2004
Volume 26, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

In order to enroll in Flemish higher education, aspiring students whose native language is not Dutch require a B2 CEFR level for language proficiency for most courses that are taught in Dutch. The question we aim to answer in this study is how future interlocutors of these students perceive that B2 entrance level. Do fellow students, lecturers and other members of staff feel that this level of language proficiency is sufficient to successfully navigate higher education? We specifically focus on the perception of pronunciation proficiency. We conducted a speaker evaluation experiment in which 191 students and staff members evaluated six sound clips with non-native Dutch speech representing pronunciation levels B1, B2 and C1. Results show that overall attitudes towards the speakers in the experiment are rather positive. In addition, there is a clear association between pronunciation proficiency and perceived functioning in higher education that reflects the Flemish higher education entrance policy. Our study also shows that various groups within the higher education community react differently towards non-native Dutch speakers and that there is a link between perception of non-native pronunciation and the amount of contact a listener has with non-native speakers. Overall, this study underlines the importance of pronunciation training in foreign language teaching for academic purposes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.2.004.ROSS
2021-10-01
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Ball, P. & H.Giles (1982). Speech style and employment selection: The matched-guise technique. In: G. M.Breakwell, H.Foot & R.Gilmour (red.), Social psychology: A practical manual. Londen: Macmillan, 101-122.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barr, D. J., R.Levy, C.Scheepers & H.J.Tily (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language68, 255-278.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barton, K. (2020). MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.43.17. <https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=MuMIn>
  5. Bates, D., M.Maechler, B.Bolker & S.Walker (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67, 1-48.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boyd, S. (2003). Foreign-born teachers in the multilingual classroom in Sweden: The role of attitudes to foreign accent. International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism6, 283-295.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bree, Van, C. (1988). Oordelen van standaardtaal-, dialect- en sociolectspreker over standaardtaalvariëteiten, dialecten en sociolecten. Leuvense bijdragen77, 1-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brennan, E. M. & J. S.Brennan (1981). Accent scaling and language attitudes: Reactions to Mexican American English speech. Languageandspeech24, 207-221.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuvelier, P. (2007). Standaardnederlands, tussentaal en dialect in Antwerpen. De perceptie van jonge moedertaalsprekers en taalleerders. In: D.Sandra, R.Rymenans, P.Cuvelier & P.Van Petegem (red.), Tussen taal, spelling en onderwijs. Essays bij het emeritaat van Frans Daems. Gent: Academia Press, 39-58.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Deprez, K. & Y.Persoons (1984). On the ethnolinguistic identity of Flemish high school students in Brussels. Journal of language and social psychology3, 273-296.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dewaele, J.-M.(2018). Why the Dichotomy ‘L1 Versus LX User’ is Better than ‘Native Versus Non-native Speaker’. Applied Linguistics39, 236-240.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Deygers, B. & M.Malone (2019). Language assessment literacy in university admission policies, or the dialogue that isn’t. Language testing36, 347-368.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Deygers, B., K.Van den Branden & K.Van Gorp (2018a). University entrance language tests : A matter of justice. Language testing35, 449-476.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Deygers, B., B.Zeidler, D.Vilcu & C.Carlsen (2018b). One framework to unite them all? Use of the CEFR in European university entrance policies. Language assessment quarterly: Languagetests for academicenrolmentandthe CEFR15, 3-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Doeleman, R. (1998). Native reactions in non-native speech (Studies in multilingualism. Vol. 13). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
  16. Dragojevic, M., H.Giles, A.-C.Beck & N. T.Tatum (2017). The fluency principle: Why foreign accent strength negatively biases language attitudes. Communication monographs84, 385-405.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Edwards, J. (1982). Language attitudes and their implications among English speakers. In: E. B.Ryan & H.Giles (red.), Attitudes toward language variation: Social and applied contexts. London: Edward Arnold, 20-33.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Foulkes, P. (2010). Exploring social-indexical knowledge: A long past but a short history. Laboratory phonology1, 5-39.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fox.J. (2003). Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. Journal of Statistical Software8, 1-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fox, J. & S.Weisberg (2019). An RCompanionto Applied Regression (3de ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  21. Fuertes, J. N., W.Gottdiener, H.Martin, T.C.Gilbert & H.Giles (2012). A meta-analysis of the effects of speakers’ accents on interpersonal evaluations. European journal of social psychology42, 120-133.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Giles, H. (1970). Evaluative reactions to accents. Educational review22, 211-227.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gluszek, A. & J.F.Dovidio (2010). The way they speak: A social psychological perspective on the stigma of non-native accents in communication. Personality and social psychology review14, 214-237.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Grondelaers, S., P.van Gent & R.van Hout (2015). Is Moroccan-flavoured Standard Dutch standard or not? On the use of perceptual criteria to determine the limits of standard languages. In: A.Prikhodkine & D. R.Preston (red.), Responsestolanguage varieties: Variability, processes and outcomes. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 191-218.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Grondelaers, S., R.van Hout & P.van Gent (2016). Destandardization is not destandardization. Revising standardness criteria in order to revisit standard language typologies in the Low Countries. Taal en tongval68, 119-149.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Grondelaers, S. & P.van Gent (2019). How “deep” is Dynamism? Revisiting the evaluation of Moroccan-flavored Netherlandic Dutch. Linguistics vanguard5, 20180011.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. GrondelaersS, D.Speelman, C.Lybaert & P.van Gent (2020). Getting a (big) data- based grip on ideological change. Evidence from Belgian Dutch. Journal of linguistic geography8, 49-65.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hendriks, B., F.van Meurs & E.de Groot (2017). The effects of degrees of Dutch accentedness in ELF and in French, German and Spanish. International journal of applied linguistics27, 44-66.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hendriks, B., F.van Meurs, A.-K.Reimer (2018). The evaluation of lecturers’ non-native-accented English: Dutch and German students’ evaluations of different degrees of Dutch-accented and German-accented English of lecturers in higher education. Journal of English for academic purposes34, 28-45.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hosoda, M., E.Stone-Romero & J.Walter (2007). Listeners’ Cognitive and Affective Reactions to English Speakers with Standard American English and Asian Accents. Perceptual and motor skills104, 307-326.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hosoda, M. & E.Stone-Romero (2010). The effects of foreign accents on employment- related decisions. Journal of managerial psychology25, 113-132.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jacobs, C., S.Marzo & E.Zenner (2021). Sociale betekenis en taalvariatie in luisterverhalen voor Vlaamse kinderen. Nederlandse taalkunde26, 79-120.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Jongenburger, W. (2002). Taal is macht. Over taalattitudes in de multiculturele samenleving. In: H.Bennis, G.Extra, P.Muysken & J.Nortier (red.), Een buurt in beweging. Talen en culturen in het Utrechtse Lombok en Transvaal. Amsterdam: Aksant, 141-154.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lambert, W. E., R.C.Hodgson, R.C.Gardner & S.Fillenbaum (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. The journal of abnormal and social psychology60, 44-51.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lenth, R. (2019). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.3.5.1. <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans>
  37. Lev-Ari, S. & B.Keysar (2010). Why don’t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of experimental social psychology46, 1093-1096.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lindemann, S. (2003). Koreans, Chinese or Indians? Attitudes and ideologies about non-native English speakers in the United States. Journal of sociolinguistics7, 348-364.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lindemann, S. (2005). Who speaks “broken English”? U.S. undergraduates’ perceptions of non-native English. International journal of applied linguistics15, 187-212.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in society23, 163-198.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent (2de ed.). London: Routledge.
  42. Lüdecke, D. (2018). ggeffects: Tidy Data Frames of Marginal Effects from Regression Models. Journal of Open Source Software3, 772.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Marzo, S. (2015). Exploring the social meaning of contemporary urban vernaculars: Perceptions and attitudes about Citetaal in Flanders. International journal of bilingualism20, 501-521.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Mettewie, L. & R.Janssens (2007). Language use and language attitudes in Brussels. In: D.Lasagabaster & Á.Huguet (red.), Multilingualism in European bilingual contexts: Language use and attitudes. Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 117-251.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Nederlandse Taalunie (2018). Gemeenschappelijk Europees referentiekader voor moderne vreemde talen: leren, onderwijzen, beoordelen. Supplement met nieuwe descriptoren. Den Haag: Nederlandse Taalunie.
  46. Nejjari, W., M.Gerritsen, M.Van Der Haagen & H.Korzilius. (2012). Responses to Dutch-accented English. World Englishes31, 248-267.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. NejjariW, M.Gerritsen, R.van Hout & B.Planken (2020). Where does a ‘foreign’ accent matter? German, Spanish and Singaporean listeners’ reactions to Dutch-accented English, and standard British and American English accents. PLoS ONE15, e0231089.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Nortier, J. & M.Dorleijn (2008). A Moroccan accent in Dutch: A sociocultural style restricted to the Moroccan community?International journal of bilingualism12, 125-142.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Pantos, A. J. & A.W.Perkins (2012). Measuring implicit and explicit attitudes toward foreign accented speech. Journal of language and social psychology32, 3-20.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Purnell, T., W.Idsardi & J.Baugh (1999). Perceptual and phonetic experiments on American English dialect identification. Journal of language and social psychology18, 10-30.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, <https://www.R-project.org>.
  52. Revelle, W. (2019) psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. R package version 1.9.12, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.
  53. Rosseel, L., D.Speelman & D.Geeraerts (2019). The relational responding task (RRT): A novel approach to measuring social meaning of language variation. Linguistics vanguard5, 20180012.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Ryan, E. B., M.A.Carranza & R.W.Moff ie (1977). Reactions toward varying degrees of accentedness in the speech of Spanish-English bilinguals. Language and speech20, 267-273.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Squires, L. (2013). It don’t go both ways: Limited bidirectionality in sociolinguistic perception. Journal of sociolinguistics17, 200-37.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Todd, W.R. & P.Pojanapunya (2009). Implicit attitudes towards native and non-native speaker teachers. System37, 23-33.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer.
  58. Wickham, H., R.François, L.Henry & K.lMüller (2019). dplyr: AGrammarof Data Manipulation. R package version 0.8.3, <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr>.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.2.004.ROSS
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.2.004.ROSS
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error