Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

System 36 (2008) 2–9

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

SYSTEM

Editorial

Guest editor’s introductionEmergent and divergent:

A view of second language listening research

The wish May you live in interesting times is said to convey a threat of future turbulenceto a Chinese listener, a nice example of how a message is shaped by the assumptions thatthe listener brings to bear. These are certainly ‘interesting times’ for the study of secondlanguage listening – though some of us would suggest that they have yet not been turbu-lent enough. We need some radical rethinking if we are to overcome the obstacles that L2listening researchers face: an unproductive tradition of instruction; received ideas that arenot always supported by evidence; a degree of terminological confusion; and limited inter-faces with work in other areas.

But there are heartening signs that second language listening is now emerging as aclearly-defined field. The present volume (which I believe to be the first special issue ofan applied linguistics journal on the topic since Applied Linguistics, 7/3, 1986) is testimonyto this. And with emergence has come diversity. Increasingly, we think of researchers asspecialising not simply in L2 listening but in a particular area such as phoneme discrimi-nation, word recognition, academic listening, strategy use, negotiation of understanding ortesting. We also think of them as approaching the phenomenon from distinct theoreticalstandpoints provided by cognitive psychology, discourse analysis, socio-cultural theory,learner factors, and so on.

The brief review that follows is not intended to be comprehensive. Its main aim is toprovide a background for the papers presented here, and for other submissions whichspace did not allow us to include, but which nonetheless reflected some of the interestingand rigorous work being carried out in this field. It will cover a number of features ofcurrent L2 listening research: the renewed emphasis upon perceptual processing, dis-course-based insights into the construction of meaning, the expansion of work on listeningstrategies1 and new areas of enquiry associated with pedagogy (most notably, the use ofvideo in teaching and issues of cognitive validity in testing).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.01.001

1 I restrict the term processes to the cognitive operations which underlie all listening, whether in L1 or L2, andthe term strategies to compensatory techniques that are used to fill gaps in word recognition or in understanding.

Editorial / System 36 (2008) 2–9 3

1. Perceptual processing

In the early 1990s, there was a widespread view, especially among practitioners, that‘context’, loosely defined, held the key to success in listening. There was an accompanyingview that accurate decoding was of low priority because perceptual errors could be com-pensated for by the use of contextual evidence.2 The result was a focus in both researchand pedagogy on the contribution made by factors such as schematic knowledge andfamiliarity with topic, text type and situation (Markham and Latham, 1987; Long,1989, 1990; Schmidt-Rinehart, 1994).

The emphasis upon ‘context’ partly reflected a received notion in some quarters thattop–down and bottom–up processing are alternatives rather than mutually dependentand highly interconnected. In addition, little or no account was taken of the demandsmade upon working memory by inefficient decoding. When bottom–up processing is accu-rate and automatic, it frees working memory capacity and thus allows the listener to buildcomplex meaning representations. When it is not, it may limit the listener’s ability to forma detailed and coherent message. For a fuller account, see Field (2004).

Thinking has now moved on, and recent years have seen a renewed interest in the wayin which perception contributes to the meaning representations that L2 listeners build (seee.g. Lynch, 2006). It has been accompanied by a growing recognition (Field, in press) that,in order to train learners more successfully in second language listening, we need to treatthe skill as a form of expert behaviour. On this analysis, the instructor’s goal is to developprocessing routines in the L2 learner which resemble, so far as possible, those adopted byan experienced listener. Researchers draw increasingly upon models of how L1 listenersbehave; and it is unsurprising that several of the papers in this volume (Zielinksi, Al Jaffer,Field, Broersma & Cutler) adopt this kind of cognitive stance.

Current research into perceptual processing tends to foreground segmental phonologyand lexis; curiously, as Brown (2006) points out, little attention has been focused upon theprocessing of L2 syntax and intonation.

1.1. Phonology

Phoneme perception is perhaps the most actively researched area of L2 listening at thepresent moment. Commentators hold that a complex set of cross-linguistic factors deter-mine which phonemes a listener has difficulty in distinguishing in L2 – though there is con-siderable discussion as to the precise nature of those factors (Flege, 1995; Best, 1995;Escudero and Boersma, 2004). Our understanding of phoneme discrimination is supportedby evidence from brain imaging which suggests that the perception of L2 never becomesentirely identical to that of L1 (Dehaene et al., 1997; Pallier et al., 2001).

This is a fascinating area for researchers; and its current importance was reflected in anumber of submissions to this special issue. But it is an area that has somewhat limitedapplications to the listening classroom. If one holds to an interactive model of L2 listening,then it is clear that information in the form of lexical knowledge can more than compen-sate for uncertainties at the phoneme level. Phoneme level processing may therefore not beas critical to successful L2 listening, or as central to instruction, as is sometimes supposed.

2 This, despite voices such as Brown’s (1977, second ed. 1990) drawing attention to the importance of input.

4 Editorial / System 36 (2008) 2–9

That said, phoneme errors can have important knock-on effects when transmission is inthe other direction: when the language learner is the speaker rather than the listener. Aninteresting line of research, represented especially in the work of Derwing and Munro (e.g.Derwing and Munro, 1997) has investigated the factors that determine the relative intel-ligibility of L2 speakers. For obvious reasons, researchers have mainly concerned them-selves with the implications for pronunciation teaching; but it takes two tocommunicate, and the part played by the listener also merits consideration (Pickering,2006, pp. 224-226; Field, 2003). The contribution by Zielinksi to this special issue is thusespecially timely. Zielinksi examines the effects that non-standard phonological featureshave upon understanding. Her findings suggest that native English listeners without spe-cialist training or experience make few adjustments to their normal processing routineswhen they encounter samples of non-native speech. They continue to rely quite heavilyon the cues provided by syllable stress. They also place faith in segments that occur instrong syllables, and are consequently more likely to be misled if the segments are incor-rectly realised.

1.2. Lexical

The study of how lexis is processed has a long history in L1 listening research; but hasonly quite recently attracted wide attention in L2 contexts. Two important areas of con-cern are the nature of the L2 lexicon and how it is accessed (Meara, 1997, raises someinteresting issues); and the fact that there are no consistent gaps between words in con-nected speech, which means that listeners, whether in L1 or in L2, need to determinefor themselves where word boundaries fall (see e.g. Cutler, 1990). The paper by Broersma

and Cutler in this issue considers both. They take as their point of departure the widelyadopted assumption (McQueen, 2004) that auditory lexical recognition is achieved bymeans of competition between word candidates that are activated to different degrees.They then point out a) that the competitors must include alternative segmentations(a + sleep versus asleep) and b) that competition is more complex in the case of L2 listen-ers because it may include additional candidates due to the listener’s uncertain phonemevalues. Their study provides evidence that this is indeed the case.

Over the years, a number of language-specific strategies have been identified which as-sist the L1 listener to locate word boundaries. Anne Cutler’s early work (see e.g. Cutler,1997) focused upon prosodic features: for example, the role of strong syllables in Englishand of moras in Japanese. More recently, Cutler and other researchers have gone on toexplore the part played by word-level factors (Norris et al., 1997) and by phonotactic con-straints (McQueen, 1998). Weber and Cutler (2006, 604) demonstrated that, when ad-vanced German listeners segment input in English, they employ phonotactic rulesspecific to the target language, but also transfer constraints that are specific to their L1.Al Jaffer’s paper in this issue builds on the last set of findings by extending the enquiryto listeners with a non-European language and at a lower level of L2 proficiency. Al Jafferalso introduces an element of instructional intervention, asking whether awareness train-ing assists language learners to make increased use of L2 phonotactic constraints.

The paper by Field also features lexical segmentation. I present a view of decoding,whether in L1 or L2, as a tentative operation in which early hypotheses have to be con-stantly revised. It is of interest to establish how flexible L2 listeners prove to be if they haveto abandon a preferred segmentation which does not accord with later perceptual

Editorial / System 36 (2008) 2–9 5

evidence. Are they more volatile than L1 listeners because of their uncertainties aboutwhat they have heard so far or are they less willing to change because of their uncertaintiesabout the new evidence?

2. Discourse and meaning construction

The research that has been discussed so far largely adopts an experimental design. Bycontrast, higher-level processing in the form of meaning construction is often investigatedby studying recorded exchanges between speakers and listeners. The methodology hasquite a long tradition. In L1, it was employed to effect by Gillian Brown, who obtaineda large database of British secondary school interlocutors communicating informationwhile performing her Map Task (Brown, 1995). In L2, it was notably the basis of the largeESF immigrant project in the late 1980s (Perdue, 1993).

Data of this kind permits two broad types of analysis. One can examine the speaker’slanguage for its informativeness and its assumptions about knowledge shared with the lis-tener; or one can target the points at which understanding breaks down. In this issue,Brown revisits her extensive database from a third angle. She asks whether parts of theinformation transmitted by the speaker are in some way privileged and thus more likelyto be picked up by a listener, especially a listener working under quite heavy cognitive de-mands. Though she draws upon evidence of L1 listeners using inconsistent informationsources, she points out that an L2 listener suffers from similar demands due to the needto focus attention upon decoding. It therefore seems plausible that aspects of the inputwhich scaffold understanding in an L1 listener (Brown especially identifies main clausenouns) perform a similar function when a second language is involved.

3. Strategies

The strategies which learners bring to bear upon the tasks of learning and using the tar-get language (Corder, 1983) have long been a focus of enquiry in SLA. This is a difficultarea, which suffers greatly from terminological fuzziness. There are also problems in dis-cussing strategies that are specific to listening, because strategy taxonomies are usuallyconstructed with productive skills in mind and may not be directly relevant to receptiveones. See Macaro et al. (2008) for a recent review of the field.

Here, too, there has been progress in recent years, with a rapidly growing literature inlistening strategies and a number of commentators and researchers (Vandergrift, Goh,Graham, Mendelsohn) who have taken a specialist interest in this area. Two research tra-ditions have emerged. One (Vandergrift et al., 2006) relies upon questionnaire data to pro-vide insights into listeners’ beliefs about listening and estimates of their own strategy use.The other (Vandergrift, 2003; Graham, 2003; Goh and Taib, 2006) makes use of verbalreport – no easy thing to do with on-line listening, but possible retrospectively if (for exam-ple) the subjects are given a comprehension task and asked to report back on how theyarrived at their answers.

Whichever methodology is employed, it is difficult to form generalisations about listen-ing strategy use. One reason is that learners differ greatly in how willing they are to makestrategic choices. In most groups of individuals, there will be risk takers, ready to formhypotheses on the basis of partial evidence, and risk avoiders, who rely upon having

6 Editorial / System 36 (2008) 2–9

decoded most or all of the input.3 Another consideration (and one remarkably little dis-cussed) is that listening strategies4 usually constitute a response to a specific problem ofunderstanding, and are only effective if the response is appropriate. This means that astrategy cannot be considered independently of the circumstances which give rise to it.

The paper by Graham, Santos and Vanderplank in this issue adopts a case study ap-proach in order to take full account of precisely the issues just outlined. The researchersemploy verbal report to explore the difference between the strategy use of a successful lis-tener and that of a less successful one. The behaviour of the subjects is related to the con-texts in which it occurs, in order to assess its effectiveness. There is also a temporaldimension; strategy use is compared at two points in time to see if the performance ofthe weaker listener becomes more accomplished with longer experience of L2 listening.

4. Issues of pedagogy

Finally, it is worth recording three recent developments associated with the way inwhich listening is handled in instructional contexts.

4.1. Methodology

The renewed interest in perceptual processing referred to above derives partly from dis-satisfaction with the conventional comprehension-based approach to the teaching of L2listening. A view has frequently been expressed (Brown, 1986) that the approach testswithout teaching. Commentators have sought ways of producing better listeners ratherthan simply providing more and more exposure to target language recordings. One pro-posal (Field, in press). has been for targeted small-scale exercises which focus upon indi-vidual listening processes. To date, there has been disappointingly little academic researchinto the effectiveness of these new approaches; though there are encouraging reports fromclassroom teachers who have conducted action research studies.

4.2. Materials

Some of the most striking changes in the way instructors handle L2 listening have comeabout as the result of new technology, which has enormously expanded the range and typeof materials available. Opportunities for self-study have greatly increased, thanks to theproliferation of downloadable sources and the development of programs which permitlearners to check their own transcriptions.5 A parallel development has been the muchgreater availability of materials with visual content. With the advent of DVD and on-linematerials, the traditional dependence upon audio recordings needs to be reviewed. Clearly,a visual component renders classroom listening more ecologically valid. But, as Guichon

and McLornan point out in this issue, the additional information also makes increased

3 The difference may sometimes be culturally determined (LoCastro, 1994). Other possible factors includegender (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989), age (Macaro, 2001, p. 30) and motivation.

4 The discussion here is restricted to communication strategies (strategies of use in Cohen, 1998) employed tocompensate for gaps in recognition or understanding.

5 However, there is a clear need for learner training. Institutions such as CRAPEL in the University of Nancy,France have begun to devise materials which make autonomous learners aware of the nature of listening and ofthe best ways of handling recorded materials (Debaisieux and Regent, 1998).

Editorial / System 36 (2008) 2–9 7

demands upon working memory. Visuals can distract the learner’s attention from the lis-tening process as well as assisting understanding. Another consideration is that DVDsnow permit the use of sub-titles, raising a number of important questions for the listeninginstructor. At what point should captions be introduced? Are captions in L1 more effectivethan those in L2 or do they lead to cross-linguistic interference? Guichon and McLornanreport on a study which investigated how additional modalities in the form of visual inputand of subtitles affect the recall of information. Both sources were shown to support thelistening process; but also had the power to derail it.

4.3. Testing

A final development of relevance to this discussion has taken place in the field of test-ing. Testers have recently come to place importance upon what is termed cognitive validity(Weir, 2005): namely, the extent to which the language processes induced by test materialresemble those that would occur in a natural context. Their aim is to minimise effects thatare due to the test-taking situation, including test-wise strategies. They recognise that cog-nitive validity is an ideal, since practical considerations (marker reliability, ease of mark-ing, the strong preference of some exam boards for traditional formats such as MCQ) mayprevail. However, it is clearly important, especially in the testing of a skill such as listening,to be aware of the extent to which changes in the format of a test affect the processesadopted by candidates and potentially impact upon item difficulty.

The last paper in this special issue, by Yanagawa and Green, examines the effect of varyingthe way in which multiple-choice items are presented to the candidate in tests of L2 listening.The question cannot be considered in isolation from other factors that contribute to item dif-ficulty. To give a simple example, if we pre-present the MCQ stem but delay the presentationof the options until the recording has been heard, then we deprive the candidate of the advan-tage (dubious or not, it still constitutes an advantage) of listening out for key words con-tained within the options. Yanagawa and Green therefore extend their study to include ataxonomy of item factors that have been shown to assist candidates in listening tests

5. Final remarks

The papers in this collection are representative of the range and variety of the work thatis currently taking place in L2 listening. Several of them are striking for the way in whichthey break new ground. Brown draws attention to the possibility that certain constituentsof an utterance are privileged. Graham et al. address the neglected issue of the relationshipbetween a communication strategy and the situation that gave rise to it. Zielinksi extendsthe discussion of L2 intelligibility to include the listener. Guichon et al. explore the effectsof new forms of listening material upon recall. Al Jaffer raises the possibility of instructinglearners in L2 phonotactics. My hope as guest editor is that this special issue will not sim-ply stimulate a wider interest in the field of second language listening but will also laydown useful markers for future researchers.

Acknowledgement

This issue of System would not have been possible without the assistance of a numberof specialists, whose knowledge of the field has been invaluable. I am greatly indebted to

8 Editorial / System 36 (2008) 2–9

Tony Lynch, Joan Rubin and Denise Santos for their thoughtful advice and feedback inthe early stages of selection; and to Lisa Atalianis, Tracey Derwing, Suzanne Graham, De-nise Santos, Linda Shockey, Graham Turner, Catherine Walter, Goodith White and JohnWilliams for perceptive and detailed peer reviews. I am also very grateful for the advicegiven by Savitri Wilson, Principal Statistician at the Section of Applied Statistics, Univer-sity of Reading.

References

Best, C.T., 1995. A direct-realist view of cross-language speech perception. In: Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech

Perception and Linguistic Experience. York Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 233–272.

Brown, G., 1986. Investigating listening comprehension in context. Applied Linguistics 7 (3), 284–302.

Brown, G., 1990. Listening to Spoken English, second ed. Longman, Harlow.

Brown, G., 1995. Speakers, Listeners and Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Brown, G., 2006. Second language listening. In: Brown, K. (Ed.), second ed., . In: Encyclopaedia of Language

and Linguistics, vol. 11 Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 81–88.

Cohen, A., 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Longman, Harlow.

Corder, S.P., 1983. Strategies of communication. In: Faerch, G., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage

Communication. Longman, Harlow.

Cutler, A., 1990. Exploiting prosodic probabilities. In: Altmann, G. (Ed.), Cognitive Models of Speech

Processing: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives. MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA.

Cutler, A., 1997. The comparative perspective on spoken-language processing. Speech Communication 21, 3–15.

Debaisieux, J.-M., Regent, O., 1998. Un outil multimedia pour apprendre a apprendre les langues etrangeres.

Melanges CRAPEL No. 24, Nancy.

Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., Mehler, J., Cohen, L., Paulesu, E., Perani, D., van de-Moortele, P-F., Lehericy, S., Le

Bihan, D., 1997. Anatomical variability in the cortical representation of first and second language.

Neuroreport 17, 3809–3815.

Derwing, T., Munro, M., 1997. Accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility: evidence from four L1s. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition 19, 1–16.

Ehrman, M., Oxford, R.L., 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice and psychological type on adult

language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal 72, 253–265.

Escudero, P., Boersma, P., 2004. Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological

theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26 (4), 551–585.

Field, J., 2003. The fuzzy notion of intelligibility: a headache for pronunciation teachers and oral testers. SIG

publication in Memory of Gillian Porter-Ladousse. IATEFL, Whitstable.

Field, J., 2004. An insight into listeners’ problems: too much bottom–up or too much top–down? System 32, 363–

377.

Field, J. (in press). Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Flege, J.E., 1995. Second language speech learning: theory, findings and problems. In: Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech

Perception and Linguistic Experience. York Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 233–272.

Goh, C., Taib, Y., 2006. Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal 60 (3).

Graham, S., 2003. Learner strategies and advanced level listening comprehension. Language Learning Journal 28,

64–69.

LoCastro, V., 1994. Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL Quarterly 28, 409–414.

Long, D.R., 1989. Second language listening comprehension: a schema-theoretic perspective. Modern Language

Journal 73, 32–40.

Long, D.R., 1990. What you don’t know can’t help you. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 65–80.

Lynch, T., 2006. Academic listening: marrying top and bottom. In: Martinez-Flor, A., Uso-Juan, E. (Eds.),

Current Trends in Learning and Teaching the Four Skills within a Communicative Framework. Mouton,

Amsterdam.

Markham, P., Latham, M., 1987. The influence of religion-specific background knowledge on the listening

comprehension of adult second-language students. Language Learning 37, 157–170.

McQueen, J., 1998. Segmentation of continuous speech using phonotactics. Journal of Memory and Language

39.

Editorial / System 36 (2008) 2–9 9

McQueen, J., 2004. Speech perception. In: Lamberts, K., Goldstone, R. (Eds.), The Handbook of Cognition.

Sage, London, pp. 255–275.

Macaro, E., 2001. Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms. Continuum, London.

Macaro, E., Graham, S., Vanderplank, R., 2008. A review of listening strategies: focus on sources of knowledge

and on success. In: Cohen, A.D., Macaro, E. (Eds.), Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research

and Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 165–185.

Meara, P., 1997. Towards a new approach to modelling vocabulary acquisition. In: Schmidt, N., McCarthy, M.

(Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Norris, D.G., McQueen, J.M., Cutler, A., Butterfield, S., 1997. The possible-word constraint in the segmentation

of continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 34 (3), 191–243.

Pallier, C., Colome, A., Sebastian, N., 2001. The influence of native language phonology on lexical access.

Psychological Science 12, 445–449.

Perdue, C. (Ed.), 1993. Adult Language Acquisition: Cross-linguistic Perspectives, vol. 2. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, Chapter 5.

Pickering, L., 2006. Current research on intelligibility in English as a lingua franca. Annual review of Applied

Linguistics 26.

Schmidt-Rinehart, B.C., 1994. The effects of topic familiarity on second language listening comprehension.

Modern Language Journal 78 (2), 179–189.

Vandergrift, L., 2003. Orchestrating strategy use: towards a model of the skilled L2 listener. Language Learning

53, 461–494.

Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C., Tafaghodatari, M.H., 2006. The metacognitive awareness listening

questionnaire (MALQ): development and validation. Language Learning 56, 431–462.

Weber, A., Cutler, A., 2006. First-language phonotactics in second-language listening. Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America 119, 597–607.

Weir, C., 2005. Language Testing and Validation: An Evidence-based Approach. Palgrave Macmillan.

John FieldDepartment of Applied Linguistics,

School of Languages and European Studies,University of Reading, Whiteknights,

Reading RG6 6AA, UK

E-mail address: j.c.field@reading.ac.uk