DECONSTRUCTING COMPREHENSIBILITY

By T. Isaacs, P. Trofimovich. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2012

181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e2c4d545a9b9bc0a53c44364582dfa71f23e61ad

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Motivation, Emotion, Learning Experience, and Second Language Comprehensibility Development in Classroom Settings: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Study (2018, background): “…through existing questionnaires (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014; Dörnyei, 2005), and linked the scores to the global domain of their L2 oral proficiency (i.e., perceived comprehensibility, which is supposed to reflect the accurate and fluent use of various linguistic skills: Trofimovich & Isaacs, 2012).”
Differential effects of instruction on the development of second language comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation: The case of inexperienced Japanese EFL learners (2017, methodology): “The effect of form-focused instruction on learners’ suprasegmental development was analysed via the acoustic measures used in Isaacs and Trofimovich (2012).”
Using Listener Judgments to Investigate Linguistic Influences on L2 Comprehensibility and Accentedness: A Validation and Generalization Study (2015, methodology): “Our precursor research (Isaacs and Trofimovich 2012; Trofimovich and Isaacs 2012) analyzed learner speech through linguistic analysis conducted by trained coders via relevant software (e.g. pitch tracker) to derive various measures of pronunciation, fluency, lexis, grammar, and discourse structure.”
Rater Experience, Rating Scale Length, and Judgments of L2 Pronunciation: Revisiting Research Conventions (2013, background): “In L2 pronunciation research, 9-point numerical rating scales are increasingly becoming entrenched as a research convention to measure qualitative constructs of comprehensibility, accentedness, and fluency.1 Nine levels are used due to the conclusion that, for accentedness Correspondence should be s”
LINGUISTIC DIMENSIONS OF COMPREHENSIBILITY AND PERCEIVED FLUENCY: AN INVESTIGATION OF COMPLEXITY, ACCURACY, AND FLUENCY IN SECOND LANGUAGE ARGUMENTATIVE SPEECH (2019, background): “Finally, as pointed out by Isaacs and Trofimovich (2012), establishing inter-rater reliability of comprehensibility judgements does not necessarily ensure the validity of comprehensibility ratings.”
Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels (2016, background): “…listener understanding is linked to aspects of pronunciation (Derwing et al., 2004; Kang et al., 2010; Munro & Derwing, 2006; Tajima, Port, & Dalby, 1997), grammar and lexicon (Fayer & Krasinski, 1987; Varonis & Gass, 1982) as well as discourse structure (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2012) in L2 speech.”
Does a Speaking Task Affect Second Language Comprehensibility (2015, background): “As argued by Isaacs and Trofimovich (2012), language practitioners would benefit from a pedagogically-oriented assessment instrument targeting comprehensibility to guide them in instruction and assessment, which would be consistent with a focus on comprehensible speech over accent reduction…”
Second Language Comprehensibility Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Learner Background (2015, methodology): “Comprehensibility (rather than intelligibility) was chosen as the measure of understanding because it reflects a more typical and practical approach to measuring understanding in a variety of assessment contexts (such as oral proficiency scales) and in research settings (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2012).”
Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms (2012, background): “In this regard, Isaacs & Trofimovich (2012) found that lexical and phonological errors directly inhibited native speakers’ perceived comprehensibility of the extemporaneous speech of L2 learners, regardless of proficiency levels, whereas inaccurate grammar and discourse ambiguity had a negative…”