Abstract This study examined the effects of a 10-week metacognitive instruction on low-proficiency Chinese EFL learners’ listening performance. It also explored the relative effectiveness of metacognitive instruction, bottom-up instruction and a combination of the two types of instructions on learners’ listening performance. Eighty low-proficiency Chinese college students were assigned to one control group and three experimental groups. One experimental group received metacognitive instruction, another experimental group received bottom-up listening strategy training and the third experimental group was exposed to a combination of the aforementioned trainings. The control group did not receive any training. The linear mixed effects model (LMM) results indicated that the integrated approach was the most effective at improving low-proficiency listeners’ listening performance, followed by bottom-up training. The metacognitive instruction alone did not prove useful at promoting the development of listening performance. The pedagogical implications of the study are also discussed.
{"title":"Which approach best promoted low-proficiency learners’ listening performance: metacognitive, bottom-up or a combination of both?","authors":"Xin Yuan, Xuan Tang","doi":"10.1515/iral-2023-0142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0142","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study examined the effects of a 10-week metacognitive instruction on low-proficiency Chinese EFL learners’ listening performance. It also explored the relative effectiveness of metacognitive instruction, bottom-up instruction and a combination of the two types of instructions on learners’ listening performance. Eighty low-proficiency Chinese college students were assigned to one control group and three experimental groups. One experimental group received metacognitive instruction, another experimental group received bottom-up listening strategy training and the third experimental group was exposed to a combination of the aforementioned trainings. The control group did not receive any training. The linear mixed effects model (LMM) results indicated that the integrated approach was the most effective at improving low-proficiency listeners’ listening performance, followed by bottom-up training. The metacognitive instruction alone did not prove useful at promoting the development of listening performance. The pedagogical implications of the study are also discussed.","PeriodicalId":507656,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching","volume":"52 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139113925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Chen Ding, B. Reynolds, Csaba Z. Szabo, Griet Boone
Abstract Since collocation knowledge is integral to second language vocabulary depth, it necessitates a careful examination of various measurement approaches. To this end, the current paper provides an overview and evaluation of extant collocation measurements used in empirical studies on L2 English (N = 153) published between 1980 and 2023 indexed in the SSCI, SCIE, AHCI, SCOPUS, and ERIC databases. Six instruments, seven item formats, and three other assessment tools were identified and reviewed for the assessment of receptive and productive collocation knowledge. The review focused on the collocation knowledge measured by each tool, the instrument and/or item format employed, item design, reported reliability, and potential drawbacks of employing each instrument and item format in research or practice. The review proposes several theoretical and practical considerations for future assessments of and research on English collocation knowledge.
{"title":"Assessing English language learners’ collocation knowledge: a systematic review of receptive and productive measurements","authors":"Chen Ding, B. Reynolds, Csaba Z. Szabo, Griet Boone","doi":"10.1515/iral-2022-0163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0163","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since collocation knowledge is integral to second language vocabulary depth, it necessitates a careful examination of various measurement approaches. To this end, the current paper provides an overview and evaluation of extant collocation measurements used in empirical studies on L2 English (N = 153) published between 1980 and 2023 indexed in the SSCI, SCIE, AHCI, SCOPUS, and ERIC databases. Six instruments, seven item formats, and three other assessment tools were identified and reviewed for the assessment of receptive and productive collocation knowledge. The review focused on the collocation knowledge measured by each tool, the instrument and/or item format employed, item design, reported reliability, and potential drawbacks of employing each instrument and item format in research or practice. The review proposes several theoretical and practical considerations for future assessments of and research on English collocation knowledge.","PeriodicalId":507656,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139114396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This study examined general auditory processing, Mandarin L1 prosodic and phonological awareness, and the relations with English L2 word learning. Participants were 61 Mandarin-speaking children who learned English as an L2 in Taiwan. They received the following tasks: general auditory processing (i.e., amplitude envelope rise time, pitch contour and interval), Mandarin L1 prosodic and phonological awareness, and English L2 word learning (at Time 1 and 2). The results revealed that (1) only amplitude envelope rise time discrimination, independent of years of English learning, predicted English L2 word learning at Time 1, (2) Mandarin L1 phonological awareness, relative to Mandarin L1 prosodic awareness, made more contributions to English L2 word learning after controlling amplitude envelope rise time discrimination, and (3) successful English learners outperformed their unsuccessful peers on Mandarin L1 phonological awareness. Taken together, beginning English learners might use amplitude envelop rise time cuing syllable boundaries and rely on L1 prosodic and phonological awareness for English L2 word learning.
{"title":"General auditory processing, Mandarin L1 prosodic and phonological awareness, and English L2 word learning","authors":"W. Chung","doi":"10.1515/iral-2023-0168","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0168","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study examined general auditory processing, Mandarin L1 prosodic and phonological awareness, and the relations with English L2 word learning. Participants were 61 Mandarin-speaking children who learned English as an L2 in Taiwan. They received the following tasks: general auditory processing (i.e., amplitude envelope rise time, pitch contour and interval), Mandarin L1 prosodic and phonological awareness, and English L2 word learning (at Time 1 and 2). The results revealed that (1) only amplitude envelope rise time discrimination, independent of years of English learning, predicted English L2 word learning at Time 1, (2) Mandarin L1 phonological awareness, relative to Mandarin L1 prosodic awareness, made more contributions to English L2 word learning after controlling amplitude envelope rise time discrimination, and (3) successful English learners outperformed their unsuccessful peers on Mandarin L1 phonological awareness. Taken together, beginning English learners might use amplitude envelop rise time cuing syllable boundaries and rely on L1 prosodic and phonological awareness for English L2 word learning.","PeriodicalId":507656,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching","volume":"54 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139114636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This study examined the effects of a 10-week metacognitive instruction on low-proficiency Chinese EFL learners’ listening performance. It also explored the relative effectiveness of metacognitive instruction, bottom-up instruction and a combination of the two types of instructions on learners’ listening performance. Eighty low-proficiency Chinese college students were assigned to one control group and three experimental groups. One experimental group received metacognitive instruction, another experimental group received bottom-up listening strategy training and the third experimental group was exposed to a combination of the aforementioned trainings. The control group did not receive any training. The linear mixed effects model (LMM) results indicated that the integrated approach was the most effective at improving low-proficiency listeners’ listening performance, followed by bottom-up training. The metacognitive instruction alone did not prove useful at promoting the development of listening performance. The pedagogical implications of the study are also discussed.
{"title":"Which approach best promoted low-proficiency learners’ listening performance: metacognitive, bottom-up or a combination of both?","authors":"Xin Yuan, Xuan Tang","doi":"10.1515/iral-2023-0142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0142","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study examined the effects of a 10-week metacognitive instruction on low-proficiency Chinese EFL learners’ listening performance. It also explored the relative effectiveness of metacognitive instruction, bottom-up instruction and a combination of the two types of instructions on learners’ listening performance. Eighty low-proficiency Chinese college students were assigned to one control group and three experimental groups. One experimental group received metacognitive instruction, another experimental group received bottom-up listening strategy training and the third experimental group was exposed to a combination of the aforementioned trainings. The control group did not receive any training. The linear mixed effects model (LMM) results indicated that the integrated approach was the most effective at improving low-proficiency listeners’ listening performance, followed by bottom-up training. The metacognitive instruction alone did not prove useful at promoting the development of listening performance. The pedagogical implications of the study are also discussed.","PeriodicalId":507656,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching","volume":"52 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139114740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Despite receiving more attention and obtaining a well-established status in second language (L2) teaching research during the last three decades, L2 pragmatics remains an excluded topic in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching in many investigated contexts. Adopting a qualitative case study design, this paper examines what seven EFL teachers from different Vietnamese high schools perceive about L2 pragmatics and instructional pragmatics and reflect on their teacher preparation programs in these regards. The findings reveal that the participating teachers were not taught about L2 pragmatics and instructional pragmatics during their professional education, resulting in their little content and pedagogical knowledge of L2 pragmatics. This leads to their general exclusion of L2 pragmatics teaching in their classroom practices. The uncovered stories from these teachers provide essential implications for teacher education programs in Vietnam and its similar contexts. Importantly, they add more understanding to the relationship of teachers’ knowledge and their practices of L2 pragmatics teaching, a current understudied research area with specific reference to teacher cognition of L2 pragmatics.
{"title":"Why is L2 pragmatics still a neglected area in EFL teaching? Uncovered stories from Vietnamese EFL teachers","authors":"Anh T. Ton-Nu","doi":"10.1515/iral-2023-0172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0172","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite receiving more attention and obtaining a well-established status in second language (L2) teaching research during the last three decades, L2 pragmatics remains an excluded topic in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching in many investigated contexts. Adopting a qualitative case study design, this paper examines what seven EFL teachers from different Vietnamese high schools perceive about L2 pragmatics and instructional pragmatics and reflect on their teacher preparation programs in these regards. The findings reveal that the participating teachers were not taught about L2 pragmatics and instructional pragmatics during their professional education, resulting in their little content and pedagogical knowledge of L2 pragmatics. This leads to their general exclusion of L2 pragmatics teaching in their classroom practices. The uncovered stories from these teachers provide essential implications for teacher education programs in Vietnam and its similar contexts. Importantly, they add more understanding to the relationship of teachers’ knowledge and their practices of L2 pragmatics teaching, a current understudied research area with specific reference to teacher cognition of L2 pragmatics.","PeriodicalId":507656,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching","volume":"51 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139114742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This study examined the effects of a 10-week metacognitive instruction on low-proficiency Chinese EFL learners’ listening performance. It also explored the relative effectiveness of metacognitive instruction, bottom-up instruction and a combination of the two types of instructions on learners’ listening performance. Eighty low-proficiency Chinese college students were assigned to one control group and three experimental groups. One experimental group received metacognitive instruction, another experimental group received bottom-up listening strategy training and the third experimental group was exposed to a combination of the aforementioned trainings. The control group did not receive any training. The linear mixed effects model (LMM) results indicated that the integrated approach was the most effective at improving low-proficiency listeners’ listening performance, followed by bottom-up training. The metacognitive instruction alone did not prove useful at promoting the development of listening performance. The pedagogical implications of the study are also discussed.
{"title":"Which approach best promoted low-proficiency learners’ listening performance: metacognitive, bottom-up or a combination of both?","authors":"Xin Yuan, Xuan Tang","doi":"10.1515/iral-2023-0142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0142","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study examined the effects of a 10-week metacognitive instruction on low-proficiency Chinese EFL learners’ listening performance. It also explored the relative effectiveness of metacognitive instruction, bottom-up instruction and a combination of the two types of instructions on learners’ listening performance. Eighty low-proficiency Chinese college students were assigned to one control group and three experimental groups. One experimental group received metacognitive instruction, another experimental group received bottom-up listening strategy training and the third experimental group was exposed to a combination of the aforementioned trainings. The control group did not receive any training. The linear mixed effects model (LMM) results indicated that the integrated approach was the most effective at improving low-proficiency listeners’ listening performance, followed by bottom-up training. The metacognitive instruction alone did not prove useful at promoting the development of listening performance. The pedagogical implications of the study are also discussed.","PeriodicalId":507656,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching","volume":"52 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139114927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Despite receiving more attention and obtaining a well-established status in second language (L2) teaching research during the last three decades, L2 pragmatics remains an excluded topic in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching in many investigated contexts. Adopting a qualitative case study design, this paper examines what seven EFL teachers from different Vietnamese high schools perceive about L2 pragmatics and instructional pragmatics and reflect on their teacher preparation programs in these regards. The findings reveal that the participating teachers were not taught about L2 pragmatics and instructional pragmatics during their professional education, resulting in their little content and pedagogical knowledge of L2 pragmatics. This leads to their general exclusion of L2 pragmatics teaching in their classroom practices. The uncovered stories from these teachers provide essential implications for teacher education programs in Vietnam and its similar contexts. Importantly, they add more understanding to the relationship of teachers’ knowledge and their practices of L2 pragmatics teaching, a current understudied research area with specific reference to teacher cognition of L2 pragmatics.
{"title":"Why is L2 pragmatics still a neglected area in EFL teaching? Uncovered stories from Vietnamese EFL teachers","authors":"Anh T. Ton-Nu","doi":"10.1515/iral-2023-0172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0172","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite receiving more attention and obtaining a well-established status in second language (L2) teaching research during the last three decades, L2 pragmatics remains an excluded topic in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching in many investigated contexts. Adopting a qualitative case study design, this paper examines what seven EFL teachers from different Vietnamese high schools perceive about L2 pragmatics and instructional pragmatics and reflect on their teacher preparation programs in these regards. The findings reveal that the participating teachers were not taught about L2 pragmatics and instructional pragmatics during their professional education, resulting in their little content and pedagogical knowledge of L2 pragmatics. This leads to their general exclusion of L2 pragmatics teaching in their classroom practices. The uncovered stories from these teachers provide essential implications for teacher education programs in Vietnam and its similar contexts. Importantly, they add more understanding to the relationship of teachers’ knowledge and their practices of L2 pragmatics teaching, a current understudied research area with specific reference to teacher cognition of L2 pragmatics.","PeriodicalId":507656,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching","volume":"51 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139115198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Chen Ding, B. Reynolds, Csaba Z. Szabo, Griet Boone
Abstract Since collocation knowledge is integral to second language vocabulary depth, it necessitates a careful examination of various measurement approaches. To this end, the current paper provides an overview and evaluation of extant collocation measurements used in empirical studies on L2 English (N = 153) published between 1980 and 2023 indexed in the SSCI, SCIE, AHCI, SCOPUS, and ERIC databases. Six instruments, seven item formats, and three other assessment tools were identified and reviewed for the assessment of receptive and productive collocation knowledge. The review focused on the collocation knowledge measured by each tool, the instrument and/or item format employed, item design, reported reliability, and potential drawbacks of employing each instrument and item format in research or practice. The review proposes several theoretical and practical considerations for future assessments of and research on English collocation knowledge.
{"title":"Assessing English language learners’ collocation knowledge: a systematic review of receptive and productive measurements","authors":"Chen Ding, B. Reynolds, Csaba Z. Szabo, Griet Boone","doi":"10.1515/iral-2022-0163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0163","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since collocation knowledge is integral to second language vocabulary depth, it necessitates a careful examination of various measurement approaches. To this end, the current paper provides an overview and evaluation of extant collocation measurements used in empirical studies on L2 English (N = 153) published between 1980 and 2023 indexed in the SSCI, SCIE, AHCI, SCOPUS, and ERIC databases. Six instruments, seven item formats, and three other assessment tools were identified and reviewed for the assessment of receptive and productive collocation knowledge. The review focused on the collocation knowledge measured by each tool, the instrument and/or item format employed, item design, reported reliability, and potential drawbacks of employing each instrument and item format in research or practice. The review proposes several theoretical and practical considerations for future assessments of and research on English collocation knowledge.","PeriodicalId":507656,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139115364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Despite receiving more attention and obtaining a well-established status in second language (L2) teaching research during the last three decades, L2 pragmatics remains an excluded topic in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching in many investigated contexts. Adopting a qualitative case study design, this paper examines what seven EFL teachers from different Vietnamese high schools perceive about L2 pragmatics and instructional pragmatics and reflect on their teacher preparation programs in these regards. The findings reveal that the participating teachers were not taught about L2 pragmatics and instructional pragmatics during their professional education, resulting in their little content and pedagogical knowledge of L2 pragmatics. This leads to their general exclusion of L2 pragmatics teaching in their classroom practices. The uncovered stories from these teachers provide essential implications for teacher education programs in Vietnam and its similar contexts. Importantly, they add more understanding to the relationship of teachers’ knowledge and their practices of L2 pragmatics teaching, a current understudied research area with specific reference to teacher cognition of L2 pragmatics.
{"title":"Why is L2 pragmatics still a neglected area in EFL teaching? Uncovered stories from Vietnamese EFL teachers","authors":"Anh T. Ton-Nu","doi":"10.1515/iral-2023-0172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0172","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite receiving more attention and obtaining a well-established status in second language (L2) teaching research during the last three decades, L2 pragmatics remains an excluded topic in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching in many investigated contexts. Adopting a qualitative case study design, this paper examines what seven EFL teachers from different Vietnamese high schools perceive about L2 pragmatics and instructional pragmatics and reflect on their teacher preparation programs in these regards. The findings reveal that the participating teachers were not taught about L2 pragmatics and instructional pragmatics during their professional education, resulting in their little content and pedagogical knowledge of L2 pragmatics. This leads to their general exclusion of L2 pragmatics teaching in their classroom practices. The uncovered stories from these teachers provide essential implications for teacher education programs in Vietnam and its similar contexts. Importantly, they add more understanding to the relationship of teachers’ knowledge and their practices of L2 pragmatics teaching, a current understudied research area with specific reference to teacher cognition of L2 pragmatics.","PeriodicalId":507656,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching","volume":"51 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139115468","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This study examined general auditory processing, Mandarin L1 prosodic and phonological awareness, and the relations with English L2 word learning. Participants were 61 Mandarin-speaking children who learned English as an L2 in Taiwan. They received the following tasks: general auditory processing (i.e., amplitude envelope rise time, pitch contour and interval), Mandarin L1 prosodic and phonological awareness, and English L2 word learning (at Time 1 and 2). The results revealed that (1) only amplitude envelope rise time discrimination, independent of years of English learning, predicted English L2 word learning at Time 1, (2) Mandarin L1 phonological awareness, relative to Mandarin L1 prosodic awareness, made more contributions to English L2 word learning after controlling amplitude envelope rise time discrimination, and (3) successful English learners outperformed their unsuccessful peers on Mandarin L1 phonological awareness. Taken together, beginning English learners might use amplitude envelop rise time cuing syllable boundaries and rely on L1 prosodic and phonological awareness for English L2 word learning.
{"title":"General auditory processing, Mandarin L1 prosodic and phonological awareness, and English L2 word learning","authors":"W. Chung","doi":"10.1515/iral-2023-0168","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0168","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study examined general auditory processing, Mandarin L1 prosodic and phonological awareness, and the relations with English L2 word learning. Participants were 61 Mandarin-speaking children who learned English as an L2 in Taiwan. They received the following tasks: general auditory processing (i.e., amplitude envelope rise time, pitch contour and interval), Mandarin L1 prosodic and phonological awareness, and English L2 word learning (at Time 1 and 2). The results revealed that (1) only amplitude envelope rise time discrimination, independent of years of English learning, predicted English L2 word learning at Time 1, (2) Mandarin L1 phonological awareness, relative to Mandarin L1 prosodic awareness, made more contributions to English L2 word learning after controlling amplitude envelope rise time discrimination, and (3) successful English learners outperformed their unsuccessful peers on Mandarin L1 phonological awareness. Taken together, beginning English learners might use amplitude envelop rise time cuing syllable boundaries and rely on L1 prosodic and phonological awareness for English L2 word learning.","PeriodicalId":507656,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching","volume":"54 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139115561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：