語速對聽力理解的影響

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Master Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 語速對聽力理解的影響. The Effects of Speech Rate on Listening Comprehension. 指導教授：陳齊瑞 Advisor: Dr. Chyi-Ruey Chen 研究生：葛淑瑄. 中華民國九十九年二月 February, 2010.

(2) CHINESE ABSTRCT. 本研究旨在檢視慢速語速和逐漸加快語速對於台灣大學生聽力理解的影響。此研究實行兩個階段的實驗，分別為第一階段的慢速語速實驗和第二階段的逐漸加快語速實驗。在第一階段的實驗中，研究對象是 60 名國立師範大學的學生。所有研究對象依照其前測的成績分成 A 組、B 組和 C 組接受聽力測驗；此三組的聽力測驗以不同的語速播放，語速分別為:A 組的「過慢語速」 (每分鐘 130 字以下)、B 組的「慢語速」 (每分鐘 130 到 150 字)、和 C 組的「正常語速」(每分鐘 150 到 170 字)。而參加第二階段的實驗是 23 名國立師範大學的學生，所有研究對象分成 D 組和 E 組兩個訓練組別。此兩組聆聽一樣的聽力文本，但文本由不同的語速模式播放。D 組聆聽「逐漸加快」語速，而 E 組聆聽「正常語速」。兩組的訓練皆為期四個禮拜，受試者一天聽一則新聞，一個禮拜聽五天。每一組一個禮拜會做一次集體的聽力練習。此練習中，受訓的同學需要在聽完一則新聞之後做自由回想。訓練結束後，每一位受訓者接受同樣正常語速的聽力測驗。整個實驗在半結構式訪談後結束。研究結果摘要如下: 一. 和正常語速相較，每分鐘 130 字以下的過慢語速對英語聽力理解的幫助顯著。二. 以內容主旨的聽力表現而言，逐漸加快語速對學生的幫助比正常語速的幫助顯著；但對於細節內容的聽力表現而言，逐漸加快語速和正常語速並無顯差異。三. 在接受逐漸加快語速訓練的四個受試者中，只有一位有察覺語速的變化，此顯示語言學習者對於語速變化的感知能力是不足的。 i.

(3) 根據研究的結果，英語老師可以將語速放慢至過慢語速以有效增進學生對真實新聞的聽力理解。而在增進學生聽力能力的訓練上，老師可以藉由逐漸加快的語速來幫助學生理解主旨的聽力能力。最後，由於結果顯示語言學習者對於語速變化的感知能力不足，語速實驗的研究者藉用語言學習者的感官來判別語速的快慢證明是不恰當的研究方法。. ii.

(4) ENGLISH ABSTRACT. This study aims to investigate the effects of the slowed-down speech rate and the gradually-increasing speech rate on Taiwanese college students’ listening comprehension. Experiments were conducted in two phases; the effects of the slowed-down speech rate were examined in the first phase of the experiments, whereas the effects of the gradually-increasing speech rate were explored in the second phase of the experiments. Sixty college students in National Taiwan Normal University took part in the first phase of the experiments. These participants, based on their pretest scores, were divided into three groups (Group A, B, and C) and took the same listening comprehension test delivered at different speech rates. Group A listened to the passages with a slower-than-normal speech rate (below 130 wpm), Group B listened to the passages with a moderately slow speech rate (130 to 150 wpm), and Group C listened to the passages with an average speech rate (150 to 170 wpm). Concerning the second phase of the experiments, 23 college students in National Taiwan Normal University were recruited. The participants were divided into two training groups, Group D and Group E, and listened to the same passages delivered at different speech rate conditions. Group D listened to the passage with a gradually-increasing speech rate while Group E listened to the passages with a consistent average speech rate. During the four week training, participants listened to one entry of news uploaded on a Web log five days a week and met once a week to conduct in-class listening on a group basis. During the in-class listening, participants were required to do free recall after listening to one news entry. A listening comprehension test delivered at the iii.

(5) average speech rate was administered at the end of the training. A semi-structured interview concluded the entire training program. Major findings of the study are summarized as below. First, a slower-than-normal speech rate (below 130 WPM) resulted in the greatest enhancement of listening comprehension compared to the average speech rate. Second, the gradually-increasing speech rate, compared to steady average speech rate, has a stronger facilitative effect on improving participants’ listening ability of listening for the gist. Regarding listening for detail, no significant difference was revealed between the gradually-increasing speech rate and the average speech rate. Third, three of the four participants under the gradually-increasing speech rate were not aware of the change of the speech rate, suggesting that language learners’ perceptions of speech rate are not reliable. Results of this study showed that English teachers could slow down the speech rate of authentic news to slower-than-normal speech rate to effectively enhance listeners’ listening comprehension levels. With regard to the training intended to improve students’ listening performances, the gradually-increasing speech rate could be adopted to improve listeners’ ability to listen for the gist. Finally, researchers of rate studies were informed that it is a problematic, illegitimate approach to categorize the speech rate based on listeners’ perceptions.. iv.

(6) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. This thesis would not have been completed without the help of the following people. First, Dr. Chyi-Ruey Chen has given her wholehearted support throughout my thesis writing. She is always willing to share her insightful ideas with me. My deepest gratitude also goes to the committee members, Dr. Wen-Da Tseng and Dr. Xiao-Ping Tian for their professional advice and constructive comments to improve the quality of my thesis. Special thanks go to Dr. Wen-Da Tseng for taking so much time answering my questions and offering me invaluable suggestions. My gratitude further extends to Dr. Chun-yin Doris Chen for her kindness to offer help during the data collection. I am grateful for all the participants, who volunteered to take part in my research. And I am deeply indebted to the raters and coder, Terence, Candice, and Jessica, for helping me go through the tedious process. Finally, I would like to give thanks to all my friends and family, who believed in me when I questioned myself on this stressful journey.. v.

(7) TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHINESE ABSTRCT .............................................................................................. i ENGLISH ABSTRACT ......................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................ vi LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1 1.1. Background and Motivation....................................................................... 1 1.2. The Purpose of the Study ........................................................................... 5 1.3. 1.4. 1.5.. Research Question and Hypotheses ............................................................ 6 The Value of the Study............................................................................... 7 Definition of Terms .................................................................................. 10. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................... 12 2.1. Listening Comprehension ........................................................................ 12 2.2. Speech Rate ............................................................................................. 14 2.2.1. Studies on the Effect of Slowed-down Speech Rate on Listening 15 Comprehension ........................................................................................ 15 2.2.2. Studies on the Effect of Time-compressed Speech on Listening .. 22 Comprehension ........................................................................................ 22 2.2.3. Summary .................................................................................. 24 2.3. Rate-controlled training ........................................................................... 24 2.4. Speech Rate Categorized by Different Perspective ................................... 28 2.4.1. Speech Rate Categorized by Learners’ Perspective ................... 29 2.4.2. Speech Rate Categorized by Textual Perspective....................... 30 2.4.3. Summary .................................................................................. 32 2.5. Broadcast News ....................................................................................... 32 2.6. Listening Comprehension Tests................................................................ 35 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY........................................................... 38 3.1. Participants .............................................................................................. 38 3.2. Data Collection Instruments ..................................................................... 39 3.2.1. Background Questionnaire ....................................................... 39 3.2.2. Adapted TOEIC ........................................................................ 40 3.2.3. VOA Broadcast News................................................................ 41 vi.

(8) 3.3.. 3.2.4. 3.2.5.. CoolEdit Software..................................................................... 45 The Listening Comprehension Test............................................ 46. 3.2.6. 3.2.7.. Background Knowledge Questionnaire ..................................... 48 Free Recall Protocol................................................................. 49. 3.2.8. Semi-structured Interview ......................................................... 50 Data Collection Procedures ...................................................................... 51 3.3.1. 3.3.2.. The Pilot Study ......................................................................... 51 Phase one for first research question ........................................ 52. 3.3.3.. Phase two for the second research question .............................. 53. CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS ............................................................................ 55 4.1. The effect of the slowed-down speech rate on listening comprehension.... 55 4.2. The effect of the gradually-increasing speech rate on listening comprehension ........................................................................................................ 58 4.2.1. The Second Research Question ................................................. 58 4.2.2. Data Analysis Procedure of Free Recall Protocol ..................... 59 4.2.3. Results of the Temporal and Conditional Differences of Group D and Group E ............................................................................................ 61 4.2.4. Results of the Semi-structured Interview ................................... 70 CHAPTER FIVE DISSCUSSION ..................................................................... 73 5.1. The Effect of Slowed-down Speech Rate on Listening Comprehension.... 73 5.2. The Effect of Gradually-increasing Speech Rate on Listening Comprehension ....................................................................................................... 77 5.3. Learners’ Perception on Speech Rate........................................................ 82 CHAPTER SIX CONLUSION .......................................................................... 84 6.1. Summary of Major Findings .................................................................... 84 6.2. Pedagogical Implications ......................................................................... 85 6.3. Limitation of the Study ............................................................................ 87 6.4. Suggestion for Future Research................................................................ 89 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 91 Appendix A ............................................................................................................. 91 Appendix B ............................................................................................................. 92 Appendix C ............................................................................................................100 Appendix D............................................................................................................104 Appendix E ............................................................................................................131 Appendix F ............................................................................................................134 Appendix G............................................................................................................135 Appendix H............................................................................................................136 Appendix I .............................................................................................................142 vii.

(9) Appendix J .............................................................................................................143 Appendix K............................................................................................................144 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................145. viii.

(10) LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Standard speech rate in Pimsleur et al. (1977) ....................................... 32 Table 2: The range of speech rate in Tauroza and Allison (1990) ........................ 32 Table 3: The time limit for the Adapted TOEIC .................................................. 41 Table 4: The two listening texts for the listening comprehension test ................. 42 Table 5: The 20 listening texts for the four-week training ................................... 43 Table 6: True/False and Short Answer Questions Test......................................... 48 Table 7: Results of one-way ANOVA measuring the pre-test scores of Group A, B, and C ................................................................................................................. 56 Table 8: Means and standard deviations of Group A, B, and C .......................... 56 Table 9: Results of one-way ANOVA measuring listening comprehension scores of Group A, B, and C............................................................................................. 57 Table 10: Results of Multiple Comparison measuring listening comprehension scores for Group A, B, and C ................................................................................ 58 Table 11: The number of idea units .................................... 錯誤! 錯誤尚未定義書籤。尚未定義書籤。 Table 12: Results of Independent-Sample t-test measuring pretest scores for Group D and Group E........................................................................................... 62 Table 13 :Results of Independent-Sample t-test measuring main idea scores of Group D and Group E........................................................................................... 63 Table 14: Results of Independent-Sample t-test measuring detail scores of Group D and Group E ...................................................................................................... 64 Table 15: Results of one-way repeated measure ANOVA analyzing main idea scores of Group D .................................................................................................. 65 Table 16:Results of one-way repeated measure ANOVA analyzing the detail scores of Group D .................................................................................................. 66 Table 17: Results of MANOVA analyzing detail scores of Group D .................... 66 Table 18: Results of one-way repeated measure ANOVA analyzing the main idea scores of Group E .................................................................................................. 67 Table 19: Results of MANOVA analyzing the main idea scores of Group E ....... 68 Table 20: One-way repeated measure ANOVA of detail scores for Group E ...... 69 Table 21: Results of MANOVA analyzing detail scores of Group E .................... 69 Table 22: Results of Independent-Sample t-test measuring listening comprehension scores of Group D and Group E.................................................. 70 Table 23: Results of Multiple Comparison measuring listening comprehension ix.

(11) test scores without confounding data of Group A, B, and C................................ 74. x.

(12) CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. 1.1. Background and Motivation Listening comprehension has become a central issue in the field of second and foreign language learning; however, it is still the least understood skill compared to other language skills (Feyten, 1991; Nunan, 1999; Vandergrift, 2004, 2007). A growing number of researchers have been exploring the nature of listening by examining the effect of specific factors on listening comprehension. In terms of unidirectional listening, the factors consist of listener factors and text factors. For the listener factors, grammatical knowledge (Mecartty, 2000), vocabulary knowledge (Kelly, 1991; Mecartty, 2000; Lin, 2005), background knowledge (Chang & Read, 2006; Chiang & Dunkel, 1992;Dunkel, 1986; Hu, 2000; Jensen & Hansen, 1995; Lai, 2004; Long, 1990; Markham & Latham, 1987; Schmidt,1994; Yang, 2002) and anxiety level (Vogely, 1998; Cheng, 2005; Lin, 2005; Elkhafaifi, 2005) have been studied. As for the text factors, syntactical complexity (Blau, 1988; Cervantes & Gainer, 1992; Teng, 2001b), repetition (Chang, 1999; Chang & Read, 2007; Chaudron, 1983; Chiang & Dunkel, 1992; Cervantes & Gainer, 1992; Jensen & Vinther, 2003; Parker & Chaudron, 1987), pauses (Blau, 1990) have been given a good deal of attention. While studies on these factors have reached a rather satisfactory conclusion since there were consistent results across studies, the speech rate factor, one of the temporal variables, has yielded contradictory outcomes. In other words, the effect of speech rate on listening comprehension has not yet arrived at a satisfactory conclusion, thus demanding a closer examination. It is commonly assumed that the slowed-down speech rate would facilitate 1.

(13) listening comprehension; nevertheless, a comparison of the empirical research has shown that it is a highly-debated and unsettled issue. Whereas some researchers advocated that the slowed-down speech rate would facilitate listening comprehension (Conrad, 1989; Griffiths, 1990b; 1991a; Zhao, 1997; Teng, 2002), other researchers stated that the speech rate would only become a facilitator in listening comprehension when it interacted with other variables (Blau, 1990; King & Behnke, 1989; Anderson & Koehler, 1988; Rader, 1991). This diverted outcome was attributed from two critical, and yet overlooked elements in the previous rate studies. The first overlooked element was that the speech rate categorization, used as a standard to categorize speech rate as fast or slow, varied from study to study, impeding the comparison between rate studies. Although some rate studies (Dunkel.1988; Teng, 2002) did adopt the same speech rate categorization mapped out by Pimsleur’s (1977), it was a questionable adoption (Allison and Tauroza, 1990) because Pimsleur’s speech rate categorization, measured on the basis of both English and French speakers, was applied in the listening materials that were delivered by English speakers. Building on the fact that speech rate would vary from language to language, the adoption was apparently inadequate. In addition, the standard speech rate categorization might vary with text types. However, as found in Dunkel’s study (1988), the speech rate of lectures was categorized based on the speech rate categorization measured by Pimsleur et al. (1977) using broadcast news. This application was therefore illegitimate. The second neglected element was the instrument used to alter the speech rate in the previous rate studies. A “live-voice” was often used to change the speech rate of the same listening text, but this method cannot guarantee a high precision of the adjusted speech rate, which is a prerequisite for obtaining a valid outcome that would withstand the test of time. 2.

(14) A speech rate categorization used as a standard to categorize the speech rate and a rate adjustment instrument employed as a tool to alter the speech rare were carefully treated in this study, which allows closer examination and fuller exploration of the effect of the speech rate on listening comprehension. Among all modes of speech rates, the effect of slowed-down speech rate on increasing language learners’ listening comprehension is believed by many. However, when it came to the use of it in authentic material, the viewpoints differed. According to Vandergrift (2007), the speech rate in authentic material should not be modified for the purpose of keeping the authentic quality. This study, though, proposed that the increased listening comprehension resulting from slowing down the speech rate is more important than simply keeping the authentic quality. It is definite that the authentic quality should not be dismissed; nevertheless, it might be more essential to increase language learners’ listening comprehension of authentic materials. The significance of authentic material that equips learners’ real-life language proficiency (Richards, 2006; Vandergrift, 2007) has received strong supports from teachers and researchers. Additionally, language learners often comments on the authentic material as the most difficult material. By slowing down the speech rate of authentic material, language learners’ might find the authentic material less intimidating. The major challenge among all kinds of authentic materials faced by the language learners was the news genre (Kim, 2002; Robin, 2007; Shohamy&Inbar 1991; Weissenrieder, 1987) due to the fact that news is a specialized register with heavy cultural reference, rich vocabulary, and, the most evident of all, the rather fast speech flow. Based on the studies done by Kim (2002), Su (2007), and Vogely (1998), the delivery speed is one of the main factors that raised the students’ anxiety, thus debilitating listening comprehension, which is especially true for low proficiency learners as demonstrated by Buck’s (2001) analysis on the listening parts in TOEIC 3.

(15) (Test of English as an International Communication) that the ability to process faster input represents higher proficiency. This suggests that the authentic news with slowed-down speech rate could be easier to follow, especially for language learners with lower proficiency levels. In summary, the authentic material is a great challenge, and yet an important input for language learning. The enhanced listening comprehension attributed from slowing down the speech rate of authentic material is thus probably more fundamental than simply keeping the authentic quality, which is even more true to the low proficiency learners, who might fail to keep up with the speech rate of the authentic material. The sped-up speech, compared to the slowed-down speech rate, has not received due attention because of the prevailing focus on the comprehensible input proposed by Krashen (1982) in the field of language teaching and learning. However, in order to improve the language learners’ listening comprehension ability of authentic texts delivered at the average speech rate, the idea of sped-up speech transformed to the gradually-increasing speech rate as a training technique is not a novel idea. Friedman and Johnson (1971), and Huberman and Medish (1974) already reported the use of the gradually-increasing speech rate in the rate-controlled training intended to improve the trainees’ listening comprehension performance of broadcast news at the average speech rate. Nevertheless, of these two studies that utilized this special rate-controlled technique to improve language learners’ listening comprehension ability, both yielded unsatisfactory results. In Friedman and Johnson’s (1971) study, they asserted that their measurements of listening comprehension in the study were too broad to get possible differences in listening comprehension between the group with rate-controlled training and the group without. As for the study done by Huberman and Medish (1974), the results 4.

(16) could not validate the individual effect of slowed-down speech rate on listening comprehension (Griffiths, 1990a). Apart from the unsatisfactory outcome, these two studies date back to three decades ago. An update is necessarily needed. Moreover, even though the conclusion made in theses studies was based on experiment results, the experiments were completely descriptive in nature, as shown by the absence of the speech rate categorization for slow and average speech rate. Friedman and Johnson (1971) themselves stated in the beginning of their paper: “It is my intention to inform you this and to suggest some possible uses […] in the hope that some will indeed prove [the rate-controlled technique] useful to second language learning” (p.157). In light of this gap in research, this study attempts to gain a better understanding of the effect of the gradually-increasing speech rate on listening comprehension.. 1.2. The Purpose of the Study This study aims to explore the effect of the slowed-down speech rate and the gradually-increasing speech rate on listening comprehension by controlling the variables that were not carefully treated in the previous rate studies. These two modes of speech rate were examined respectively by two phases. In the first phase, this study attempts to establish if the slowed-down speech rate, compared to the average speech rate, is a technique that is capable of increasing listening comprehension. The “slowed-down” speech rate was further divided into “moderately slow” and “slower-than-normal” speech rate to examine the subtle differences within the slowed-down speech rate itself. After discerning which slowed-down speech rate is more conducive to listening comprehension enhancement, this study progressed to the second phase of the experiments. In the second phase, the slowed-down speech rate leading to the higher level of listening comprehension found in the first phase of the experiments was gradually 5.

(17) increased to the average speech rate in a rate-controlled training, which was compared to the training without adjusting the speech rate of the listening input. This second phase is constructed to determine whether a rate-controlled training in which the speech rate is gradually increased is an effective approach for improving listening comprehension performance. The results in this study would shed light on the effect of the speech rate on listening comprehension in an EFL context, thus providing a more in-depth understanding about speech rate, which has been recognized as a main variable in listening comprehension.. 1.3. Research Question and Hypotheses In keeping with the goal to tap the effect of the slowed-down speech rate and the gradually-increasing speech rate on listening comprehension, two research questions and four hypotheses were formulated.. RQ1: Is there a difference in listening comprehension performance when the text is delivered at the average speech rate (150-170 wpm), the moderately slow speech rate, (130-150 wpm) and the slower-than-normal speech rate (below 130 wpm) respectively?. Hypothesis 1: The moderately slow speech rate (130-150 wpm) leads to better listening comprehension performance compared to slower than normal speech rate (below 130 wpm).. Hypothesis 2: The moderately slow speech rate (130-150 wpm) leads to better listening comprehension performance compared to the average speech rate (150-170 6.

(18) wpm).. Hypothesis 3: There is no difference in listening comprehension performance when the speech rate is the slower-than-normal speech rate (below 130 wpm) and the average speech rate (150-170 wpm).. RQ2: Which rate-controlled training condition—the gradually-increasing speech rate from the moderately slow to the average speech rate (130-170 wpm) or steady average speech rate (150-170 wpm)—has a stronger facilitative effect on listening comprehension?. Hypothesis 4: The training with the gradually-increasing speech rate from the moderately slow to the average speech rate has a stronger facilitative effect on listening comprehension than the training with steady average speech rate.. 1.4. The Value of the Study This study is valuable pedagogically and academically. The pedagogical value refers to the pedagogical implications for EFL teachers and independent EFL learners. Academically, the researchers would be informed of the textual perspective serving as the most legitimate approach to categorizing the speech rate in rate studies. For EFL teachers, this study illustrates whether slowing down the speech rate and gradually increasing the speech rate, leaving aside their intuitive attractiveness, are significantly effective to increase students’ listening comprehension. There is a general consensus among listening teachers about the effect of these two modes that increases listening comprehension: By slowing down the speech rate of the listening texts, a higher level of listening comprehension level could be immediately attained. 7.

(19) By adjusting the speech rate of each listening text used in class and by presenting them with the gradually-increasing speech rate sequence, the listening comprehension performance can be improved. However, these effects outlined above are simply based on intuition, which results in the fact that most teachers are willing to adopt these two techniques without being fully confident in and definitely positive about the degree to which these two speech rate techniques could contribute to listening comprehension enhancement. Therefore, the value of this study is to report to teachers the extent to which the slowed-down and the gradually-increasing speech rate is effective in increasing listening comprehension of authentic broadcast news. In addition, regarding the investigation on the effect of the gradually-increasing speech rate on listening comprehension, a possible effect could be implied concerning the students’ listening comprehension influenced by the teachers who control their talk in a gradually-increasing speech rate condition. While it is for sure that teachers could not measure their speech rate accurately in each class, it is common that some teachers have an overall control for their speech rate throughout the classes. Different teachers control their speech flow differently. Some teachers would intentionally slow down the speech rate in the beginning of the class and gradually increase their speech rate to natural speech flow toward the end of the classes. Other teachers may stay with the same average speech rate throughout the classes. Still others may ask the students to keep up with a rather fast speech rate, so the students would finally get used to the delivery speed. In fact, demonstrated by the checklist designed by Dobbs (1995), teachers should make an effort to control their overall speech flow. According to Dobbs (1995), the teachers should examine their own pedagogical discourse. One of the questions listed was “what is the rate at which you spoke—too fast/slow? ” In view of the fact that the overall control of the speech rate is crucial for the teachers in class, it is valuable that 8.

(20) the results of the effect of the gradually-increasing speech on listening comprehension could suggest that this speech rate condition could be a basic guideline for English teachers to adopt for improving students’ listening comprehension ability. The findings in this study are also beneficial for independent EFL learners, who could improve their own listening comprehension by adopting the techniques used in this study, including the downloadable MP3 files from Voice of America (VOA) and the easily-accessible instrument, CoolEdit, for adjusting speech rate. A self-training can thus be conducted. This information is particularly valuable for the independent, autonomous learners who are craving to improve their listening ability, but are often frustrated while trying to keep up with the speech flow of authentic materials. Finally, the textual perspective proposed in this study provides insights for future rate studies. The textual perspective considers the application of a legitimate speech rate categorization as a vital, fundamental element in rate studies, and the only legitimate application of the speech rate categorization is on the condition that the speech rate of the listening text defined as fast or slow is based on the speech rate categorization measured from the same text type of the listening text. As in this study, the speech rate categorization used as the reference to define certain speech rate as fast or slow was measured from a corpus-based study on the speech rate of English radio news announcers. Therefore, the listening texts used in this study ought to be English broadcast news in order to fairly define the speech rate based on the standard speech rate categorization adopted. This textual perspective is a much more legitimate approach for defining speech rate compared to those that defined the speech rate by intuition (Blau, 1990; Griffiths, 1990b; 1991b), by adopting Pimseleur’s categorization (Dunkel, 1988; Teng, 2002), or by learners’ perception (Dewing & Munro, 2001; Zhao, 1997). The adoption of these less legitimate approaches is likely to dampen the validity of rate studies, which 9.

(21) will be discussed in detail in the literature review chapter (p.12).. 1.5. Definition of Terms Speech rate: According to Griffiths (1990a), the temporal variables consisted of pause phenomena and speech rate, and it was better to control several key factors to discern the individual effect of the one with most interest to produce a possible pedagogical theory (Pimsleur et al., 1977). Considering the primacy of speech rate in research, this study disregarded the pause time and narrowed down the focus to the articulation rate, which is termed speech rate in this study. The unit of measurement of speech rate, based on Griffiths’ (1990a, p316) review, comprised words per second, syllables per second, phonemes per second, and syllables per minute. In the studies of L1, the most widely, if not exclusively, used measurement was words per minute (WPM). Consequently, it appears reasonable for L2 research to use the same measurement. It is true, though, that some rate studies reported the speech rate by the measurement of syllables per second, which was not specified in this study since WPM is a sufficient measurement unit considering the fact that broadcast news was used as the listening texts. This was supported by Pimsleur et al. (1977, p.29), who affirmed that the news report “maintain[s] a constant word-length [,and] the rate of 1.7 syllables per word varies little from one broadcast to another”. Therefore, the only indicated unit of measurement for speech rate is WPM in this study. To sum up, this study focused on the speech rate, and utilized WPM as the unit of measurement to indicate the rate of the speech.. 10.

(22) Authentic material: According to Rost (2002), authenticity could have various definitions. In this study, the authentic material represents the languages used by native speakers for a real purpose that reflects real language use (Bacon, 1992). The authentic material used in this study is the broadcast news intended for native English speakers to gain updated information by a one-way listening process. Since the focus of this study is on listening, the authentic material, to be more specific, refers to the authentic listening material.. 11.

(23) CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW. There are six sections in the literature review. Section 2.1 describes the listening comprehension process. Section 2.2 reviews the empirical studies of the effect of speech rate on listening comprehension, including the slowed-down speech rate and the time-compressed speech. Section 2.3 addresses the empirical studies on the rate controlled training. Section 2.4 illustrates the two perspectives, learners’ perspective and textual perspective on categorizing speech rate. Section 2.5 explains the use of broadcast news as the listening input in this study. Finally, section 2.6 validates the measurement of listening comprehension.. 2.1. Listening Comprehension Listening comprehension is an implicit, covert, and unobservable process, which is generally illustrated by three processing models, the bottom-up, the top-down and the interactive processing. The three processing models are the household terms in the field of listening comprehension research that have been re-introduced and thoroughly-explained by numerous researchers (Brown, 2001; Buck, 2001; Field, 2007; Flowerdew & Miller, 2006 ; Hulstijn, 2003; Lynch & Mendelsohn, 2002; Rubin, 1994; Rost, 2002; Vandergrift, 2007). To put it simply, these widely-known processing models represent different interpretations to the way a hearer processes the incoming speech signals. Regarding the bottom-up processing, it refers to a linear fashion that the listeners process sequentially from the smallest unit to the meaningful sentences. In contrast, the top-down processing represents a reconstruction of meaning, which is built up by 12.

(24) applying listeners’ prior knowledge or global understanding. Involving the bottom-up and top-down processing models, the interactive processing delineates a parallel process from linguistic level and gist level. Although the interactive processing could be more efficient and effective than merely either top-down or bottom-up processing, a number of researchers have paid more attention to the bottom-up processing because the rapid word recognition capability is one of the bottom-up skills that learners should develop and acquire (Field, 2003; Rost, 2002; Vandergrift, 2006). This rapid word recognition capability, or automatic processing device, was a primary goal, yet extremely difficult for language learners to obtain (Segalowitz & Segalowitz& Wood, 1998), particularly in the case of low proficiency learners (Flowerdew & Miller, 2006; Goh, 2000; Graham, 2006). It is sensible to infer that the operation of the automatic processing device could be seriously affected by the speech rate since the faster the speech rate is the less time listeners are left with to process the speech signals for comprehension. Therefore, an appropriate adjustment of speech rate is likely to be an integral contributor to developing listeners’ automatic processing device that improves listening comprehension. The adjusted speech rate could be the slowed-down speech rate, which offers more time for language learners with weak automatic processing device to digest the speech signals. The slowed-down speech rate, hypothesized by this study, could play a useful role in developing listening ability by gradually increasing the speech rate that starts from the most beneficial slowed-down speech rate. This potential training device of the gradually-increasing speech rate may be a sensible attempt to assist language learners to progressively develop their automatic processing device and perhaps finally acquire the ability to process the incoming signals automatically, thus increasing their listening comprehension, or improving their 13.

(25) listening comprehension ability in general.. 2.2. Speech Rate A few researchers have summarized the main factors affecting the language learners’ listening comprehension (Boyle, 1984; Parker and Chaudron, 1987; Rubin, 1994). In their taxonomies summarizing the main factors, speech rate is one of the vital causes that influence the listening comprehension. Numerous researchers have also concluded from the participants’ feedbacks and reports that the fast speech rate was a serious factor debilitating the listening comprehension (Boyle, 1984; Friedman and Johnson, 1971; Flowerdew & Miller, 1996; Graham, 2006; Goh, 1999; Hasan, 2000; Su, 2006; Teng, 2002; Vogely, 1995; Yau, 1996). This showed that, recognized by both researchers and language learners, speech rate was one of the major variables that affected listening comprehension. It was therefore plausible that some researchers and teachers would expand, or slow down, the speech rate for the purpose of increasing language learners’ listening comprehension. Due to this promising pedagogical implication, slowed-down speech rate has always been one of the major interests in rate studies. On the other hand, some researchers did not pay much attention to the slowed-down speech rate. Conversely, they focused on the time-compressed speech, which referred to a speech compressed from the normal speech rate to a faster delivery speed. The listeners therefore had to process more words within the same amount of time as the words processed at the normal or slowed-down speech rate. Those researchers investigating the time-compressed speech intended to observe the way the hearers reacted to the speech signals delivered at a much faster speech rate. Both of the researches on slowed-down speech rate and on time-compressed speech are important in providing a more complete understanding of the effect of 14.

(26) speech rate on listening comprehension. The following reviews the studies examining these two modes of speech rate. Section 2.2.1 reviews the studies investigating the effect of slowed-down speech rate. Section 2.2.2 reviews the studies exploring the effect of time-compressed speech on listening comprehension. Section 2.2.3 provides a brief summary.. 2.2.1.. Studies on the Effect of Slowed-down Speech Rate on Listening Comprehension. The empirical research has yielded inclusive results regarding the effect of slowed-down speech rate on listening comprehension. While some researchers stated that the slowed-down speech rate would facilitate listening comprehension (Kelch, 1985; Griffiths, 1990a, 1990b, 1991a, 1991b), other researchers refuted the assertion that slowed-down speech rate could result in an absolute effect of increased listening comprehension and contented that the effect of the slowed-down speech rate was greatly influenced by the variables with which it interacted (Anderson-hsieh & Koehler, 1988; Blau, 1990; Teng, 2002). These two conflicting conclusions were addressed in this study as the absolute effect and the relative effect of the slowed-down speech rate. These two contentions are illustrated respectively as follows. The Absolute Effect of Slowed-down Speech Rate on Listening Comprehension: Some previous rate studies have shown that the slowed-down speech rate is the most important facilitator in listening comprehension. Kelch (1985) attempted to examine the possible effect on listening comprehension from foreigner talk characterized as slower speech, exaggerated pronunciation, simpler vocabulary and grammar and so forth. Only two characteristics. 15.

(27) of foreigner talk, speech rate and grammatical modification, were investigated in Kelch’s study and whether either of these two features was more effective than the other also underwent examination. According to the hypothesis in his study, while the combination of these two modifications would result in the greatest facilitative effect on listening comprehension, the slowed-down speech rate was more credited for the increased listening comprehension compared to the grammatical modification. Also, the slowed-down speech rate could be easily identified as a major variable in listening comprehension. The results in Kelch’s study were in line with his hypothesis. He therefore concluded that “[o]ther global, syntactic modifications, however, do not necessarily qualify as absolute features of simplification, especially when unaccompanied by slower speech” (p.88) suggesting an absolute effect of speech rate on enhanced listening comprehension. This conclusion confirms the intuitive belief that the slowed-down speech rate is a definite facilitator in listening comprehension. The study conducted by Kelch showed that the slowed-down speech rate was a significant and absolute facilitator for listening comprehension. However, some methodological problems might dampen its credibility. First, the measurements of listening comprehension designed by the researcher, including the material, test format and scoring method, did not undergo pilot studies before the administration. The devastation from these unreliable instruments was revealed when the scores obtained in verbatim recall showed significant differences between the slower speech rate and the average speech rate, while the scores in gist recall did not. This unexpected outcome, criticized by Griffith (1990a), was not well-treated or discussed by the author. Second, the adjusted speech rate in Kelch’s study which included another 45-second pause between the sentences invalidated the original rates (Griffiths, 16.

(28) 1990a), and the intention to discern the individual effect that produces a possible pedagogical theory (Pimsleur et al., 1977). As a consequence, regarding the fact that the pauses were added in addition to the slowed-down speech rate, the study done by Kelch (1985) merely revealed a mixed and also a rather vague effect of the temporal variables on listening comprehension. Another series of rate studies focusing on the effect of slowed-down speech rate on listening comprehension were reported and conducted by Griffiths (1990a, 1990b, 1991a, 1991b), who borrowed the economic term “cost-effect benefit” to describe the relationship between speech rate and listening comprehension (1990a, p. 311), which could be interpreted as a time-benefit concept. This concept entails that the slowed-down speech rate provides the listeners with more processing time for the incoming signals. Due to the belief in “cost-effect benefit” or time-benefit concept, Griffiths had conducted experiments (1990a, 1991a) to validate the facilitative effect of slow speech rate, compared to the average and fast speech rate, on listening comprehension. The study done in 1990a evidenced that the spoken text delivered at the slower speech rate, 100 WPM, was not more comprehensible than the spoken text delivered at the normal speech rate, 159 WPM. However, the study conducted in 1991a revealed a significant difference in listening comprehension between these two modes of speech rate when the slower speech rate was adjusted to 127 WPM and the normal speech rate was adjusted to 188 WPM. In these two studies by Griffiths showing diverse outcome, it was revealed that the change of the speech rate categorization could in fact manipulate the results, highlighting the central role of speech rate categorization in affecting the outcomes in rate studies. A legitimate speech rate categorization is therefore an essential, indispensable element in rate studies with regard to its role in dictating a certain 17.

(29) speech rate as slow or fast speech rate, which at the same time determines whether this certain speech rate has facilitative effect or not on listening comprehension. Thus, from which perspective the researchers adopt a speech rate categorization is extremely important. Researchers hold a different perspective on speech rate categorization would differ in adopting speech rate categorization, thus arriving at a diverse conclusion. Another important implication from Griffiths’ studies was that the slowed-down speech rate, when it was too slow, i.e. slower-than-normal speech rate, may have zero or negative effect on listening comprehension. This assumption was derived from his studies where the spoken text delivered at the slower speech rate, 100 WPM, was not more comprehensible than the spoken text delivered at the normal speech rate, 159 WPM. In other words, the 100 WPM speech rate, the “too slow” speech rate, might have zero or negative effect on listening comprehension. Apart from the discrepancy of speech rate categorization for slow and average speech rate in Griffith’s studies, the instrument utilized to change the speech rate of the listening texts was not considered carefully by the researcher. The listening texts were recorded by a female native speaker with a British English accent through “live voice”, which makes the reach of target rates in all instances difficult, if not impossible. This shortcoming could be mended easily by using computer-edited software, a more reliable tool, for it could compress or expand speech rate systematically and show the exact figures for the amount of percentage a text was compressed or expanded along with the indication of WPM. The use of this tool is not only advantageous to language teachers and learners for its simplicity and practicality, but also to future studies when comparing the results with the reference to the stretched percentage displayed by the computer-edited software. It was clearly shown in Griffiths’ studies and reports (1990a, 1990b, 1991a, 18.

(30) 1991b) that he had a strong belief in and a promising expectation from the slowed-down speech rate operating as a significant and absolute facilitator for listening comprehension, which in fact became the shortcoming in his studies. As discussed earlier, the change of the speech rate categorization to meet his expectation undermined the validity of the results and led the results in the studies to be more of a manipulation than a resolution. To conclude, though the afore-mentioned researchers intended to validate the slowed-down speech rate as the main facilitator in listening comprehension, its absolute effect on enhanced listening comprehension was still in question.. The Relative Effect of Slowed-down Speech Rate on Listening Comprehension: Instead of embracing the belief in the absolute effect of increased listening comprehension by slowing down the speech rate of the listening texts, some researchers asserted that the slowed-down speech rate would only become a factor in listening comprehension when it interacted with other variables, such as proficiency level (Blau, 1990; Teng, 2002), accent (Anderson-hsieh & Koehler, 1988) and syntax (Teng, 2002). In other words, they argued against the absolute effect of speech rate on listening comprehension. In a study devoted to investigating the interaction effect of speech rate and syntactic complexity on listening comprehension, Blau (1990) designed three versions of treatments: Version 1 was simple sentences at slow and normal speed; Version2 was complex sentences with clues to underlying structure left intact at slow and normal speed; Version 3 was complex sentences without optimal surface clues to underlying structure. The comprehension level was determined by the scores participants obtained in a multiple-choice comprehension test. The results of the study showed that the only significant variable in listening comprehension was the 19.

(31) participants’ proficiency level and only the low proficiency participants could receive the beneficial effect on enhanced listening comprehension by the slowed-down speech rate. She later concluded that teachers should not be overly concerned with sentence structure and speech rate. Teng (2002) conducted a similar study to Blau’s (1990) in terms of the variables examined in the study, which are speech rate and syntactic complexity. The context, however, shifted from a mix of EFL and ESL to an EFL only context. The speeds for normal and slow speech rate were slower (160 WPM for normal and 110 WPM for slow), which was based on the speech rate categorized by Pimsleur et al. (1991). The listening test format was True and False (T/F) questions. The results showed that both the syntactic modification and slower speech rate facilitated listening comprehension. Nevertheless, listening proficiency had the closest relationship with listening comprehension regardless of other variables. Anderson-hsieh and Koehler (1988) examined the effect of two variables, speech rate and foreign accent, on the listening comprehension of native speakers. The foreign accent referred to the native speakers of Chinese speaking English, and the listening comprehension level of native speakers of American English toward those English speakers with Chinese accent was measured. They concluded that the delivery at the regular rate, compared to fast rate, increased listening comprehension for all speakers. More importantly, a great decrease in listening comprehension was resulted from a heavily accented speaker. Therefore, the study claimed that speech rate would only become an essential variable when the speech was heavily accented. Blau (1990), Teng (2002), and Anderson-hsieh and Koehler (1988) have shown the effect of other variables interfering with the effect of the slowed-down speech rate on listening comprehension. This point of view provided great insights into the effect of speech rate on listening comprehension. However, the validity of instruments in the 20.

(32) afore-mentioned studies was questionable. Regarding the speech rate categorization, Blau (1990) criticized in the beginning of her study that different rates were adopted as the norm by different researchers; however, she defined the speech rate without specifying the rationale (170 WPM for normal speech rate and 145 WPM for slow speech rate). As in Teng’s study (2002), the speech rate categorization was adopted from Pimsleur’s (1977) speech rate categorization that the norm of speech rate was analyzed and defined based on the speech rate of 15 American and 15 French radio news announcers. The application of Pimsleur’s speech rate categorization in Teng’s study thus seemed unsound considering the fact that Pimsleur’s speech rate categorization including French speakers would not be applicable to categorize the speech rate of American English speakers. As for the test format, multiple-choice comprehension questions were utilized in Blau’s study, which may induce problems since this format required of the test-takers a certain amount of reading that favored high proficiency participants. The proficiency level, however, was the variable that the study intended to examine. Moreover, an English institute entrance exam that shares more resemblance with an in-house test was used to determine the participants’ proficiency level. This type of measurement of listening comprehension, criticized by Berne (2004), would be less reliable, thus limiting its generalizability. Studies for the effect of slowed-down speech rate on listening comprehension reflected a lack of agreement. This dispute is worth exploring particularly when it comes to the use of authentic material, whose speech rate, based on Vandergrift’s (2007) reports, should not be sacrificed for comprehension since “slowing down the rate of speech is not necessarily helpful for comprehension purpose” (p.200). This study treated this statement with diffidence due to the fact that Vandergrift made this 21.

(33) conclusion based on some unspecified studies and a study conducted by Dewing and Munro (2001) on the effect of the “preferred” speech rate from L2 learners on listening comprehension. The preferred speech rate involves learner’s perception on speech rate, which according to Hasan, (2000), might not be reliable. Therefore, whether slowing down the speech rate could increase listening comprehension of authentic material merits further investigation. In order to accurately examine whether the slowed-down speech rate was a facilitator or a debilitator in listening comprehension, this study holds the view that it is necessary to further categorize the slowed-down speech rates as the moderately slow speech rate and the slower-than-normal speech rate. These two terms were coined by Tauroza and Allison (1990) in their speech rate categorization where the moderately slow speech rate ranged from 130 to 150 WPM, and the slower-than-normal speech rate ranged below 130 WPM. These two slowed-down speech rates were respectively compared to the average speech rate which ranged from 150 to 170 WPM. By further categorizing the slowed-down speech rate, this study intended to reveal the possible zero or negative effect of the slower-than-normal speech rate on listening comprehension, thus providing a compelling answer to the effect of slowed-down speech rate on listening comprehension.. 2.2.2.. Studies on the Effect of Time-compressed Speech on Listening Comprehension. The studies investigating the effect of time-compressed speech on listening comprehension (Conrad, 1989; King and Behnke, 1989) have shown consistent results that the faster speech rate caused burdens on listeners for processing the incoming signals, hence decreasing their listening comprehension level. In addition to the decrease of listening comprehension, additional effects of compressed speech rate on 22.

(34) listening comprehension were also observed. The following discusses briefly these studies examining the effect of time-compressed speech on listening comprehension. Conrad (1989) pointed out that the time-compressed speech would seriously deteriorate the listening comprehension of low proficiency language learners. Additionally, students with different proficiency levels would use different strategies to grapple with time-compressed speech. In Conrad’s study, the participants were 29 native speakers and 28 non-native speakers, who were asked to listen to 16 sentences of nine to eleven words. Each of the sentences, used as a signal for participants to do immediate recall, was repeated five times with the delivery speed compressed to 450, 320, 253, 216, and 190 WPM, representing a progressively slowed-down, or gradually-decreasing, speech rate. The analysis of the recalled message showed that the native speakers depended more on the key content words compared to the non-native speakers. Also, the results showed that native speakers, faced with the speech not being able to be fully comprehended due to the accelerated speech rate, applied their knowledge toward sentence structure to get the maximum amount of information, while the non-native speakers were hindered in their syntactic processing, thus resorting to short-term verbatim memory processing, which resulted in only initial or final elements of the sentences being recalled. In summary, the study done by Conrad demonstrated that, when the delivery speed was fast, the listeners with different proficiency levels would utilize different strategies to cope with the much faster speech rate, and the time-compressed speech rate would seriously deteriorate the listening comprehension of language learners with low proficiency levels. In King and Behnke’s study (1989), they explored the relationship between the time-compressed speech and three listening types, including comprehensive, interpretive, and short-term listening. The results indicated that the increased speech 23.

(35) rate significantly dampened the comprehensive listening performance. The interpretative and short-term listening performances, though, were left unaffected until an extremely high degree of time compression was obtained. According to King and Behnke, the comprehensive listening, the primary focus in the rate studies, might confuse retention and comprehension since it is more associated with long-term memory. In contrast, the short-term listening is more associated with short-term memory, which compared to long-term memory has a closer relationship with compressed speech due to the fact that the faster speech rate prohibited the listeners from processing the message such as elaborated association and inferential meanings. The interpretive listening underscores inference, the nonverbal message and involves “reading between the lines” during listening. The researcher hypothesized that the time-compressed speech has a greater impact on comprehensive listening performance than on short-term and interpretive listening performances, which was supported by the final results.. 2.2.3.. Summary. By synthesizing the studies examining the slowed-down and the time-compressed speech, a deeper understanding of the effect of speech rate on listening comprehension would be provided. However, due to the divergent outcomes obtained from investigating the effect of slowed-down speech rate on listening comprehension, a further exploration is needed in this respect.. 2.3. Rate-controlled training The previous section shows that of those studies examining the effect of the slowed-down speech rate on listening comprehension, the compressed speech, or the fast speech rate, was often utilized as a foil to reveal the possible significant effect of 24.

(36) the slowed-down speech rate on enhanced listening comprehension. The rate-controlled training, though, approached the role of compressed speech from a different angle by transforming the faster speech rate into a gradually-increasing speech rate condition and employed it as a training device intended to improve the language learners’ listening comprehension ability. The target trainees of the rate-controlled training are language learners with poor processing device to digest the spoken text at normal speech rate and are expected to subtly develop rapid automatic processing device to reach a higher level of listening comprehension compared to their listening comprehension level before the training. This rate-controlled training would last for a certain period of time in which the progress of listening comprehension made by the trainees would be observed. Only a few attempts have been made to support the effectiveness of the rate-controlled training (Friedman and Johnson, 1971; Huberman and Medish, 1974; Orr and Friedman and Williams, 1963; Pimsleur, 1977), which will be reviewed in detail below. In the study involving a program implemented in a high school near Albany, New York, Pimsleur (1977, p.32) reported a temporal spacing research training where the gradually diminishing pauses was utilized to hopefully assist students to comprehend the authentic Spanish news. The report confirmed that those American students were able to comprehend the Spanish news broadcasters at normal speed with ease several years later. In Friedman and Johnson’s (1971) study, the participants in the study were Russian and Vietnamese students studying in America. After eight weeks of training, to the researchers’ disappointment, no differences were found between the performance of students listening to the gradually-increasing speech rate and of those listening to the same material at the non-adjusted speech rate. The researchers 25.

(37) attributed the vain attempt to two possible reasons. First, the training, which lasts for eight weeks, four days a week and an hour a day, was too short of duration, which limited its effect on improving the learners’ listening comprehension performance. Second, the instruments used to measure their listening comprehension were too broad to discern possible comprehension changes. Even though the results did not show significant differences in performance between these two groups of students, most students and instructors commented subjectively that the training of the gradually-increasing speech rate had been of some value. This subjective feedback suggested a psychological effect of gradually-increasing speech rate on listening comprehension. In other words, by knowing the fact that the input was adjusted to a slower speech rate rather than the original speech rate, the participants would be affected mentally with the perception that their listening comprehension increases, but not realistically improve. This implies that the researchers should not announce the design to participants in the training program of gradually-increasing speech rate. Another part worth mentioning in Friedman and Johnson’s (1971) study was that the researchers stated at the beginning of the paper that their study was a rather loosely-designed experiment and the main intention of the study was to suggest some possible uses of rate-control. They hoped that “some will indeed prove [its] useful [ness] to second language learning” (p157). The paper was descriptive in nature as shown by the lack of measurement units and the speech rate categorization, which was very likely to be the cause for the disappointing outcome. With some methodological improvement and modification, the use of gradually-increasing speech rate for increasing listening comprehension proposed by Friedman and Johnson could be validated. In 1963, Orr, Friedman and Williams began the research on training students to 26.

(38) process speech at rates beyond those which they could accomplish at initial exposure. They corroborated from their several studies (Orr, Friedman, and Williams, 1965; Orr and Friedman1967, 1968; Orr, Friedman, and Graae, 1969) that the listening comprehension of time-compressed speech was trainable to native speakers. They concluded from their studies that, in terms of the comprehension test scores, the participants who received the listening texts under gradually-increasing speech rate condition performed better compared to the participants without this practice. However, based on the design of the study, we wonder if the increase of listening comprehension was attributed to the training of gradually-increasing speech rate, but not from the extra listening practice. Huberman and Medish (1974) reported the results of a rate-controlled training conducted by the researchers in the American Institute for Research that included the added-parts, the time-compressed speech, and temporal spacing as the temporal variables. These three devices were used jointly on 23 students learning Spanish, who received periodic listening comprehension tests and three other sections of Elementary Spanish classes. The results indicated that the controlled listening could improve listening comprehension up to 28%. Additionally, the controlled listening compared to normal listening resulted in a 35% increase in the amount of information absorbed during each minute of listening. This seemed to be a promising outcome for the effect of controlled listening on language learners’ listening comprehension improvement. However, since the three techniques were used jointly, it was hard to discern which of these three techniques was more essential than the other. The results also showed that the added-part technique contributed to most of the increased efficiency in listening, and the compressed speech and the temporal spacing might have played a minor role. In other words, the individual effect of speech rate was not found (Griffiths, 1990b). 27.

(39) These studies provided some preliminary evidence that the gradually-increasing speech rate was an amenable training device that can be validly conducted and tested. More importantly, these studies render significant mythological implications, including the importance of the time span of the training and the design of the study. In terms of the time span, the rate controlled training lasted for eight weeks in Friedman and Johnson’s study, for several years in Pimselur’s report and for one school semester by Huberman and Medish (1974). Though a rather long exposure, as shown in afore-mentioned studies, may result in a seemingly more valid outcome, it is also more likely to include other unwanted variables which interacted with the training itself. All the other variables may take the credit for the listening comprehension improvement, but not the training itself. Consequently, the intensity probably overrides the longitude. Concerning the design of the rate-controlled training, the studies reviewed previously were predominately descriptive in nature and lacked a tightly-controlled experiment procedure. This gap indicates a need for future research employing clear experiment design and valid measurements in order to explore the effect of the gradually-increasing speech rate on listening comprehension. By a careful treatment of the time span and the design of the training, this long-neglected area of rate-controlled training could receive some updates, giving a deeper understanding of the effect of the gradually-increasing speech rate on listening comprehension.. 2.4. Speech Rate Categorized by Different Perspective As Zhao (1997) and Blau (1990) noted, the inconsistent and incomparable results shown in the previous rate studies were led by the varying speech rate categorization adopted by different researchers. Two perspectives on categorizing speech rate can be 28.

(40) identified. The following will first address the learners’ perspective that categorizes speech rate based on learners’ perceived speech rate. Afterwards, the textual perspective focusing on the text types from which the standard speech rate categorization was measured will be elucidated. Finally, a summary regarding these two perspectives is presented. 2.4.1.. Speech Rate Categorized by Learners’ Perspective. In response to the growing attention to the student-centered concept in the field of language teaching and learning, this approach proposed that there is an absence of the optimal speech rate that could be generalized to all learners as fast, slow, or normal due to individual differences, thus defining speech rate via learners’ perspective (Zhao, 1997; Chaudron, 1983). Nevertheless, empirical evidence has indicated a discrepancy between learners’ perceived speech rate and the actual condition of the listening input (Drewing & Munro, 1997, 2001; Hasan, 2000). In other words, the speech rate perceived as fast or slow by language learners might not correspond to what actually happened. To solve the inconsistent, incomparable results among the previous rate studies that resulted from the wide discrepancy predefined by researchers for speech rate, Zhao (1997) suggested that the issue be approached form learners’ perspective since the fast and slow speech rate would differ from learner to learner. Chaudron (1983) also advocated this contention and added that the categorization of speech rate could be quite different across language learners due to different proficiency level. Although these statements may sound logical, there is a great possibility that the speech rate could be perceived as slow or fast due to many other unknown factors as reported by two anonymous reviewers in Flowerdew’s book (1994) that “the speed of delivery is an effect of difficulty in comprehension, not a cause, i.e. non-native speakers have 29.

(41) problems understanding and, therefore, perceive speech as fast, even though objectively it is not” (p.36). Drewing and Munro (1997, 2001), and Hasan (2000) also indicated that language learners may think the speaker spoke too fast as the reason for their difficulty in comprehending the text, while in fact the speech rate was not the main cause but some other features such as pronunciation, hesitation, pauses, and varied accents. Whether it was the speech rate, or any other variables that made language learners interpret the delivery speed as fast or slow become unknown, resulting in the speech rate exploited as the single, main variable in rate studies impossible to attain. Additionally, the non-existence of generalized speech rate implied by the learners’ approach presents a great obstacle for researchers in categorizing, or defining, the speech rate objectively, that in turn hinders the exploration of the physical phenomena and the conceptualization of feasible theory that implements practical pedagogical approaches. In short, in order to investigate speech rate as the main variable in listening comprehension and to construct a feasible pedagogical practice, the learners’ perspective for speech rate might be problematic.. 2.4.2.. Speech Rate Categorized by Textual Perspective. The researchers embracing speech rate categorization based on the textual perspective pay careful attention to the source one utilizes for determining certain speech rate as fast or slow. To justify the adoption of the speech rate categorization, the same text type between the texts used to map out a standard speech rate categorization and the texts used to be categorized by the standard speech rate categorization is emphasized, e.g. if the standard speech rate categorization was measured from news, the listening texts have also to be news in order to use the 30.

(42) standard speech rate categorization to categorize the speech rate of the listening text. From the textual perspective, speech rate varies in different text types. Therefore, the validity of the results in Dunkel’s (1988) study might be in question since the texts used are lectures, and yet the speech rate categorization applied was Pimsleur’s (1977) categorization, based on a corpus data collected from the radio announcers. This adoption is illegitimate from the textual perspective because the news and lecture are different text types, and the standard speech rate is likely to differ among various circumstances (Tauroza and Allison,1990). Besides from criticizing the illegitimate adoption of speech rate categorization, Tauroza and Allison (1990) also pointed out that Pimsleur’s (1977) speech rate categorization could not suffice for defining English speech rate because it was based on a speech rate analysis of 15 American and 15 French radio news announcers. Tauroza and Allison (1990) thus conducted a speech rate analysis on the news announcer of English speakers to provide a standard speech rate categorization for English. Mismatch was found between the categorization illustrated by Tauroza and Allison (1990), and Pimsleur et al. (1977). The fastest speech rate in the categorization mapped out by Tauroza and Allison was much slower than that mapped out by Pimsleur et al. (1977). The terms used for the fastest and the slowest speech rate were also different. The “fast” and “slow” in Pimsleur’s (1977) categorization were termed “faster then normal” and “slower than normal” in Tauroza and Allison’s categorization. (Pimsleur’s speech rate categorization is delineated in Table 1; Tauroza and Allison’s speech rate categorization is illustrated in Table 2). Considering the fact that Tauroza and Allison’s speech rate categorization was mapped out based on the speakers of English, the target language in this study, it is employed in this study as the standard speech rate categorization.. 31.

(43) Table 1: Standard speech rate in Pimsleur et al. (1977) Fast. =. above 220 w.p.m.. Moderately fast. =. 190 to 220 w.p.m.. Average. =. 160 to 190 w.p.m.. Moderately slow. =. 130 to 160 w.p.m.. Slow. =. below 130 w.p.m.. Table 2: The range of speech rate in Tauroza and Allison (1990) Faster than normal (above). =. 190. Moderately fast. =. 170-190. Average. =. 150-170. Moderately slow. =. 130-150. Slower than normal (below). =. 130. 2.4.3.. Summary. Building upon previous review of the learners’ perspective and the textual perspective on categorizing speech rate, it is apparent that the reliability and the validity of rate studies hinges on their perspective on speech rate categorization. With regard to the learner’s perspective, it could be too subjective and is not reliable due to its dependence on the learners’ perception. An objective, legitimate outcome could only be obtained by adopting the textual perspective that validly categorizes the speech rate as fast or slow for research purpose.. 2.5. Broadcast News This study employed broadcast news as the listening input to measure listening 32.