Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-hsbzg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-25T19:35:02.131Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TEXT CHARACTERISTICS OF TASK INPUT AND DIFFICULTY IN SECOND LANGUAGE LISTENING COMPREHENSION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2013

Andrea Révész  and
Tineke Brunfaut
Andrea Révész*
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Tineke Brunfaut
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrea Révész, Department of Linguistics and English Language, County South C70, Lancaster University, LA1 4YL, United Kingdom; e-mail: a.revesz@lancaster.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of a group of task factors on advanced English as a second language learners’ actual and perceived listening performance. We examined whether the speed, linguistic complexity, and explicitness of the listening text along with characteristics of the text necessary for task completion influenced comprehension. We also explored learners’ perceptions of what textual factors cause difficulty. The 68 participants performed 18 versions of a listening task, and each task was followed by a perception questionnaire. Nine additional students engaged in stimulated recall. The listening texts were analyzed in terms of a variety of measures, utilizing automatized analytical tools. We used Rasch and regression analyses to estimate task difficulty and its relationship to the text characteristics. Six measures emerged as significant predictors of task difficulty, including indicators of (a) lexical range, density, and diversity and (b) causal content. The stimulated recall comments were more reflective of these findings than the questionnaire responses.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 31 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, G., & Hawkins, S. (1980). Phonological rhythm: Definition and development. In Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Kavanagh, J. F., & Ferguson, C. A. (Eds.), Child phonology: Volume 1. Production (pp. 227–256). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blau, E. K. (1990). The effect of syntax, speed and pauses on listening comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 746–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, A., Wayland, S. C., Rhoades, E., Blodgett, A., Linck, J., & Ross, S. (2011). What makes listening difficult? Factors affecting second language listening comprehension (Technical Report TTO 81434 E.3.1). College Park, MD: University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2008). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.0.25) [computer software]. Retrieved 2011 fromhttp://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., & Pisoni, D. B. (1999). Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: Talker-, listener- and item-related factors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2074–2085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brindley, G., & Slatyer, H. (2002). Exploring task difficulty in ESL listening assessment. Language Testing, 19, 369–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, G., & Tatsuoka, K. (1998). Application of the rule-space procedure to language testing: Examining attributes of a free response listening test. Language Testing, 15, 119–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review, 82, 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cervantes, R., & Gainer, G. (1992). The effects of syntactic simplification and repetition on listening comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 767–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. (n.d.). Web Vocabprofile. Retrieved fromhttp://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng, an adaptation of Heatley & Nation’s (1994) Range.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., & Otake, T. (1994). Mora or phoneme? Further evidence for language-specific listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 824–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (2001). What speaking rates do non-native listeners prefer? Applied Linguistics, 22, 324–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1999). Does the text matter in a multiple-choice test of comprehension? The case for the construct validity of TOEFL’s minitalks. Language Testing, 16, 2–32.Google Scholar
Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL-EJ, 8(2). Retrieved fromhttp://www-writing.berkeley.edu/tesl-ej/ej30/a1.htmlGoogle Scholar
Goh, C. C. M. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28, 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In Sweet, A. P. & Snow, C. E. (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Griffiths, R. (1990). Speech rate and NNS comprehension: A preliminary study in time-benefit analysis. Language Learning, 40, 311–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, R. (1992). Speech rate and listening comprehension: Further evidence of the relationship. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Henrichsen, L. E. (1984). Sandhi-variation: A filter of input for learners of ESL. Language Learning, 34, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Connectionist models of language processing and the training of listening skills with the aid of multimedia software. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostin, I. (2004). Exploring item characteristics that are related to the difficulty of TOEFL dialogue items (TOEFL Research Report No. RR-79). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Linacre, J. M. (2011). Facets computer program for many-facet Rasch measurement (Version 3.68.1) [computer software]. Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com.Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. M. (2002). An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 15–35.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Malvern, D. D., & Richards, B. J. (1997). A new measure of lexical diversity. In Ryan, A. & Wray, A. (Eds.), Evolving models of language (pp. 58–71). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Malvern, D. D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Houndmills, NH: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33, 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattys, S. L., & Jusczyk, P. W. (2001). Phonotactic cues for segmentation of fluent speech by infants. Cognition, 78, 91–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. A. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behaviour Research Methods, 42, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., Cai, Z., & Graesser, A. (2005). Coh-Metrix (Version 1.4) [computer software]. Retrieved fromhttp//:cohmetrix.memphis.edu.Google Scholar
Muljani, D., Koda, K., & Moates, D. R. (1998). The development of word recognition in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissan, S., DeVincenzi, F., & Tang, K. L. (1996). An analysis of factors affecting the difficulty of dialogue items in TOEFL listening comprehension (TOEFL Research Report No. RR-51). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A., Walsh, M., & Bons, T. (1994). Concreteness effects on memory: When and why? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 20, 1196–1204.Google Scholar
Pitt, M. A., & McQueen, J. M. (1998). Is compensation for coarticulation mediated by the lexicon? Journal of Memory & Language, 39, 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, A., & Hutchinson, C. (1987). Calibrating graded assessments: Rasch partial credit analysis of performance in writing. Language Testing, 4, 72–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rosenhouse, J., Haik, L., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (2006). Speech perception in adverse listening conditions in Arabic-Hebrew bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rost, M. (2005). L2 listening. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research on second language teaching and learning (pp. 503–528). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rost, M. (2011). Teaching and researching listening. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. Modern Language Journal, 78, 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupp, A. A., Garcia, P., & Jamieson, J. (2001). Combining multiple regression and CART to understand difficulty in second language reading and listening comprehension test items. International Journal of Testing, 1, 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second language learning. In , C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, L., White, K. S., & Morgan, J. L. (2008). Building a phonological lexicon in the face of variable input: Effects of pitch and amplitude variation on early word recognition. Language Learning and Development, 4, 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommers, M. S., & Barcroft, J. (2006). Stimulus variability and the phonetic relevance hypothesis: Effects of variability in speaking style, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate on spoken word identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2406–2416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 89, 543–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tettamanti, M., Manenti, R., Della Rosa, P. A., Falini, A., Perani, D., Cappa, S. F., & Moro, A. (2008). Negation in the brain: Modulating action representations. Neuroimage, 43, 358–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2009). Teaching and testing listening comprehension. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 395–411). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2004). A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 481–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Yanagawa, K., & Green, A. (2008). To show or not to show: The effects of item stems and answer options on performance on a multiple-choice listening comprehension test. System, 36, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ying-hui, H. (2006). An investigation into the task features affecting EFL listening comprehension test performance. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(2), 33–54.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. (1997). The effects of listeners’ control of speech rate on second language comprehension. Applied Linguistics, 18, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed