Embedded Files
What exactly is "phonological awareness"?
Phonological awareness in the L1 tradition
Traditionally phonological awareness has been examined in the context of L1 literacy acquisition. In this context, it is most frequently defined as the ability to manipulate, segment and detect speech sounds (Oakhill & Kyle, 2000:152). Phonological awareness thus involves explicit knowledge about the L1 phonology and the ability to think about the sound structure of the language as an object.
However, some researchers acknowledge that L1 phonological awareness also entails implicit knowledge, which is manifested through sensitivity to acceptable and unacceptable L1 phonological patterns, and reflected in accurate speech perception and production (Cunningham & Carroll, 2015; Geudens, 2006; Gombert, 1992; Goodman, Libenson, & Wade-Woolley, 2010; Lance, Swanson, & Peterson, 1997). Implicit phonological awareness develops naturally through language contact and does not require instruction, contrary to explicit phonological awareness. Even very young infants show sensitivity to the segmental and suprasegmental aspects of their L1 (e.g., Johnson & Jusczyk, 2001; Kuhl et al., 2008; Mattys & Jusczyk, 2001).
Research on explicit L1 phonological awareness has been extensive, and evidence for its positive relation to literacy achievement is abundant; literacy increases phonological awareness and phonological awareness predicts literacy achievement (e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Bryant, MacLean, Bardley & Crossland, 1990; Goswami & Bryant, 1990; Stanovich, 1992; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987; Yopp, 1988). On the contrary, research on implicit L1 phonological awareness has been scarcer. Some evidence exists that the two facets of L1 phonological awareness are positively related (Lance et al., 1997).
Phonological awareness in second language acquisition
In SLA, the term "phonological awareness" has not been widely employed. Instead, terms such as "pronunciation awareness" (Kennedy, Blanchet, & Trofimovich, 2014), "phonological metacompetence" (Wrembel, 2006), "metaphonetic awareness" (Wrembel, 2011), and "phonetic/phonological sensitivity" (Piske, 2008) have been used. As with L1 phonological awareness, researchers have favored the investigation of the explicit aspect of L2 phonological awareness (e.g. Kennedy & Trofimovich, 2010; Moore, 1997; Ramírez Verdugo, 2006). Explicit L2 phonological awareness is evident in declarative knowledge about the L2 phonology, such as the provision of pronunciation rules. Yet other researchers have understood L2 phonological awareness in the same manner as L1 phonological awareness: as the ability to manipulate L2 phones (Venkatagiri & Levis, 2007).
Nevertheless, understanding L2 phonological awareness as consisting of declarative knowledge about L2 phonology only, or as tapping into the same cognitive factors as in children learning their L1 is inadequate.
For one, defining phonological awareness as the ability to manipulate phones is not cognitively adequate when talking about adult L2 acquisition. Adults do not actively engage in phonological manipulation and segmentation practices once literacy has been achieved (Defior, Gutiérrez-Palma, & Cano-Marín, 2012; Scarborough, Ehri, Olson, & Fowler, 1998). Consequently, it makes little theoretical sense to take these skills in adults as a reflection of their phonological awareness. Adults and children also differ greatly in terms of cognitive processing, type of language input and learning strategies, to name but a few. Additionally, adults learning a second language are building the L2 phonology through their L1 phonology. They thus are not starting from a blank slate-state contrary to L1 acquisition, but need to override the pre-existing L1 neural connections in order to acquire the L2 phonology accurately (Ellis, 2002). Adult L2 learners are also exposed to poorer quality and quantity input than children learning their L1 phonology. For these reasons, transferring the definitions and instruments from explicit L1 phonological awareness research to L2 is a gross simplification.
On the other hand, focusing only the explicit, verbalizable aspect of L2 phonological awareness only a fraction of the knowledge L2 learners possess about their L2 phonology is tapped into. Adult language users are usually not aware about the pronunciation rules of their L1 or L2, unless they belong to the small minority who has undergone specific phonetic training. They are frequently unable to elaborate on why a given a sound, combination of sounds or a rhythmic pattern is inadequate. Yet, they are able to perceive pronunciation mistakes, inadequate intonation patterns, spot foreign or regional accents and perceive and produce L2 speech accurately (to varying extents depending on the state of their L2 phonology). This is why I propose that L2 phonological awareness is best understood as consisting mostly of proceduralized, non-verbalizable, knowledge, rather than declarative and verbalizable knowledge. Phonological awareness in the L2 can be depicted as in the following figure:
Phonological awareness in L2, as defined in Kivistö-de Souza (2015: 105) refers to the "knowledge about the target language phonological system at the segmental, prosodic and phonotactic domains, most of which is not available for conscious reflection or verbalization". As can be seen from the figure, only the tip of the iceberg is made of explicit knowledge, and this type of phonological awareness is not necessarily present in all language learners. However, all language learners will possess proceduralized knowledge about their L2 phonology (to varying extents). The two types of knowledge, declarative and proceduralized, interact. Phonological awareness in the L2 is seen to be manifested in the segmental (phonological and allophonic), phonotactic and prosodic domains. Consequently, L2 phonological awareness is gradient (+/- accurate in quantity and quality) and domain-specific.
Adapted from Kivistö-de Souza (2015)
Bradley, L., Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sound and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419–421.
Bryant, P. E., MacLean, M., Bradley, L. L., Crossland, J. (1990). Rhyme and alliteration, phoneme detection, and learning to read. Developmental Psychology, 26, 429–438.
Cunningham, A., Carroll, J. (2015). Early predictors of phonological and morphological awareness and the link with reading: Evidence from children with different patterns of early deficit. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 509-531.
Defior, S., Gutiérrez-Palma, N., Cano-Marín, M.J. (2012). Prosodic awareness skills and literacy acquisition in Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 41, 285-294.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 297-339.
Geudens, A. (2006). Phonological awareness and learning to read a first language: Controversies and new perspectives. LOT Occasional Series, 6, 25-43.
Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. Chicago, IL: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Goodman, I., Libenson, A., Wade-Woolley, L. (2010). Sensitivity to linguistic stress, phonological awareness and early reading ability in preschoolers. Journal of Research in Reading. 33, 113-127.
Goswami, U., Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson, E., Jusczyk, P. (2001). Word segmentation by 8-month-olds: When speech cues count more than statistics. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 548-567.
Kennedy, S., Blanchet, J., Trofimovich, P. (2014). Learner pronunciation, awareness, and instruction in French as a second language. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 79-96.
Kennedy, S., Trofimovich, P. (2010). Language awareness and second language pronunciation: a classroom study. Language Awareness, 19, 171-185.
Kivistö-de Souza, H. (2015). Phonological awareness and pronunciation in a second language (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.
Kuhl, P., Conboy, B., Coffrey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Nelson, T. (2008). Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: New data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 12, 979-1000.
Lance, D., Swanson, L., Peterson, H. (1997). A validity study of an implicit phonological awareness paradigm. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 40, 1002-1010.
Mattys, S., Jusczyk, P. (2001). Phonotactic cues for segmentation of fluent speech by infants. Cognition, 78, 91-121.
Moore, H. (1997). Learning pronunciation and intonation of Japanese through drama by beginning language students: A case for reflective journals. Japanese Association of Language Teachers Journal, 19, 235–269.
Oakhill, J., Kyle, F. (2000). The relation between phonological awareness and working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75, 152-164.
Piske, T. (2008). Phonetic awareness, phonetic sensitivity and the second language learner. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education Vol. 6: Knowledge about language (pp. 155-166). New York: Springer Science.
Ramírez Verdugo, D. (2006). A study of intonation awareness and learning in non-native speakers of English. Language Awareness, 15, 141-159.
Scarborough, H., Ehri, L., Olson, R., Fowler, A. (1998). The fate of phonemic awareness beyond the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading 2, 115-142.
Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Speculations on the causes and consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.
Venkatagiri, H. S., Levis, J. (2007). Phonological awareness and speech comprehensibility: An exploratory study. Language Awareness, 16, 263-277.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.
Wrembel, M. (2006). Consciousness in pronunciation teaching and learning. In IATEFL Poland Newsletter, Post-Conference Edition, 26 (pp. 11-20). Warszawa: IATEFL.
Wrembel, M. (2011). Metaphonetic awareness in the production of speech. In M. Pawlak, E. Waniek-Klimczak & J. Majer (Eds.), Speaking and instructed foreign language acquisition (pp. 169-182). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 159-177.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse