28
Presentations on business topics in L3 Russian: What should we learn from the evaluation by natives? Marion Krause [email protected]
Presentations on business topics
in L3 Russian:
What should we learn
from the evaluation by natives?
Marion Krause
Points of departure
Presentations
in the economy in sciences
e.g. Dynkowska, Lobin, Ermakova 2012
- verbal constructions and text structure
- deixis
- interface of verbal and visual information
oral genre - didactic effects with informative and persuasive function intercultural setting lots of practical guides few linguistic analysis
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30 2
Points of departure
Accent
in oral communication
L11 (social and regional variants)
L12 (heritage speakers)
L2, L3, Ln (foreign accent)
as global phenomenon (Spencer 1957, Hellwig-Fábián 2007)
as a result of language contact (e.g. Chambers 2003)
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30 3
Points of departure
Perceptual Linguistics and Attitudes
„… native speaker […] listeners tend to downgrade nonnative
speakers […] simply because of foreign accent“
(Munro, Derwing 1999: 287)
effect on status rating (e.g. Hellwig-Fábián 2007; Kalin, Rayko 1978)
effect on competence rating (e.g. Giles, Powesland 1975)
effect on employability (e.g. Carlson, McHenry 2006, Lippi-Green 1998)
effect on credibility (e.g. Lev-Ari, Keysar 2010)
social meaning of accent (Coupland 2007)
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012, November 28-30
4
Research questions
How does communicative competence in different domains of oral communication affect the evaluation of presentations by natives?
Which impact do different domains of competence have on the evaluation by natives?
Which effect (= disturbance potential) do obtain linguistic deviations (errors) on different levels of the language system?
Reference: pilot study Krause/Loos (2008)
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30
5
Material
Genre: prepared video-taped presentations (environment: language learning laboratory)
Topic: tourism
Task: presentation of a touristic destination (area, town, hotel in Austria) at a tourism fair
Aim: to arouse interest in visiting the destination
Sample: 26 WU students´ presentations (WiKo II)
poficiency level: approx. A2+ in RfSP
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30
6
Method
A: transcripts of all video-taped presentations + identification of error and their frequencies
B: analysis of error distribution + selection of five presentations for the test
C: presentation of the selected material to Russian native speakers
D: analysis of the evaluation data + matching with error scores
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012, November 28-30
7
Method
A: transcripts of all 26 video-taped presentations (with EXMARaLDA)
identification of error types and their frequencies
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30 8
five test presentations (A – E)
duration: 3:12 min 4:26 min
gradation of error rates
(errors/token)
B-E: German accent, A:
Slavic accent
Method
B: Analysis of error rates and selection of experimental material
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30 9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
A B C D E
Fehlerraten (Fehler zu Wortzahl WZ, in %) in den Präsentationen A-E
Fehler zu WZ
[Fehler + unverständliche bzw.undeutliche Wörter] zu WZ
General error rates (errors/tokens, in %) for presentations A-E
errors/tokens (%) [errors + uncomprehensible + unclear sequences]/tokens (%)
Method
B: Analysis of error rates and selection of experimental material
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30 10
Dispersion of error types (%) in the presentations A-E in comparison with the mean values for all data
mean
Error types:
pronuncation
word stress
intonation
text
coherence
word order
lexis
verbal aspect
flections
Method
C: presentation of the selected material to Russian native speakers (students
of Russian linguistics B.A., M.A., Sankt-Petersburg State University)
25 test persons: 24 female, 1 male
age: 18 – 25 years, mean: 21,0
familiarity with the discourse type: 21 test persons
own presentation practice: 18 test persons (school, university)
special training: 2 test persons
Questionnaire in written form after each presentation
with open + closed questions (rating scales , partly Likert scale)
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30 11
Results: Comprehensibility and intelligibility
perceived comprehensibility > intelligibility
ponjatnost´ > razborčivost‘
(Munro/Derwing 1999, Krause/Loos 2008)
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30 12
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
ja eher ja weiß nicht eher nein nein
Ratio of comprehensibility and intelligibility (mean values (%) A-E)
Ich habe alles verstanden.
Die Sprache war verständlich.
I fully understood the p. The speech was intelligible.
yes rather yes don‘t know rather no no
Results: Foreign accent
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30 13
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ja eher ja weiß nicht eher nein nein
Evaluation of the accent (A-E together)
Fremder Akzent vorhanden.
Der Akzent ist stark.
Der Akzent stört mich.
There was a foreign accent. The accent was strong. The accent disturbed me.
yes rather yes don‘t know rather no no
Results: Foreign accent (A-E)
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
A B C D E
An
two
rte
n (
%)
There was an accent.
ja
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A B C D E
The accent disturbed me.
ja
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
A B C D E
The accent was strong.
jayes
yes
yes
Results: Foreign accent and phonetic errors
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30
15
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A B C D E
Ach
sen
tite
l
The disturbance potential of the foreign accent in relation to the relative frequency of phonetic errors (A-E)
Der Akzent stört mich.
Anteil Aussprachefehler
Anteil Betonung
Anteil Intonation
The accent disturbed me.
Relative share of errors in pronunciation
in word stress
in intonation
Results: Foreign accent and general error rate
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30
16
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
A B C D E
Ratio between accent’s disturbance potential and overall error rate
Der Akzent störtmich.
Fehlerrate (alleFehler zu Wortzahl,in %)
The accent disturbed me.
Overall error rate (all errors/tokens, %)
Results: foreign accent
Summing up:
general tolerance against foreign accent: principle of cooperation!
tendency: strength of accent exceeds the disturbance potential of the accent
further research on the perceptual salience of different phonetic features
is necessary
general correlation between error rate and disturbance potential of the
accent, but with clear-cut deviations (speakers C, D)
further research on the perceptual salience of other linguistic features
further research on the inpact of paralinguistic and nonverbal features
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30 17
Results: Disturbance potential of different error types
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30
18
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Aussprachefehler
Fehler in den Endungen
Betonungsfehler
Verlangsamtes Sprechtempo
Abweichungen in der Intonation
Fehler im Verbalaspekt
Störung der Textkohärenz
Häufige Pausen
Inhaltlich unangemessene Wörter
Stilistisch unangemessene Wörter
Ungewöhnliche Wortstellung
störte sehr störte, aber nicht sehr störte nicht
Non-standard word-order
Stilistically non-appropriate words
Contently non-appropriate words
Frequent pauses
Disruptions of text coherence
Errors in verbal aspect
Deviations in intonation
Slowed speech rate
Errors in word stress placement
Errors in flections
Errors in pronunciation
disturbed, but not
very much didn‘t disturb disturbed
strongly
Results: The perlocutive effect of errors
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30
19
,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
A B C D E
Ratio between the achievement of the persuasive aim (I wish to travel to X)
and the general error rate (A-E)
ja
Fehlerrate
yes (%)
error rate (%)
Results: other factors influencing evaluation by natives
with positive effect
clear structure
capacity to arouse interest
attention towards the auditory
naturaleness of speech
appropriate gesture
self-confident behaviour
• accuracy and diversity of information
• involvement of the presenter
• liveliness, openess
• free speech
• normal speech rate
• eye contact
• charisma, smiling
• humor
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30
20
Results: Other factors influencing evaluation by natives
with negative effect
• obtrusiveness
• clichedness (advertising)
• tautness
• unnaturalness
• impression of reciting
• slowed speech rate
• monotony
• frequent gestures
• spatial movement
• reading of a prepared text
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30 21
Summary
The effect of a presentation depends on communicative skills in several domains – linguistic, paralinguistic, and nonverbal.
Linguistic correctness is only one of the factors which determine the perception and evaluation of presentations.
Phonetic errors (pronunciation, word stress) and flectional errors have the highest disturbance potential within the analysed error types.
High overall error rates tend to decrease the perlocutive (at least conative) effect of a presentation.
A correlation between credibility and linguistic correctness (see Lev-Ari, Keysar 2010) can be assumed.
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30
Seite 22
Consequences for teaching
Presentations in the economy What should be teached? What should be learned? … in view of to the communicative praxis of the target community
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30 23
Teaching of the appropriate communicative behaviour
knowledge about the communicative task
knowledge about the genre and its charateristics
knowledge about sociolinguistic constraints
knowledge about cultural constraints
Transfer into language knowledge
Excercising and applying of knowledge
Consequences
Oral competence as a professional requirement
5th WU Symposium, Vienna 2012,
November 28-30 24
Which kinds of language skills in foreign languages are requested mostly in your firm ?
0 20 40 60 80
Sprechen
Lesen
Schreiben
sehr häufig
häufig
Source: Survey of the ibw Vienna 2008 (n=2017)
Writing
Reading
Speaking
very often
often
Many thanks to:
Wolfgang Weitlaner (WU Wien)
Students at the Faculty of Philology, State University of Sankt-Petersburg &Natalia Bogdanova & Elena Markasova (SPbGU)
Svetlana Kummert (UHH)
DAAD
Deutscher Slavistentag, Dresden , 3.-6.10.2012 25
Verfasser/in Webadresse, E-Mail oder sonstige Referenz
Presentations on business topics
in L3 Russian:
What should we learn
from the evaluation by natives?
Marion Krause
Literatur Archan, S., Dornmayr, H. 2008. Fremdsprachenbedarf und -kompetenzen. Wien: Institut für Bildungsforschung
der Wirtschaft. (ibw-schriftenreihe131.)
Carlson,H.K. , McHenry, M.A. 2006. Effect of accent and dialect on employability. In: Journal of Employment Counseling. Volume 43/2 (2006), 70–83,
Coupland N. 2007. Style: Language Variation and Identity.. Cambridge.
Dynkowska M., Lobin H., Ermakova V. 2012. Erfolreich präsentieren in der Wissenschaft? Empirische Untersuchungen zur kommunikativen und kognitiven Wirkung von Präsentationen. In: Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 57 (2012), S.33-65.
Giles, H. Powesland P.F. 1975. Speech style and social evaluation. Oxford.
Hellwig-Fábián, Inessa. 2007. Deutsch mit ausländischem Akzent: Eine empirische Studie zu Einstellungen junger Deutscher gegenüber Sprechern mit ostslavischer Muttersprache. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Kalin, R., Rayko, D.S. 1978. Discrimination in evaluative judgments against foreign-accented job candidates. In: Psychological Reports 43(1978), 1203-1209.
Krause, M., Loos H. 2008. Zur Bewertung von Abweichungen in der mündlichen Kommunikation von Ln-LernerInnen (Russisch). Paper presented at the Workshop „Interkulturelle Kommunikation und interkulturelles Training“ , Dresden 22.-25.5.2008.
Deutscher Slavistentag, Dresden , 3.-6.10.2012 27
Literatur
Lippi-Green, R. 1998. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. 2-nd ed. Routledge..
Lev-Ari, Sh., Keysar B. 2010. Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The in!uence of accent on credibility. In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010), 1093–1096.
McDermott, W.L.C. 1986. The Scalability of degrees of Foreign accent. Ph.D. Disseration. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Munro, Murray J. Derwing, Tracey M. 1999. Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning 49, 285-310.
Spencer, John. 1957. Received Pronunciation: Some Problems of Interpretation. In: Lingua 7, 7-29.
Deutscher Slavistentag, Dresden , 3.-6.10.2012 28
