No description available.

This dissertation investigates the role of grammatical versus methodological influences in the production and perception of final devoicing in experimentally-elicited speech from Russian. It addresses the question of how the partial preservation of the phonological voicing contrast in word-final obstruents is affected by (i) task-independent factors that reflect phonological and lexical properties of stimuli words (underlying voicing, word length, lexical competition) and (ii) task-dependent biases that arise due to the nature of the experimental task performed by the speaker (availability of orthographic inputs, presence of minimal pairs among the stimuli). Results of a series of acoustic production and perceptual identification tasks reveal that task-dependent factors account for the presence of robust and perceptually salient differences in the parameter of phonetic voicing. Several types of stimuli items also show limited but statistically significant differences in closure/frication duration and release duration that are independent of the presence of orthography or inclusion of full minimal pairs among test items. Taken together, these findings indicate that non-grammatical factors can play a prominent biasing role in both production and perception of the voicing contrast in experimentally-elicited speech, such that certain voicing-dependent cues are maintained only in the presence of task-dependent pressures. However, not all incompletely neutralized differences between phonologically voiced versus voiceless final obstruents can be attributed to the effects of orthography or inclusion of minimal pairs among the stimuli. In the theoretical domain, these results are argued to favour a less restrictive definition of neutralization and a model of phonology that views devoicing as a loss of the primary acoustic cue to the underlying voicing contrast rather than complete identity of the [voiced] feature.

This dissertation investigates the role of grammatical versus methodological influences in the production and perception of final devoicing in experimentally-elicited speech from Russian. It addresses the question of how the partial preservation of the phonological voicing contrast in word-final obstruents is affected by (i) task-independent factors that reflect phonological and lexical properties of stimuli words (underlying voicing, word length, lexical competition) and (ii) task-dependent biases that arise due to the nature of the experimental task performed by the speaker (availability of orthographic inputs, presence of minimal pairs among the stimuli). Results of a series of acoustic production and perceptual identification tasks reveal that task-dependent factors account for the presence of robust and perceptually salient differences in the parameter of phonetic voicing. Several types of stimuli items also show limited but statistically significant differences in closure/frication duration and release duration that are independent of the presence of orthography or inclusion of full minimal pairs among test items. Taken together, these findings indicate that non-grammatical factors can play a prominent biasing role in both production and perception of the voicing contrast in experimentally-elicited speech, such that certain voicing-dependent cues are maintained only in the presence of task-dependent pressures. However, not all incompletely neutralized differences between phonologically voiced versus voiceless final obstruents can be attributed to the effects of orthography or inclusion of minimal pairs among the stimuli. In the theoretical domain, these results are argued to favour a less restrictive definition of neutralization and a model of phonology that views devoicing as a loss of the primary acoustic cue to the underlying voicing contrast rather than complete identity of the [voiced] feature.

This dissertation investigates the role of grammatical versus methodological influences in the production and perception of final devoicing in experimentally-elicited speech from Russian. It addresses the question of how the partial preservation of the phonological voicing contrast in word-final obstruents is affected by (i) task-independent factors that reflect phonological and lexical properties of stimuli words (underlying voicing, word length, lexical competition) and (ii) task-dependent biases that arise due to the nature of the experimental task performed by the speaker (availability of orthographic inputs, presence of minimal pairs among the stimuli). Results of a series of acoustic production and perceptual identification tasks reveal that task-dependent factors account for the presence of robust and perceptually salient differences in the parameter of phonetic voicing. Several types of stimuli items also show limited but statistically significant differences in closure/frication duration and release duration that are independent of the presence of orthography or inclusion of full minimal pairs among test items. Taken together, these findings indicate that non-grammatical factors can play a prominent biasing role in both production and perception of the voicing contrast in experimentally-elicited speech, such that certain voicing-dependent cues are maintained only in the presence of task-dependent pressures. However, not all incompletely neutralized differences between phonologically voiced versus voiceless final obstruents can be attributed to the effects of orthography or inclusion of minimal pairs among the stimuli. In the theoretical domain, these results are argued to favour a less restrictive definition of neutralization and a model of phonology that views devoicing as a loss of the primary acoustic cue to the underlying voicing contrast rather than complete identity of the [voiced] feature.

No description available.

This dissertation investigates the effects of instruction on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in the classroom setting, and specifically in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom. In particular, we examine the effects of instruction on learners' pragmatic development of a specific speech act, that of suggestions, with the goal of expanding the range of learning targets addressed in pragmatic interventional studies (Kasper and Rose, 2002). Apart from dealing with instructional effects, we also take into account the need to investigate various types of instruction in order to ascertain their effectiveness (Kasper and Rose, 2002). In this way, we analyse two different treatments (i.e. explicit and implicit) that have been operationalised on the basis of the principles underlying the paradigms of Focus on FormS and Focus on Form (Long, 1991, 1996, 1998; Doughty and Williams, 1998; Long and Robinson, 1998; Doughty, 2001). The aim of comparing both teaching approaches is to determine whether the two treatments are equally effective in developing learners' pragmatic competence regarding their production, awareness and confidence when judging the appropriateness of suggestions in different situations. Additionally, we are also concerned with issues related to research methodology and, bearing in mind findings from studies that observed task effects between oral and written production tasks (Houck and Gass, 1996; Sasaki, 1998; Safont, 2001), we have compared our learners' performance when making suggestions in two different tasks: an oral production task (i.e. phone messages) and a written production task (i.e. email).The results of the investigation indicate that, in comparison to the control group, both the explicit and implicit groups improved their pragmatic competence regarding their production, awareness and confidence when judging the appropriateness of suggestions in different situations. Moreover, comparing the explicit and implicit groups' performance in the post-test no statistical differences were observed between the two instructional treatments, which illustrates the effects of both explicit and implicit instruction to develop learners' pragmatic competence in the EFL classroom. The findings also show that the production task in which learners are engaged influences their use of suggestions, since there were task effects between the two production tasks employed in our study (i.e. phone messages and emails). In conclusion, the results obtained in this dissertation expand the scope of enquiry in the field of interlanguage pragmatics as well as outline practical pedagogical implications and open several lines of investigation to be examined in future research.