Effects of Delay in Oral Practice at the Beginning of Second Language Learning

Valerian A. PoiTOvsKY
,

Defeme Language Institute, West Coast Branch

INTRODUCTION

IT IS GENERALLY BELIEVED thai the

cal starting point.1 It Ls proposed that the motor

initial phase of instruction in foreign language should be based on intensive oral practice. The more vocally active the student is from the very beginning, the faster, it is assumed, he
learns the foreign language. Jn ihU study I wish to challenge this assump-

skill involved in production of speech output is

an end result of complex and mosdy covert processes which constitute linguistic competence.
'

No atu-mpi n made in thih Mutly (O minimuc ihc impor

tion and to suggest a different approach to the

initial phase of instruction
.

The rationale on

which this hypothesis is based suggests diat intensive pronunciation practice is not the logi-

uncr of oral practice in a languaKr iiaininK piogram. Ihc 4|ui-s[hiii attdresticd m this paper refers to (he diMriWiion of ui ui {iravtiri- aciim (he phases ot msiiucnun taihet lhan to the imlilv of oral practice per je. The view* of ihe author do nor purptjit to reflect the position of the Departtnem o( the Arm) or the Department of Defense

VAI1.RIAS A

POSTOVSKY

U is furtlicr proiKwcd that the linguistic com-

method, however, as it has developed in recent

years, places much greater emphasis on the
"

peipmc inclndt-s ai least two reciprocally correlated events: capacity (o process audilory inpul and capacity lo generate speech output, and
thai the former Is concerned with decoding

lingual" part of the training. In the comem-

porary methodology of foreign language leaching in general, this principle has received only a

capability while the latter is concerned with

encoding. Clearly, decoding capability requires develop-

very superficial interpretation Usually, it is ap.

plied in reference to a single uuerance or a

short passage i.e.. comprehension of a particular segmeni of speech is believed to be necessary
,

ment of teeosnition knowledge, while encoding

capability requires development of retrieval

knowledge. Given this difference between the
two events, it would appear to be logical lo as-

before production of that same segment

Needless

lo say. development of recognition knowledge

prior to the development of retrieval knowledge,

as is understood within the context of this ar-

sume thai in the natural learning process, development of recognition knowledge would precede. noi follow, the development of retrieval knowledge.
When the student is tasked with production

ticle, implies that comprehension involves acquisition of an integrated linguistic system

rmther than acquisition of a single segmeni of

speech.

of a foreign sentence, he has 10 retrieve linguisiic

infonnation stored in his long-term memory and control his speech on phonological, syntactic and semantic levels simultaneously and

In recent years interest in the dynamics of

aural comprehension has been steadily increas-

ing. Some ten or fifteen years ago Robert

Cauthier in Canada introduced the so-called

with the s|)eed of speech output. When he is tasked with comprehension of a foreign sentence. he has to ilore linguistic information in hi< audilory shori-tcrm memory for a brief

Tan-Gau" method for leaching French to English-speaking students. The method aliempu to develop aural comprehension by the process of bilingual communication: (he teacher speaks

"

period of lime until it is further processed and

matched with (he informadon stored in his

French, and the students respond in English

unul such lime as each student individually
approaches the state of
jOauthier. 1963).
In 1965 Simon Belasco referred lo aur.il com"

long-term memory.* I suggest the lailer process

speaking readiness"

is more productive in the initial phase of instruction and that development of recognition knowledge is in fact prci quisite for the developincnt
of retrieval knowledge.

Priority of aural comprehension in the first

language acquisition process is clearly evident.

prehension as the most underestirnaicd and least understood aspect of foreign language learning I Belasco. 1965). At about die same time Asher conducted his first experiments in
"
"

"

Children ilemnnsirate comprehension of many

utterances l>efore they develop the ability to

the strategy of the total physical response"

produce any intelligible speech. Empirical evidence to substantiate this common sense notion

has been provided by several excellent studies of child language 'Smith. Shipley, and Gleiiman,
1966; Fraser, Bellugi, and Brown. 1965; Carrow. 1968; Bloom. 1970: Lee. 1970.) Although there are significant diflerences be-

Asher. 1963. 1969). attempting to develop aural comprehension by requiring sludents lo act out situations in response to commands in a foreign language. More recently Winitz and

'

Reeds (1971) have developed a totally comprehension-oriented program in German in which meaning of utterances in the foreign language is conveyed by pictorial events The

tween the process by which a child acquires his

native language and thai of an adull student learning a second language, the principle con-

method, raited Optimized Habit Reinforcement,

'

Ihc protcaing model Imjilied htK ha* Itrcn rcleirnl lo

"

cerning priority of aural comprehension in the

language acquisition process appears lo be valid lor both conditions Indeed, it is implicit in the very name of die audio-Uneuar method. The
.

bv Ervin I'tipji in her paprr ' Sinu nitr and Procru in LanKUflgc' Acqimiiion dfliven-d ai ihc 21m Animal Round Tj

blc in (icxirgfiown (Ervin Tripp. 1*170), AUa icr "Prftate

(Orlnl Amuaiir Suiragc (PAS)' by Ciowiki and Morion

(19691

"

EFFECTS Of DELA V

is dwcribed in a paper entitled "Rapid Acquisilion of a Foreign Language fGcrman) by the

Avoidance of Speaking." In this article I wish to report an experiment

on effects of delay in oral practice at the beginning of second language learning (Poslovsky.
19701 conducted for a doctoral dissertation dur-

ginning of the course for fear of graphic interference. In the comprehension-oriented approach. the argument may be reversed. Conceivably. one may argue thai it is just as logical to present written forms prior to intensive pronunciation practice. In a classroom environment

written forms are not normally presented in

isolation; the student hearn a foreign utterance and sees its transcription simultaneously. By

ing the academic year 1969-70. The principal problem addressed in this study
may be formulated as follows: if processing of

training the student to write a foreign word in

the presence of an auditory stimulus we are
creating desirable associations and possibly re,

auditory input is essential and intrinsic 10 the nature of the language acquisition process, then
the linguistic properties of that input are crucial

inforcing his perception of auditory input

,

If it Is true, as I propose, that the student learns essentially what he hears. But in the audiolingual class where each student is vocally active, students hear themselves more than they hear the teacher. The auditory input which they

The problem of interference is not limited lo

the phonological level alone as Politzer (1955
,

pp. 9-10) clearly demonstrates, it extends to

the morphological, syntactical and semantic

levels. On these levels a written form appears

to be an asset rather than a liability
.

are processing, then, is not the authentic language, but the classroom dialect rich with all

Thus, by not requiring students to produce

vocal output at the beginning of second language learning, we may reduce interference

the distortions that are peculiar to ihe beginning

students

speech output. It is not surprising, therefore, that after extensive study of a foreign language students still experience marked difficulty in understanding a native speaker, while displaying considerable fluency in communicating among themselves."

'

from the habits of the native language because

the motor side of the student's linguistic be-

havior during the comprehension training will

be minimal.

Rased on the above reasoning we may tentatively pro)>ose that intensive oral practice is not

On the basis of the above argument, it is suggested that delaying oral practice at the beginning of the course will significantly enhance

productivt' in the initial phase of instruction and should be delayed until the student is better
prepared for the task, that is, until he has

the development of language proficiency and

will enable the student to develop better pro-

nunciation and control of grammar than is

presently possible with the audio-lingual ap-

learned to understand the spoken language. Recognition knowledge is prerequisite for the
development of retrieval knowledge. This thcorciical orientation gives a new di-

proach. It is emphasized that the goal of instruction remains the development of communi-

cative competence and oral fluency

Intensive

mension to the old problem of negative transfer

or interference in second language learning
.

In

the production-oriented "audio-lingual" approach. contextual meaning of a foreign utterance is viewed as a source of interference in the

pronunciation practice is merely shifted to the second phase of instruction, when the student is better prepared for the task and consequently,
.

lias less chance of developing poor habits in oral

production.
Simon UfUiNtn (1971). <lescril)ing htt cxpcrirnc*' with ihe Mlt- A inMiiHicv made a simil.ip ohM-rvahon He Itatfd m
I
-....

initial phase of instruction because it tends to

'

divert the student's altcmion from the phono-

logical features presented and thus adversely affect his pronunciation. In the comprehensionoriented approach, contextual meaning becomes indispensable because the goal of instruction

At chtf i-nd ot ihi' 19l>0-I Prnn Siait- Acailcmit Year

l-iriiui Insiiiim'

1 wa;* iiuiclv jolicd by ibr icali/Hiion lliai i( is |M>s>ililr lo develop Mt calttyl '$|>tal(ing' abiliiv
.

and yi tic virtually incompel nl in undfryanding ihr

>)Kikcii langua i'
'
. .

is to develop processing strategies for decoding

of auditory input Similarly in the audio-lingual approach
.

the

Kvm 41 ltia( limt* 1 Mtongly suspo* ird thai iho nc ii-pml Kqiiencc <>f entpbasizlng Ifttetfinj;, tpraklog'.
'

n-dil

writing system is usually withheld at the be-

Higi ami writing? in iliai mdrr wai *'"!>. bcinR ob"

miimI Miprflicially.

232

VALERIAS A

POSTOVSKY

Operalionally, this system implies thai the

student will he able to write before he speaks.

On the average they had approximately 2.75

years of college. They represented the same

socioeconomic stratum, that of a middle-class

The writing system will be introduced on (he

f rst day of instruction and all students' re- American family. i Experimental Procedure. In order to ensure sponses during the pre-vocal training will be in
writing. Jt is assumed that the dynamics of
contextual meaning and the facilitiation of the

internal validity of the experimental procedure

and to increase the size of the sample, iwo consecutive experimenis were conducted. The first experiment started on September 9. 1969 and was completed on November 28, 1969. The second experiment-an exact replication of the first-was carried out in the period between

meaningful response will by far outweigh the problem of graphic interference.

'

student s

Description of the Experiment

Objectives. Although the basic tenet, central to this study, is that in the second language learning situation aural comprehension must be developed ahead of production, the present experiment was not designed to test this tenet

January 9 and April 3. 1970. Each of the two classes participating in the
study was divided into the Experimental and Control conditions. Subjects in the Experimental condition were individually matched with subjects in the Control condition.* The September class contained seventy-three students: of these,

specifically. Rather, it was limited lo testing die

effects of delay in oral practice at the beginning

of second language learning. And, since the

delay in oral practice in the experimcnlal condiiion was achieved by requiting students to

respond in writing, the second objective of this study was to investigate the efTecdveness of oral
versus writing practice.

eleven were disqualified as experimental subjects due to prior exposure lo Slavic languages. The remaining sixty-two students were grouped
into thirty-one matched pairs and randomly divided between the Experimental and Control

For this purpose a carefully ronlrolled experimental investigation was conducted, comparing an experimental condition, a four-week delav in oral practice, wilh a control condition. no delay in oral practice. Evaluation was carried
out for all four language skills-listening, speaking, reading and writing. Learning Environment. The experiment was

conditions. In the January class, following the

same criteria for selection, thirty matched pairs
were formed out of seventy-eight students, thus

bringing the total si/e of the sample to sixty-one

matched pairs. Thar is, counting both classes,

there were sixty-one subjects in the Experi-

mental group (Es)

who were individually

conducted at the Russian Depanment. Defense Language Institute. West Coast Branch
(DI,,1WC), Presidio of Monterey, California. DLIWC offers a unique learning environment and an exceptionally favorably cxpeiimental setting. The Russian course is an intensive sixhour-a-day program; four of these hours are
conducted in small classes of nine or ten stu-

matched with sixty-one subjects in the Control

group iCs;.* The experimental design followed

by each of the two classes is graphically presented in Figure 1.
Note that the duration of each experiment

was twelve weeks, but subjects were exposed to

the experimcnlal treatment only during the

'

M.ik

King WHS based in (ircviouslv obtained mircit on ihc

dents, and two in a conventional language laboratory. Subjects. The subjects used in the study were selected from military personnel who volun-

\inn I. rifiurit;1' Apiiiudr I'rsi (Al.AT) and Oils Lfnnmi t \d\.lined K'nni J) Inielligem r Tcm (Olis L) Age, cducanun .ind Itirmer itaininy in tnieiRn UnKuagrs <nihcr rhan
Slam l were mcd as addiiiunal eriieiia li)t inaiehitiR Kan
linn unniU-is uerc used U) deirrminc which Mud m tmni

e.uh pail mnild betome a memher nf ihe F.Kperinifnul

> undnKin

teered for language training and were assigned

to learn Russian at (he DLIWC. All native

speakers of English, they came from different geographic areas of the continental United Siaies. Most of them were between eighteen and twenty-four years of age. Their education ranged from high school to six year? of college.

Due lo aiiriiion. the imtiibei ol matched paii5 in Sep iiinbi'r cla*s reduced iv ovcmvfighi at the end of the sixth
'

week and m iweiuv live .11 rhe end ot ihe cwclfih week, lit

ihe I.muatv titss ihe nutnbei of maulied pairs was trilut ed III ItaTniy-arVni and irni\ ft>m irspecmely. thus reducing
1 hi- i<itjl t.imple 10 fij manhed paiitt f< ihe mk-week losiing pi-iiod ami 49 lor the twelve-week testing period

EFFECTS OF DELAY

Treatment

Week 1

Experimental No oral practice

Control

Intensive oral practice

2 3
A

Equal emphasis on ai ral comprehension

b 6

Transition

1
i

*.

Integration

-Regular Russian Program

Six-Week Comprehensive Test

7 8

Regular
Russian program

Regular
Russian
program

9
10 11 1?

Twelve-Week Comprehensive Test Fig. 1-Experimental Design

initial four wocks of instruction. Both the Es

there is a high degree of positive transfer from

writing to speaking, since both skills are productive. Hence, the Es were introduced to the

and the Cs were exposed to the same mstmrtors

throughout the experiment," both followed the

same daily cycle of instruction and had exactly

the same number of contact hours per day, the only difference bcin j in the methodology of
instruction.

conventional writing system (Cyrillic alphabet) from the very first day of instruction. To establish association between Russian sounds and

symbols, the students were given some pronun-

Upon completion of the pre-vocal phase of

instruction the Rs were merged with the Cs in
,

ciation practice along with the alphabet during

the initial three days of instruction, but immediately thereafter and until the end of the fourth week, all students responses were in writing.
'

the regular Russian program. Common examinatiom were administered at the end of the

sixth week and again at the end of the twelfth

week of instruction. The test scores on all four

language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and

writing) were statistirally treated.

In boih Project Classes ihc E*. aiul (hr Cs were carh di A B, C, and D- with eiKhi or nun- suuk-ms per wiiinn (hus making a mul r>r eight scc'
,

vidctl imo four scciiom

Methodology. The delay in oral practice in

the Experimental condition was achieved by developmenl of writing skill from the very beginning of the course in the Experimental condition was considered important for two reasons, First, it provided students with a meaning-

lltHW in each class. Ten imiruciot* were assigned co ifadi

iliew- secimnv, each instructor was teaching four hours daily
-

requiring students to respond in writing. The j{(mi|-, A typical whedult for an iiBtructor may be as fol
lows

two in the Experimental group and two in the Control

8:00-8:50 a.m. Section A(E) 10:00 10:50 a m Srtlion B(E) l;00 l;50 p.m Seciion A(C)

ful mode of response during the pre-vocal phase

of instruction; and second it was believed that
,

2:]0 S:00 p.m.

In

Section B(C)

manner, the "instructor variable' across sen ions was

.

minpleu'lv controlled

Z34

VALERIAS A

POSTOfSKY

That is. oral imilaiion drill was subsliluled by

The lest reliability measure was obtained by

diciation pracdce, pattern drills by writing computing odd and even item correlation and practice of pattern-drill responses, recitation of applying the Spearman-Brown correction (Guildialogues by writing out dialogues from memory. The Cs from the beginning followed the regular DLIWC Russian program with great
emphasis on habit-forming drills and oral prac-

ford, 1954). The results are given in Table 1.

TABLE I

Toi Keliability
B'Wks

tice. It was basically the audio-lingual approach.

However, short explanations of grammar were given before pattern-drill sessions, and the
Ltsirning

l2r*E
-89

"

Cyrillic alphabet was wiihhcld only for the first

three days of instrucdon. Thus, die C's had an intensive oral practice from the beginning of the course, while the Es had a delay in oral

SpfakmR Resiling

-88 7fl

-91 .68

Wriilng

90

-90

The tests were administered to both die Es

practice during the initial four weeks of in- and Cs assembled together in a single language struction. laboratory. All students' responses during the In an attempt to reduce the difference be- Spcaking Tesi were recorded on tape. To entween conditions to the mode of siudent re- hance reliability of the Speaking Test, three
sponse, eijual emphasis was made in both groups
raters were used to score each individual stu-

on development of aural comprehension. Cover- dent tape. The raters were senior instructors. ing identical tearhinii materials, both groups naiivr speakers of the Russian language, and were exposed 10 exactly the same vocabulary skilled in scoring this type of test by previous grammar, and lesson content. The same dia- experience. They were not members of the logues were first presented in both grtmps as Project Class faculty and did not know the
,

comprehension exercises by the teachen

And

snidenis. FuttluTinon'. students were identified

only after comprehension of the dialogue was on tape bv code number only, and the order of achieved, the oral rcpelition praciiti" in the listening 10 tapes was randomized. Conlrol condition and dictation pr;iriice in ihe
Experimenial rondilion would start Achicvemcni Tesls and Telling Piticfdiire.
,

Analysis and Results The data collected on each pair of subjects

The two comprehensive tests especially developed for this experiment were similar in formal

in this study represent several interdependent

dimensions- listening, speaking, reading, and writing scores, Therefore, the principal statisti-

to the MLA-Coopcrativc Foreign Language Tests. These tests were designed tn provide separate measures of listening, speaking, reading and writing skills at Iwo levels of acfiievemenl
.
-

cal procedure used in the analysis of the data was to eniplov ihe Multivariate Matihcd Pair T
Test. The Motelling TJ statistic appeared to be

the six-week and die twelve-week grading

ihe mosi apptopiiaie insimment i Morrison,

19671 , one of the mosi conservative statistical

periods in the DI.IWG Russian program. Administering and scoring of the tests followed the

procedures available for an experiment in foreign language leaching meihodology. because

procedure recommended for MLA Tests by the Educational Testing Service (1964). I lie test validity was established bv computing the Pearson Product-Moment correlation

in testing for variance between the Experimental and Control condilions, it simultaneously
accounts for covariance in all four related

coefficients between ihe scores obtained by the students on the lests and their classroom performance grades. The correlation coeHlcients for the oral part of the lest wen- .72 at the sixweek level and .8- at the twelve-week level. For

language skills. As mav be recalled, two consecutive expenmcnts were conducted in which students performance was measured at two dilfereni levels
'

the written part of the test, they were .84 and

.

87 respectively.

of achiivement: {I) at the end of the six weeks of instruciion, and (2) at ihe end of the twelve. weeks of instruction. Mean scores obtained by

EFFECTS OF DELAY

233

each project class at each of the two levels of

cal analysis as a one-sample problem. Thus, if

we take the difference I Experimental (E) Control |'C) 1 for each matched pair in our

achievement are reported in Tables 2 and 3.

TABLES Mean Scores Obiaincd on the Six Week Tesi Clasi

combined sample, the data may be summarized as is shown in the following diagram:
87 03
81.07

ConO)l>on

Listening Speaking Reading Wnting

Scpiembei
N - 2R

Expcrimemal
Comrol

28.78
28.50 4 4.92

Sz.W
34.32

6 Week Level

12-Week Level

Januarv
N - 27

Experimental
Comrol

31.33
29.9b

47.15
45.33

36.37
35.15

87.37
82.b7

E -C
N =55"

E - C N = 49'

TABLES
.

Mejn Scoie* Oliiained on the Twelve-VVeek TeM

Class

See Note 5

CorflittOn

Listening SoeaWing RBWing Wr.rtre

SeiiHrmlwr
N - 2h

ExiM'rimemal
Comrol

24.64
23,20

48.56
44.84

31,92
31.68

81.20
77.44

For easy visual comparison, mean scores for

ihe Es and Cs on listening (L), speaking (S),

reading (R), and writing (W) were transformed to the common scale and presented in a profile plot below. Although one might begin with investigation
of the difference between the six and the twelve-

Jjnuarv
N - 24

Expernm-mal
Control

26,66
23.66

49.92
48.38

33.08
32.79

79.92
78.67

In order to ensure that the two groups repre-

sented the same population ol students, the

September and January classes were tested for

week levels, it was of interest in this study to

detennine first whether or not there was any

equality, and upon finding no significant difference between the groups (/ = .62 at the sixweek level, and p = .58 at the twelve-week level) the data obtained from both project classes were merged to form a larger sample. In a matched-paii design, the data obtained from the Experimental and Control conditions maybe reduced to the difference in observed values

difference between the Experimental and Control londitions at each of the two levels of achievement.

The analyses of the daia wen? accomplished

on the C.D.C. 6-tOO computer at the University

of California Computer Center, Herkrley. The

program ulili/ed was that of Dr. Jftcmy Finn.

for the paired members and subjected to statisli-

University of New York. Buffalo (Finn, 1968),

Ptofile Plot 6-Week

12-Week N = 55
N-49

E
90-

11
80vv
i

//

v.

li

\\
70 -

\\ \\
\\ \\
'

11 11

Ji

ji

l
Sign.
p-< 01
.

60-

\ 11
s
v '

Ji

Jl
1 1

y
50 _

p<:.09
1 1
w

1
_

Figure 2.

236

VALERIAN A

POSTOVSKY

From the1 profile plot above, ii can be seen

that (he difTerence between groups favored the Expcrinientai condition on all criterion measures, but the slalistically significant difference til p < .01 level was observed only ai the sixweek level of achievement. At the twelve-week

contributed to the observed difTerence.

The seven components of the speaking score are given below:

1
.

Mimicry (Mim.)

2 3
4

Reading aloud (Read.) Answering questions (Q.A.I

Free narralion (Nar.)

level, when all language skills were considered

simullaneously, a similar trend was observedthe direction of the difference on all criterion

Control of grammar (Gram.i Control of vocabulary (Vocab.)

measures was in favor of ihe Es, bul ai less than

Fluency (FU)

statistical level of significance. However, further

analysis of the data (confidence iniervals) revealed that the E s at the twelve-week level were
'

Mean scores for the Es and ihe Cs on each of these variables were transformed to the com-

significantly superior to the Cs in listening comprehension (/)<.008), while at the sixweek level, the most significant dideionces between groups was in speaking, reading, and writing skills. The observed difference in reading and writing skills was not surprising. The Es received more practice in these skills, therefore their superiority on these criterion measutes was anticipaled. Of more interest was the difference in
,

mon scale and plotted on the profile graph which is presented in Figure 3.
tl must be noted thai the difference between

groups on these criterion measures was found to be signifiram at the .0001 level of confidence.
The two variables dial contributed most to this

ouicomc were control of grammar and reading

aloud. For a more detailed treatment of data

the reader is referred (0 (he original dissertation (Postovsky, 1970).

Discussion

speaking. For this reason the speakini; score for

each subject was broken into its component

parts (see MLA Scoring Form for Speaking

Test) and subjected (o further analysis with the

This study can be described as a broad com-

parison between two radically different approaches to the initial phase of foreign language

aim of determining which specific elenient(s)

Six-Week Level

70-

60M

--

~
.

50-

Sign. p<,C001
40

1
Mim

1
Read

III
OA.
Nar.

.1Vocab

Gram

Fig. 3. -Components ot the speaking score, six-week

level of achievement.

EFFECTS OF DELAY

217

insiruction. One approucli concenlraies on ihe

viously, several oral responses can be made in

development of pronunciation and oral fluency

from the very beginning, while the other treats

the time required for a single written response

oral production as one of the more dificult aspects and, therefore, not an appropriate
slardng point. Il attempts to reduce complexity of the learning task by deiayinc oral practice. In the experimental design, overall language proficiency is viewed as a function of method.

Therefore, while practicing the same drill material. the Cs had a clear advantage over the

Es in terms of the number of studeni trials per item. This advantage becomes less apparent when we consider some of the positive features
of writing practice from spoken input First, the
.

Es heard only authentic Russian speech

.

while

The tests employed for measuring listening,

speaking, reading, and writing skills yielded global scores for these skills, favoring the Es in

the Cs heard both the authentic models and the imperfect student imiiations It is possible, there-

each instance. Although not all differences were statistically significant, the data obtained clearly suggest thai the experimental method provoked
a greater amount of learning. The results obtained are quite uniform for both project elas-ses. but due to grossness of measures, the data generated by this investigation can be interpreted only in general terms. Any attempt to draw specific conclusions about the second language- acquisition process without additional

fore, that the Es stored more precise acoustic data in their memory. Secondly a written response requires longer storage of auditoiy input in
,

short-ierm memory. Students attentional focus

'

on auditory surface is increased and they are

given more time for processing the message. Thirdly, il is possible that subvoealization dur-

ing writing practice plays a significant role in

assimilation of linguistic structure particularly
,

during dictation practice when students hear a

correct model every time (he sentence is repeated by the teacher. Investigation of the role

and more detailed research would be pure speculation. In this respect, the present study raised many more questions than it supplied
answers.

of <ubvocali/ation in foreign language learning

has been suggested by Scherer (1965) who felt
,

However, let us look at the outcome of this

that its conscious application increases the learning potential of the student And. finally, we
.

study in greater detail. At the end of six weeks of training, the Es were found to be significantly better than the Cs in speaking reading, and
,

must remember that writing practice provides

visual reinforcement.

writing skills. The last two are not surprisingthe Es had more written practice and they
simply learned what they were taught. However
,

The visual reinforcement hypothesis is supported by earlier research by Dunkel (1948)

and by Crothers and Suppes (196?), Dunkel

compared three methods-auditory, visual, and

the same generalization cannot be applied to the observed difference in speaking. In this case the Cs had far more oral practice, but their
,

concurrent auditor) and visual-for teaching

Persian vocabulary and grammar. He found

that vocabulary learning was not retarded by

the absence of visual information, but that the

performance on the test was inferior to that of the Ks. The data generated by this experiment

learning of grammatical structure was. Crothers

and Suppes, in their experiments on learning

actually showed negative correlation between

the amount of oral practice and quality of performance on the test. This outcome clearly requires some plausible explanation. We may recall that absence of oral practice
in the Experimental condition did not mean

Russian grammatical patterns, suggested that

by virtue of having more opportunity to observe

how a continuous How of speech in a sentence

is segmented, the students may have been more responsive to specific grammatical features involved.

absence of practice f>rr se but rather a different kind of practice. In ihe Experimental condition oral practice was substituted by written re.

We may recall at this point that the analysis

of the speaking score components in the present

study revealed thai the greatesi difference between ihe Es and Cs was in the control

sponses. Let us, then, look at the difference be-

tween the oral and the written response

Ob-

1!38

VALERIAN .1

POSrOfSKY

of graminaiical siniclure.1 The second significant diirercncc between groups al (he six-week

in this area cannot be explained by the difference in the initial emphasis of instruction. A more plausible interpretation, and one which conforms with subjective observation, is

level was in reading aloud. On the test, the

subjects Were rated on two criterion measuresCritical Features and Reading Fluency. How-

ever. in analyzing the data, the Reading Fluency

rating was merged with Kluency in Narration, thus leaving Critical Features alone in the
Reading score. Critical Features are defined as
L'Propet

diat during the initial phase of instruction', when the Es were learning to use the Cyrillic alphabet, their attention and effort were consumed by the new writing system and the learning rate in aural comprehension was correspondingly reduced. In the second six-week period, however, the writing system presented no problem: on the contrary, it was likely to aid in the development of other language skills. Thus, it is possible that writing practice from spoken input may have latent elTects on subsequent develop-

stress and accuracy of pronunciation

'"

within individual words and groups of words

(MLA. 1961). In a 66-word reading passage.

ten critical features were selected for evalua-

tion. Raters scored each of these ten items as

right or wrong, A sum of right responses as

rated by each of the three raters ronstimted the

mem of other language skills.

Conclusions

raw Reading Aloud score. Critical Features in a reading test provide a

measure of pronunciation when graphic inter-

Such conclusions as follow must of necessity

ference is present. It is a production of speech

from symbol to sound. Clearly, die test must
measure ihc student's

apply lo learning Russian as a second language. Furthermore, they apply specifically to the

ability to control graphic

sample population and the learning environment of this investigation. However, some characteristics of the sample, such as age. educalional background, and socioeconomic status, indicate that the sample was in many respects represetnative of a general population of college
students, thus makins the findings and conclu-

interference. The superiority of the Eb on this criterion measure seerns in support an argument presented here earlier. That argument sugiresied

a reversal of the sequence of events, presenting written forms prior to oral practice and using
dictation as an exercise in sound discrimination

VVe may note that Mace and Keisler ' 1963). in

their study on discrimination and pronunciation

of French phonemes, found that training in

sions of this study more generalb applicable. On the basis of the data reported, the following conclusions are made:

visual discrimination facilitated pronunciation.

The discussion thus far has concentrated on
the results obtained at the si\--week level of

In Icaining Russian, aduh studenii develop

better overall langiiaj r prolicicilty when oral

praciiee is delayed in the initial phase of insituetion, proiided that ihn pre-vocal period u
delated to training in aural comprehension

achievement. Twelve-week results were nuite

similar, but the diflVreiices between groups

tended to be smaller except for the difTernce in iislening. Analysis of the difTercncc in the
2
.

and wr/lten practice from spoken input

There is high po>itive transfer ol learning from

rate of learning between groups in the period

between the six and iwelve-weet; tests indicated
3
.

wridng to speaking, provided that written pracnec is from spoken input. In the initial pha.se of insirueiiim. when written
praniec from spoken input is compared with oral practice of the same drill material, written practice develops benet control of grammaiicaUduciure.

that the Es tended to progress faster in the listening and speaking skills, while die Cs gained
more in ihe reading and writing skills. This

outcome clearly reveals the efTects of treatment during the first four weeks of instruction; skills

hitruduction ol the wming syMem (Cyrillic at-

initially de-emphasized tended lo level put when

instruction became more balanced. However,
.

1 he i aw score mi il>i> riitenmi measure was obuincd by

the training in listening comprehension was not de-emphasized in the Experimental condition.

i.MniK lamigsoii a 0 :> Seal* fm j' Ii "I Uie nva narraiioiB

lo (omml Hdiirctmty.

Ji-hiiihint: pn lures in ih*- 1pm liooklrt Thp MLA 119641

rruvria I'" KOdM js liilluwrd

therefore, the difference in the ate of learning r

iimr iitdcpcmimi xAt/en arorvd each siudcm up*?.

THE CI.O/.F TEST AS A MEASURE Of ENCUSH PRUHCIENCY

2S9

ph.ibrt prior 10 intrtisivr pronunciation ptacticp dor$ not crcatr a grratrr problem of
graphic imrrffrener than normally crratrd by

ate anaKsisof variance, rosanance and re Tession. A For tran IV I'toRrjin [une 19hK li.isc-i (,. I'rsula Bellugt and K Brown. Control ot gram

the reverse sequeiue ui presentation.

REFERENCES

mar in imttatton. < tmiptehriisioti, and pioduction The

puiinal nl I erhal Learning and I erhal Brhanior. Vol II
'
'

iivOy,, Hi is.
pbvtu al tcsponsr
(.authiec.

Asbcr, Jjmrs J. I he sitatrgy ! ihr

.

Robert. Ian Cau

a natural method foi learn

Am .ipplioiion i>i kjiimig laji.nit-y- IRALi Vol III, No

I U%5|.
I hc tout phvmal rcsponM- approach losrtnnd lati guagr U-arniii>r. Thf Madfrn Ijtn uti i laumnt, Vol UU No 1 (Ji.m1.1ry. IW )
'

mi; a second language. Teacher f Guide In Accomftany Ihr Tan Gau Melhctd. lotomo: W J Cage l.iinitrd
IWi*.

(.uillotd. j . I'Mchomelrtc Methods. 2nd Ed.. New York:

BrlaM.o Sirnoti Nucleation and (lie audio lingual ap pioach I he Mndi rn LanguuKrJournal. Vol XLIX. No.
8|IVtemher I'tfi'i).

Mc Craw Hill (Mft, I i t- 1 I A scjeentng test KM ttyntax development J

SfMdi Hear Da . S5 (IH70I 103 112

Mace I Jtiv and Evan K. Ketsler. "Reversibilttv ol Stimulus
.

The fejsibtlitv of learntnj; a sec ond lani{ua e in an

tttil Rfsponsc I c-itus Following Ihsciimination Learning

atiificial unicuhural siluadon. Tht P\\fhology n; .S.. .n.rf

Ijimtua t Learning. Editpd by Paul Pimdeui ami lei TIm* I mverciiy Presj. eiifr ( uinn f anibrid e,
'

'

Journal of Lducalional Psycholog\ LVKiofinj \U .1 C.nofietain'e Enreign Ijlngtuigi- Tei/i Ih'reclfOns of

AitrntHfilering and Sconng Educational 1 estmi; Service,

ol Fient h I'honemev

l?>JI

lllo..in. 1. M. Languagi lynrlopmrnl Enrti and huntiioii

tn Enn rguin Criimtiutry Camlnicl|;e. Mass. The M 1.1.
.

VjaitpetaxiiH! lest DivtaiiM

( ihroitita. I%'l.

PiinccMR. NJ.

Beikelev.

I less
'

ll?!!

Moitisoti, UonaldF,. Muttiianale Stalistical Method*. New Vink

I'olii/ei

Cairoll |ohn H . I he conmbutious 01 psvchulugicil the4>rv tod tducaiiooal research to the te thio o( totei>;n Ian
.

Mc Craw Hill. 1967.

Kobeit L

Eonign Language Learning

A Lirt-

KUaKi s. Tin- Moi/trn I nnguaiii- jnunint. \ ol XI.IX No

.

t (Mav, lt|t$l

281

gutstif tntroductton iiaii inc.. iita

En lewood Cltlls. NJ.. Prentice-

r.ti

row M \ I he deielopment ol auditors comprehen sion of lattijuaije snuciure in children. / Speech Hear
/) IS (1!>I W ill,

Posonskv Valenan, A.. Edlects ot clel.cv 111 otal ptaclice at

iln- beginning ol second language leatrung Pit I), dtsser
.

tutiod t imetsttv ol Califoinia. Betkeles (19701

Ctctiher Edward and Patrick Suppes, E.xpfrimenti in Siccunii languvue l.eorntnn

Ittfi".
(
.

Sctiiier Ceoige A C:.. lowaid mote ellecme mchsidualt/< d It .lining Lunguage Learning I he Indnidual and the />"<'*'. Edited b\ Edward W. Najam Bloomirtgton.
.

New Yotlt; Acailemn Prns.

iMwciit R G. andJMorton Pircalejt;orkal acoustic stor.

ImiI.
Ntiiiih
'
.
.

Indiana Untsersils. Mouton & (ai,. I96fi

ij!e t I

'

AM Vrrceplion and Piyrhophyuex. Vol. V 110691

Hiri v75.

Dottlt-I M U . .Sdcowr/ EanauiW Lvuming Boston: liinn.

I<HH

4 :,tiIota S. I wo studies ol ibessntaciic knowledge of tun 1 InUlien Presemed .11 the Linguistic C'olloqutum. I aytetil Peltosslvanta Psychtaiiic Instnole M.LI . 19fit>. Wttiii/ I latits antl jame-. Rei-tts Rapitl at quisition of a for
.
.

I tcin 1 tipp. Susan M.. Stiutiute and piu<e> in bU pujlife

atiHiisiiiiitt, ONmwmM I mn riUy Monograph 21si An nual Round I able No. jM (1970)
'

ign language ilteimant bv the avoidance of speaking.

Kansas Cits Wotkmg Papers m Speei li StM iite and Lht-

I mn [iTemv Mulltvatiaiice

utucariate aiul nlulltvari

guistii s Ninnbi-t I wo. Lfniyenhl ol MisM.nin Kansas City iSt jii. mliet 1971).