oa Verstaanbaarheid als interactioneel en contextgebonden fenomeen

References

1. Babel, M. & J.Russell (2015). Expectations and speech intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America137, 2823-2833.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Baquirán, C.L. & E.Nicoladis (2020). A doctor’s foreign accent affects perceptions of competence. Health Communication35, 726-730.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Beinhoff, B. (2014). Perceiving intelligibility and accentedness in non-native speech: A look at proficiency levels. Concordia Working Papers in Applied Linguistics5, 59-72.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bent, T. & A.R.Bradlow (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America114, 1600-1610.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bezooijen, R. van, & C.S.Gooskens (2005). Intertalig tekstbegrip. De begrijpelijkheid van Friese en Afrikaanse teksten voor Nederlandse lezers. Nederlandse Taalkunde10, 129-152.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bohn, O.S. & M.J.Munro (red.) (2007). Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bommel, E. Van, I.Blessenaar & L.van Ewijk (2017). Over luisteren, verstaan en spreken. Het verbeteren van de verstaanbaarheid van de NT2-leerder. LES. Tijdschrift voor taal in het onderwijs204, 44-47.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Boonen, U. & I.Harmes (2012). Welk Nederlands voor Duitstaligen? Nederlandse taalverwerving en Nederlandse taalkunde vanuit Duits perspectief. In: K.Absillis, J.Jaspers & S.Van Hoof (red.), De manke usurpator. Over Verkavelingsvlaams. Gent: Academia Press, 349-370.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bradlow, A. & T.Bent (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition106, 707-729.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Bresnahan, M., Ohashi, R., Nebashi, R. & Shearman, S. (2002). Attitudinal and affective response toward accented English. Language and Communication22, 171-185.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Broersma, M. & A.Cutler (2011). Competition dynamics of second-language listening. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology64, 74-95.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Broselow, E. & H.-B.Park (1995). Mora conservation in second language prosody. In J.Archibald (red.), Phonological acquisition and phonological theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 151-168.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33, 185-209.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Council of Europe (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. <www.coe.int/lang-cefr>
15. Davies, A. (2013). Native speakers and native users. Loss and gain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Derwing, T., H.Fraser, O.Kang & R.Thomson (2014). L2 Accent and ethics: Issues that merit attention. In: A.Mahboob & L.Barratt (red.), Englishes in Multilingual Contexts. New York: Springer, 63-80.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Eisenchlas, S. & C.Tsurutani (2011). You sound attractive! Perceptions of accented English in a multilingual environment. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics34, 216-236.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Eisenstein, M. & G.Verdi (1985). The intelligibility of social dialects for working-class adult learners of English. Language Learning35, 287-298.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Europees Referentiekader: Gemeenschappelijk Europees Referentiekader voor Moderne Talen: leren, onderwijzen, beoordelen. Supplement met nieuwe descriptoren, Nederlandse Taalunie. <http://taalunieversum.org/sites/tuv/files/downloads/ERK%20%20Supplement%20met%20nieuwe%20descriptoren.pdf>
20. Flege, J. (1992). The intelligibility of English vowels produced by British and Dutch talkers. In R.Kent (red.) Intelligibility in speech sisorders: Theory, measurement, and management. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 157-232.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Gass, S.M. & E.M.Varonis (1985). Task variation and non-native/non-native negotiation of meaning. In: S.M.Gass & C.G.Madden (red.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 149-161.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Goedegebure, M. (2016). De verstaanbaarheid van Aziatische NT2-cursisten. Vakwerk10, bevat de lezingen van de BVNT2 Conferentie in Amsterdam, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Gooskens, C. (2006). Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of Inter-Scandinavian intelligibility. Linguistics in the Netherlands23, 101-113.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Gooskens, C., V.van Heuven, R.van Bezooijen & J.J.A.Pacilly (2010). Is spoken Danish less intelligible than Swedish?Speech Communication52, 1022-1037.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Grondelaers, S. & P.van Gent (2019). How “deep” is Dynamism? Revisiting the evaluation of Moroccan-flavored Netherlandic Dutch. Linguistics Vanguard5, 20180011.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Hayes-Harb, R., B.L.Smith, T.Bent & A.R.Bradlow. (2008) The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit for native speakers of Mandarin: Production and perception of English word-final voicing contrasts. Journal of Phonetics36(4), 664-679.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Horner, K. & J.Weber (2018). Introducing multilingualism. A Social Approach. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Jaspers, J. (2005). Tegenwerken, belachelijk doen: talige sabotage van Marokkaanse jongens op een Antwerpse middelbare school: een sociolinguïstische etnografie. Brussel: VUB Press.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Jong, N. De, M.Steinel, A.Florijn, R.Schoonen & J.Hulstijn (2012). Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition34, 5-34.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Kang, O., R.I.Thompson & M.Moran (2018). Empirical Approaches to Measuring the Intelligibility of Different Varieties of English in Predicting Listener Comprehension. Language Learning68, 115-146.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Kloots, H. & S.Gillis (2012). Bang voor Babel: De verstaanbaarheid van tussentaal. In K.Absillis, J.Jaspers & S.Van Hoof (eds.), De manke usurpator. Over Verkavelingsvlaams. Gent: Academia Press, 225-247.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Lennon, P. (2000). The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H.Riggenbach (red.), Perspectives on fluency. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 25-42.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Lindeman, S. (2002). Listening with an attitude: a model of native-speaker comprehension of non-native speakers in the United States. Language in Society31, 419-441.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Lindeman, S. (2005). Who speaks “broken English”? US undergraduates’ perceptions of non-native English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics15, 187-212.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in Society23, 163-198.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage, Spoken Corpus of Learner English. <https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ilc/cecl/lindsei.html>
37. Lowe, R.J. (2020). Ideology and Othering in English language teaching: Introducing the ‘native speaker’ frame. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Lowie, W. (2004). De toekomst van het uitspraakonderwijs. Levende Talen5, 3-12.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Lybaert, C. & E.Van Hest (2020). Standaardnederlands, de sleutel tot integratie in Vlaanderen? Over de uitdagingen van substandaardtaal voor taalleerders in Vlaanderen. Nederlandse Taalkunde25, 125-159.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Lybaert, C., E.Van Hest & S.Van Cleemputte (2019). Over de tweestrijd tussen taalnorm en taalrealiteit: hoe NT2-leerkrachten uit een Gentse school worstelen met substandaardtalige niet-standaardtalige variatie in het NT2-onderwijs. Internationale Neerlandistiek57, 205-224.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Marynissen, A. (2010). Welk Nederlands voor Duitstaligen? Belgisch-Nederlands: het standpunt van de buitenlandse neerlandistiek. Verslagen & Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde3, 25-44.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Meeuwis, M. (1994). Leniency and testiness in intercultural communication: Remarks on ideology and context in interactional sociolinguistics. Pragmatics4, 391-408.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Munro, M.J., & T.M.Derwing (1995a). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning45, 73-97.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Munro, M.J., & T.M.Derwing (1995b). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech38, 289-306.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Munro, M.J. (2008). Foreign accent and speech intelligibility. In: J.G.Hansen Edwards & M.L.Zampini (red.), Phonology and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 193-218.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other languages. TESOL Quarterly25, 481-520.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Norris, D., J.McQueen & A.Cutler (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology47, 204-238.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Nyssen, S. (in voorbereiding). Language and employability. A sociolinguistic ethnography of the activation of migrant job seekers in Flanders. Doctoraal proefschrift, Universiteit Gent.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Pennington, M. (1998). The teachability of phonology in adulthood: A re-examination. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching36, 323-342.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Pérez-Ramón, R., M.Cooke & M.García Lecumberri (2020). Is segmental foreign accent perceived categorically. Speech Communication117, 28-37.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Pinget, A.-F., H.R.Bosker, H.Quené & N.De Jong (2014). Native speakers’ perceptions of fluency and accent in L2 speech. Language Testing31, 349-365.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Rajadurai, J. (2007). Intelligiblity studies: a consideration of empirical and ideological issues. In Forum: Ideology and intelligibility. World Englishes26, 87-98.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Rubin, D.M. (1992). Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates’ judgements of non-native English-speaking teaching assistants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations14, 337-353.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Ruck, J. & N.Shafer (2020). Introduction to the special issue. In: J.Ruck & N.Shafer (red. themanummer), National Standards – Local Varieties: A cross-linguistic discussion on regional variation in L2 studies. Critical Multilingualism Studies8, 1-16.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Saito, K., M.Tran, Y.Suzukida, H.Sun, V.Magne & M.Ilkan, M. (2019). How do second language listeners perceive the comprehensibility of foreign-accented speech? Roles of L1 profiles, L2 proficiency, age, experience, familiarity and metacognition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition41, 1133-1149.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Saito, K., P.Trofimovich & T.Isaacs (2017). Using listener judgements to investigate linguistic influences on L2 comprehensibility and accentedness: A validation and generalization study. Applied Linguistics38, 439-462.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Shaw, J.A., C.T.Best, G.Docherty, B.G.Evans, P.Foulkes, J.Hay & K.E.Mulak (2018). Resilience of English vowel perception across regional accent variation. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology9, 1-36.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Sheppard, B.E., N.C.Elliott & M.M.Baese-Berk (2017). Comprehensibility and intelligibility of international student speech: Comparing perceptions of university EAP instructors and content faculty. Journal of English for Academic Purposes26, 42-51.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Simon, E., C.Lybaert & K.Plevoets (te verschijnen). Social attitudes, intelligibility and comprehensibility: the role of the listener in the perception of non-native speech, VIGO International Journal of Applied Linguistics, gereviseerde versie ingediend.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Taylor Reid, K., P.Trofimovich & M.G.O’Brien (2019). Social attitudes and speech ratings. Effects of positive and negative bias on multiage listeners’ judgments of second language speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition41, 419-442.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Theissen, S. (2006). Welk Nederlands of wat voor Nederlands voor Franstalige studenten?Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en GeschiedenisLIX, 129-137.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Trinity-Lancaster Corpus, Spoken Learner Corpus of English. <https://www.trinitycollege.com/about-us/research/Trinity-corpus>
63. Verboog, M. (2007). Verstaanbaar spreken: wat helpt en wat niet?Vakwerk 4, lezingen die zijn gehouden op de studiemiddag Uitspraak & verstavaardigheid, gehouden in juni 2007 aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Weber, A. & A.Cutler (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language50, 1-25.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Wijnendaele, I. Van (2018). Het Nederlands van anderstaligen. Een speaker evaluation experiment naar de covert attitudes van Oost-Vlamingen tegenover exogeen getint Nederlands. Ongepubliceerde masterscriptie, Universiteit Gent.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Wijngaarden, S. Van (2001). Intelligibility of native and non-native Dutch speech. Speech Communication35, 103-113.
    [Google Scholar]
67. Winke, P., S.Gass & C.Myford (2013). Raters’ L2 background as a potential source of bias in rating oral performance. Language Testing30, 231-252.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Zuallaert, J. (2020). Waarom we zo streng zijn voor buitenlandse accenten: ‘Vlamingen stellen hogere taaleisen aan buitenlanders dan aan zichzelf’. Knack 30.9.2020.
    [Google Scholar]