as a learning focus for students in lessons, a. What are the norms and expectations for students’ ways of speaking in the classroom, as revealed through teachers, teacher aides and students’ practices?; b. Is SAE (AL/D) presented as a learning focus in literacy lessons, and how?; c. Is SAE (AL/D) presented as the main content to be learned in any lessons, and how? Data for the study was collected over three years, following two cohorts of students in the first four years of school, in an Aboriginal community in Queensland. Usual classroom lessons were audio and video recorded with the aim of capturing as closely as possible what would have been happening if researchers had not been present. Research Question 1 was investigated through two complementary approaches, providing qualitative and quantitative analysis. Variationist sociolinguistic methods were used to consider how linguistic and social factors influenced students’ choices between linguistic variants associated with the community variety and SAE, and the effect of change over time. Variation in absence and presence of the verb ‘be’ in the children’s classroom talk was taken as a case study for the focus of this analysis. Results showed that literacy task related topics of talk strongly favoured presence of the verb ‘be’. However, contrary to expectation, ‘be’ presence in the children’s classroom talk was not favoured with SAE‐speaking teacher addressees. The analysis did not show the expected increase in rate of ‘be’ presence with an increased length of time at school. Research Question 1 was additionally explored using a Conversation Analysis (CA) approach. CA analysis of classroom interactions showed ways in which students oriented to the social meanings of different ways of talking. In literacy tasks, children’s self‐talk showed how they navigated between variants in their linguistic repertoires, and children demonstrated in their interactions with peers and teachers that they associated certain words with particular ways of talking in the community. Research Question 2 was explored through analysis of classroom interactions from a CA perspective. Analysis revealed little explicit orientation from teachers to students being speakers of the community variety, or learners of SAE, with students being instead treated to a considerable extent as already speakers of SAE. Lessons ostensibly targeted at explicitly teaching linguistic forms were found to focus on topic‐specific applications of SAE words to academic tasks. The context where teachers attended most to non‐SAE aspects of students’ speech was in interactions centred on reading and writing tasks. However, in these interactions, there was evidence that students were treated primarily as learners of literacy, rather than learners of SAE. Both of the methodological approaches, CA and variationist sociolinguistics, drew on naturally occurring classroom data to provide insight into young Aboriginal students’ linguistic experiences encountering SAE as the medium of instruction at school. These analyses contribute new material to previous observations regarding the level of acknowledgement of Aboriginal SAE as an additional language or dialect learners at school (Dixon & Angelo 2014; McIntosh, O’Hanlon & Angelo 2012; Sellwood & Angelo 2013), providing insight into the visibility of these students’ existing linguistic knowledge and SAE learning needs in everyday classroom interactions central to their education.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the linguistic realizations of the advice speech act in Persian as a first language and English as a second language. More specifically, the study aimed at exploring the linguistic and pragmatic strategies used by Persian speakers when offering unsolicited advice in both their first and second language. Furthermore, the research project investigated the social and cultural norms and values that can affect the formulation of advice. The study based its argument on a corpus of data elicited by means of a Persian and an English version of a Discourse Completion Test and three Focus Group Discussions. In an effort to learn more about culture-specific patterns of advice in Persian language and culture, the Persian and English data were compared to data produced by a group of native speakers of Australian English, who mainly served as a reference group. The data were analyzed focusing on six major components of the advice speech act: (1) the use of advice speech act; (2) level of directness and advice strategies; (3) supportive move strategies; (4) internal modification strategies; (5) alerters and gambits and (6) level of formality. Moreover, the major themes and trends which emerged from the Focus Group Discussions were explored and analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study showed that the Persian speaking participants preferred a direct style and adhered closely to the social and cultural norms and assumptions of their native language and culture when offering advice in both their first and second language. The analysis of the data from the Australian English speakers revealed that these participants preferred to avoid advice giving or mitigated the force of their advice by means of a wide range of strategies. The findings of this study indicate that the formulation of advice is linked to the underpinning sociocultural views of the speakers, and cross-cultural differences in the use and interpretation of advice speech act are likely to result in miscommunication and misperception when people engage in communication in English as an international language. The results of the study contribute to a better understanding of the role of the culture-specific values which dominate advice giving behavior among Persian speakers. The study also presents a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of the findings for the teaching and learning English in its global context.

(1) Background: Australian Aboriginal English (AAE) is a variety known to differ in various ways from the mainstream, but to date very little phonetic analysis has been carried out. This study is a description of L1 Aboriginal English in southern Australia, aiming to comprehensively describe the acoustics of vowels, focusing in particular on vowels known to be undergoing change in Mainstream Australian English. Previous work has focused on static measures of F1/F2, and here we expand on this by adding duration analyses, as well as dynamic F1/F2 measures. (2) Methods: This paper uses acoustic-phonetic analyses to describe the vowels produced by speakers of Aboriginal Australian English from two communities in southern Australia (Mildura and Warrnambool). The focus is vowels undergoing change in the mainstream variety–the short vowels in KIT, DRESS, TRAP, STRUT, LOT, and the long vowel GOOSE; focusing on duration, and static and dynamic F1/F2. As part of this description, we analyse the data using the sociophonetic variables gender, region, and age, and also compare the Aboriginal Australian English vowels to those of Mainstream Australian English. (3) Results: On the whole, for duration, few sociophonetic differences were observed. For static F1/F2, we saw that L1 Aboriginal English vowel spaces tend to be similar to Mainstream Australian English but can be analysed as more conservative (having undergone less change) as has also been observed for L2 Aboriginal English, in particular for KIT, DRESS, and TRAP. The Aboriginal English speakers had a less peripheral vowel space than Mainstream Australian English speakers. Dynamic analyses also highlighted dialectal differences between Aboriginal and Mainstream Australian English speakers, with greater F1/F2 movement in the trajectories of vowels overall for AAE speakers, which was more evident for some vowels (TRAP, STRUT, LOT, and GOOSE). Regional differences in vowel quality between the two locations were minimal, and more evident in the dynamic analyses. (4) Conclusions: This paper further highlights how Aboriginal Australian English is uniquely different from Mainstream Australian English with respect to certain vowel differences, and it also highlights some ways in which the varieties align. The differences, i.e., a more compressed vowel space, and greater F1/F2 movement in the trajectories of short vowels for AAE speakers, are specific ways that Aboriginal Australian English and Mainstream Australian English accents are different in these communities in the southern Australian state of Victoria.

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions: How does second dialect acquisition in a second language compare to that in a first language in terms of rates and predictors of second dialect vocabulary use? Design/methodology/approach: A lexical preference task was completed by four groups of participants residing in Australia: first language speakers of Australian (L1D1) and American (L1D2) English, and first language speakers of Russian who acquired Australian (L2D1) and American (L2D2) English first. The participants named objects which are denoted by different words in American and Australian English (e.g. bell pepper vs capsicum). Data and analysis: The response was coded as either American or Australian, and percentage of use of Australian items was calculated for each group. Findings/conclusions: L1D1 used Australian words the most and L1D2 the least. L2D1 and L2D2 fell between the two L1 groups. L1D2 rate of use was predicted by proportion of life spent in Australia. L2D1 were more likely to choose Australian words if they had lived in Australia longer and had positive attitudes toward Australia. L2D2 were less likely to use Australian words the longer they had lived in the USA. Similar, but not identical, factors predict second dialect acquisition in the first and second languages. Originality: The research is innovative in considering second dialect acquisition in second language speakers and creates a bridge between second language and second dialect acquisition research. Significance/implications: The finding that second language speakers may be more flexible in second dialect acquisition than first language speakers has important implications for our understanding of cognitive and social constraints on acquisition.

This study investigates the English adjective amplifier system of eleven Mandarin Chinese L2 speakers of English residing in Australia compared to a sample of ten native Australian English (AusE) speakers from the AusTalk corpus. Employing a variationist framework, we find that the L2 speakers employ a markedly overall higher rate (50.2%) of use of adjective amplifiers than AusE speakers (34.8%). This has been shown to be a common phenomenon among L2 speakers, who have a smaller range of adjectives at their disposal, and thus “over-use” amplifiers. However, we also argue that the propensity for amplifier–adjective bigrams in Mandarin Chinese transfers to their L2 English. The results show that Chinese L2 speakers use very more than really, whereas really is more frequent than very in AusE, suggesting that the L2 speakers may be lagging behind in this previously-reported change in AusE. The results also show that higher rates of English proficiency and length of residence in Australia result in more Australian-like amplifier behavior among the Chinese L2 group. The present paper can provide meaningful insights for future language teaching and learning in classroom and naturalistic settings, revealing potential for the instruction of more authentic language among L2 English learners.

The current study investigates self-repairs in the speech of three groups of Russian speakers: monolingual controls (N = 12) residing in the Russian Federation, for whom Russian is their first dominant language (L1); bilingual Russian–Hebrew speaking participants (N = 12), who acquired Russian as their Heritage Language (HL) in contact with the dominant Societal Hebrew in Israel; and bilingual Russian–Chinese speakers (N = 12) residing in the Russian Federation at the time of testing, for whom Russian is their second language (L2). Picture-elicited narratives were coded for instances of self-repairs, split into Conceptualizer Repairs (C-repairs)—which imply pragmatic, semantic, or lexical changes—and Formulator Repairs (F-repairs), correcting different types of errors. In addition, self-repair initiators—such as cut-offs, hesitation pauses, and discourse markers—were annotated before each instance of self-repair. The results indicate that L2 speakers, in general, use self-repairs more frequently than L1 and HL speakers. L1 speakers hardly produced F-repairs, while HL and L2 speakers resorted to both C- and F-repairs. L1 speakers mainly used C-repairs for appropriacy, whereas HL and L2 speakers used C-repairs for rephrasing and lexical item change. As for F-repairs, HL speakers tended to change pronunciation and morphology, while L2 speakers implemented more morphological repairs. Lexical initiators of self-repairs were more common in L1 speech; however, in the L2 group we saw much more frequent cut-offs of repaired speech fragments. As such, varying self-repair strategies were employed by different speaker groups, shedding light on the underlying processes of language production. There was also evidence of cross-linguistic transfer of non-lexical self-repair initiators: HL speakers resorted to prolongations as initiators in HL-Russian (a strategy that is common in their dominant language, Hebrew), whereas L1 speakers used vocalized and silent pauses more frequently.

Phonological research has demonstrated that English intonation, variably referred to as prosody, is a multidimensional and multilayered system situated at the interface of information structure, morphosyntactic structure, phonological phenomena, and pragmatic functions. The structural and functional complexity of the intonational system, however, is largely under-addressed in L2 pronunciation teaching, leading to a lack of spontaneous use of intonation despite successful imitation in classrooms. Focusing on contrastive and implicational sentence stress, this study explored the complexity of the English intonation system by investigating how L1 English and Mandarin-English L2 speakers use multiple acoustic features (i.e., pitch range, pitch level, duration, and intensity) in signaling contrastive and implicational information and how one acoustic feature (maximum pitch level) is affected by information structure (contrast), morphosyntactic structure (phrasal boundary), and a phonological phenomenon (declination) in L1 English and Mandarin-English L2 speakers' speech. Using eye-tracking technology, we also investigated (1) L1 English and Mandarin-English L2 speakers' real-time processing of lexical items that carry information structure (i.e., contrast) and typically receive stress in L1 speakers' speech; (2) the influence of visual enhancement (italics and bold) on L1 English and Mandarin-English L2 speakers' processing of contrastive information; and (3) L1 English and Mandarin-English L2 speakers' processing of pictures with contrastive information. Statistical analysis using linear mixed-effects models showed that L1 English speakers and Mandarin-English L2 speakers differed in their use of acoustic cues in signaling contrastive and implicational information. They also differed in the use of maximum pitch level in signaling sentence stress influenced by contrast, phrasal boundary, and declination. We did not find differences in L1 English and Mandarin-English L2 speakers' processing of contrastive and implicational information at the sentence level, but the two groups of participants differ in their processing of contrastive information in passages and pictures. These results suggest that processing limitations may be the reason why L2 speakers did not use English intonation spontaneously. The findings of this study also suggest that Complexity Theory (CT), which emphasizes the complex and dynamic nature of intonation, is a theoretical framework that has the potential of bridging the gap between L2 phonology and L2 pronunciation teaching.

Aboriginal English has been documented in widely separated parts of Australia and, despite some stylistic and regional variation, is remarkably consistent across the continent, and provides a vehicle for the common expression of Aboriginal identity. There is, however, some indeterminacy in the way in which the term is used in much academic and public discourse. There are diverse assumptions as to its relation to pidgin, creole and interlanguage varieties, as well as to Australian English. In an attempt to provide some clarification, this paper compares Aboriginal English with the main varieties with which it bears some relationship, either historically (as in the case of the English of Southeast England and Ireland) or geographically (as in the case of Australian English and Australian pidgins and creoles). It does this by employing the morphosyntactic database of the World Atlas of Varieties of English (Kortmann & Lunkenheimer, 2012). The electronic database on morphosyntactic variation in varieties of spoken English (eWAVE) isolates 235 variable features and enables their relative prevalence to be compared across varieties. A comparison of Aboriginal English with six relevant varieties on this database leads to the view that it retains significant influence from the English varieties of Southeast England and of Ireland, in many ways not shared with Australian English and that it has a great deal more feature overlap with Australian creoles than with Australian English, though a significant percentage of its features is shared only with other English varieties rather than creoles. The findings support the view that Aboriginal English is an English variety of post-creole origin, though not a creole, and that it is not directly related to Australian English. In the light of these findings, it is argued that Aboriginal English speakers will be disadvantaged in an education system which assumes that they are speakers of Australian English. In the light of these findings, it is argued that Aboriginal English speakers will be disadvantaged in an education system whichassumes that they are speakers of Australian English.

The present experimental studies shed light on effects of implicit prosodic cues on anaphora resolution as well as on how these differ both within and between L1 and L2 speaker groups. In two self-paced reading studies, L1 and L2 participants read poem-like texts that contained anaphoric ambiguity. These stimuli were designed to include a rhyming scheme and meter that were either regular or disrupted. We expected a rhyme cue on a nonsubject pronoun antecedent (in the regularly metered and rhyming version of the texts) to induce competition effects in L1 speakers and cause them to adapt their interpretative preferences and processing strategies; yet, for L2 speakers we hypothesized that effects would either not be observed or that they would be attenuated. Additionally, we examined whether comprehender-dependent factors would modulate effects in each group. We tested both L1 and L2 participants on memory-related tasks. We also measured L1 speakers’ print exposure and L2ers’ proficiency in English. Results revealed L1–L2 dissimilarities in interpretative preferences and reading behavior, as L2 speakers were not equally sensitive to the prosodic cues introduced. The examination of memory-related measures provided evidence of within-group differences and between-group parallels: higher working memory in both groups modulated anaphora resolution, although for L2 speakers there was no additional influence of context.

Discourse markers (DMs) are difficult even for advanced L2 speakers compared with L1 speakers because of their special linguistic features. The influence of contextual factors on the use of DMs has not been examined in detail in the literature. The present article investigates the impact of speech contexts (interview vs conversation) on the use of DMs by native and advanced Chinese speakers of English. Data for the study were gathered using individual sociolinguistic interviews and group conversations. A quantitative analysis revealed that native English speakers used and and just more frequently in the interviews than in the conversations at a significant level; the Chinese speakers of English used oh, ok, and uh huh significantly more often in the conversations than in the interviews. A qualitative analysis showed that the functions of well varied across the contexts by both groups. The article further analyses the reasons for these differences: they can be due to different functions of individual markers across contexts or influence of L2 speakers’ native language (Mandarin Chinese), etc. The results indicate that the advanced L2 English speakers may not have acquired some DMs used by the native English speakers in terms of frequency and functions across the speech contexts. The article suggests that explicit instruction of functions of DMs which are difficult for L2 speakers of English can be strengthened in EFL/ESL (English as a foreign/second language) classrooms.

Grammatical and functional characteristics of preposition-based phrase frames in English argumentative essays by L1 English and Spanish speakers

Early impairments in spoken discourse abilities have been identified in Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the impact of AD on spoken discourse and the associated neuroanatomical correlates have mainly been studied in populations with higher levels of education, although preliminary evidence seems to indicate that socioeconomic status (SES) and level of education have an impact on spoken discourse. The purpose of this study was to analyze microstructural variables in spoken discourse in people with AD with low-to-middle SES and low level of education and to study their association with gray matter (GM) density. Nine women with AD and 10 matched (age, SES, and education) women without brain injury (WWBI) underwent a neuropsychological assessment, which included two spoken discourse tasks, and structural magnetic resonance imaging. Microstructural variables were extracted from the discourse samples using NILC-Metrix software. Brain density, measured by voxel-based morphometry, was compared between groups and then correlated with the differentiating microstructural variables. The AD group produced a lower diversity of verbal time moods and fewer words and sentences than WWBI but a greater diversity of pronouns, prepositions, and lexical richness. At the neural level, the AD group presented a lower GM density bilaterally in the hippocampus, the inferior temporal gyrus, and the anterior cingulate gyrus. Number of words and sentences produced were associated with GM density in the left parahippocampal gyrus, whereas the diversity of verbal moods was associated with the basal ganglia and the anterior cingulate gyrus bilaterally. The present findings are mainly consistent with previous studies conducted in groups with higher levels of SES and education, but they suggest that atrophy in the left inferior temporal gyrus could be critical in AD in populations with lower levels of SES and education. This research provides evidence on the importance of pursuing further studies including people with various SES and education levels. Spoken discourse has been shown to be affected in Alzheimer disease, but most studies have been conducted on individuals with middle-to-high SES and high educational levels. The study reports on microstructural measures of spoken discourse in groups of women in the early stage of AD and healthy women, with low-to-middle SES and lower levels of education. This study highlights the importance of taking into consideration the SES and education level in spoken discourse analysis and in investigating the neural correlates of AD. https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24905046.

A perceptually-based hierarchy of prosodic phrase group (HPG) framework was used in this study to investigate similarities and differences in the size and strategy of discourse-level speech planning across L1 and L2 English speaker groups. While both groups appear to produce similar configurations of acoustic contrasts to signal discourse boundaries, L1 speakers were found to produce these cues more robustly in English. Differences were also found between L1 English and L1 Taiwan Mandarin speaker groups with respect to the distribution of prosodic break levels and break locations. These differences in L1 and L2 organization of discourse speech prosody in English can be largely attributed to between-group differences in speech planning and chunking strategies whereby L2 speakers use more intermediate chunking units and fewer larger-scale planning units in their prosodic discourse organization. Through more understanding of prosody transfer, we believe that technology developed on the basis of L1 Mandarin spoken language processing may be applied to L2 English produced by the same speaker population, with little modification.

L1 English and two varieties of L1 Mandarin English speech data were extracted from the Taiwan AESOP corpus (Asian English Speech cOrpus Project) for the purpose of investigating differences in the realization of English narrow focus by L1 speakers of North American English, Taiwan Mandarin and Beijing Mandarin. Results show the combined effect of two patterns of L2 focus production: general underdifferentiation of on-focus and post-focus contrasts, which was exhibited by both L2 speaker groups, and transfer of L1-specific prosodic features, which can be argued to represent the source of difference between the two L2 groups. Overall, on-focus/post-focus contrasts in mean F0, amplitude and pitch range were realized most robustly by L1 English speakers. L1 Taiwan Mandarin speakers produced a smaller increase in mean F0 and amplitude for on-focus constituents and much smaller decrease in mean F0 and amplitude on post-focus constituents than L1 English speakers did, whereas Beijing Mandarin speakers produced no increase in mean F0 in on-focus constituents, and the smallest decrease in mean F0 on post-focus constituents, but a 35% higher post-focus compression of intensity than Taiwan Mandarin speakers did. Notably, both L2 speaker groups failed to produce post-focus compression of pitch range, which has been shown to be a highly salient cue to the presence of focus in English.

The grammaticality of adverb positions varies by language. Consequently, L2 and L1 speakers may differ from each other in their acquisition of adverb positions. Given that L2 Welsh speakers outnumber L1 Welsh speakers in Wales, differences in acquisition may change which adverb positions occur in contemporary Welsh. This study compares which adverb positions L2 and L1 speakers produce in the spoken data from Cardiff in the CorCenCC corpus (Knight et al., 2020) in order to identify any differences in acquisition. Comparisons of L2 and L1 English speakers find that L2 speakers consistently acquire novel adverb positions yet they frequently use ungrammatical adverb positions. They also do not acquire additional constraints on adverb positions. This study largely reinforces these findings. First, L2 Welsh speakers produce every adverb position that L1 speakers produce. Secondly, although the definiteness constraint that Borsley et al. (2009: 50) describe is not productive in the sample of Cardiff Welsh speakers, L1 speakers exhibit a heaviness constraint on V-Adv-O that L2 speakers do not. Therefore, L1 transfer neither inhibits the acquisition of adverb positions nor facilitates the acquisition of additional constraints. However, unlike L2 English speakers, L2 Welsh speakers do not produce ungrammatical adverb positions. This likely derives from the lack of transferable adverb positions between Welsh and English rather than a lack of transfer. Therefore, this sample of Cardiff Welsh reinforces the crosslinguistic consistency of L2 speakers’ acquisition of adverb positions. It also suggests that L2 Welsh speakers most likely diverge from L1 speakers in the contexts in which they use adverb positions rather than the adverb positions that they use.