TEXT II

Air Traffic Communication in a Second Language: Implications of Cognitive Factors for Training and Assessment

Candace Farris, Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada

Summary of Findings

We investigated the effects of cognitive workload on L2 speakers’ repetition accuracy and speech production (as judged by listeners) in a simulated pilot navigation task. Results revealed that the NS (native speakers) group repeated messages with greater accuracy than both L2 groups regardless of workload condition, and that the group with the lowest level of L2 proficiency was the one most affected by high cognitive workload. This finding suggests that L2 communications with controllers may be more challenging for pilots when they perform one or perhaps even more concurrent cognitive tasks. Results also revealed that the NS group sounded less accented, more comprehensible, and more fluent than both L2 groups, while the high group, in turn, received higher ratings for all these measures than the low group. In addition, high workload led to lower fluency ratings for the NS group and lower accentedness and fluency ratings for the low group than did low workload. With respect to the fluency ratings, our findings suggest that high workload is associated with the production of dysfluencies such as undue or long pauses, false starts and repetitions, to an extent perceptible by listeners. Although the additional cognitive demands of the high workload condition did not affect repetition accuracy (at least for the NS group), these demands did affect speech fluency, suggesting that fluency measures may be good indicators of the impact of cognitive workload, even when repetition accuracy is stable. With respect to accentedness ratings, the findings suggest that lowproficiency L2 users depart even more from native-like, unaccented speech under high cognitive workload, although this increased workload may not necessarily make their speech less comprehensible.

The finding that workload affects the amount of information retained and influences listener perceptions of speech (especially in the L2) is compatible with existing L2 processing research. For example, this finding is in accordance with conceptualizations of the role of automaticity in language processing. Such conceptualizations hold that well-practiced skills (e.g., L1 perception and production) are more highly automatic and require fewer attentional resources than newly acquired skills, such as L2 perception and production for low-proficiency L2 users. Low-proficiency speakers thus appear to have greater difficulty than highproficiency speakers in using their L2 perception and production skills in an efficient, automatic manner. When low-proficiency learners’ attentional resources are distributed across several tasks, these learners appear to engage in a nonautomatic, effortful form of processing. The result is that less information is accurately retained and more accented and less fluent speech is produced

Implications for L2 training and assessment

The findings have implications for L2 training and assessment, particularly in an ESP context. The current study revealed performance differences as a function of language proficiency, but the distinction between high and low proficiency was only relative here. Clearly, the notion of L2 proficiency needs to be clarified in practical terms, as it applies to thousands of professionals who will be tested according to ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Organization) language proficiency requirements. The existing ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale is a globally recognized instrument reflecting six language skills (pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions) and six proficiency levels (pre-elementary, elementary, preoperational, operational, extended, and expert). It may be important to continue fine-tuning this scale, validating it using a large population of pilots and controllers under conditions of varying workload or psychological stress typical of the controller–pilot workplace.

Other implications of the findings are practical in nature. For training and assessment purposes, especially in the ESP context, learners may benefit from practicing their L2 skills under workload conditions similar to those they might face in the workplace. This and other pedagogical interventions can often be accomplished without much specialized equipment. For example, to simulate a concurrent task environment that is similar in its cognitive demands to that of pilots, learners could solve a nonlinguistic puzzle or do an arithmetic task while communicating with a partner or in a group. Another example of increasing the cognitive demands of a language task may be to simulate the constraints of radio communications, such as monitoring and filtering for relevant information while listening to the communications of others and waiting for an opportunity to speak.

Similarly, teachers might design paired communicative activities in which interlocutors do not see one another, as in real controller–pilot communications. In setting up listening activities, teachers could also vary the regional variety of English and expose learners to English spoken by speakers of different language backgrounds, thus simulating the linguistic diversity which characterizes Aviation English. Although the technical requirements may be greater, instructors could set up activities that demonstrate the effects of radio frequency constraints on phonetic perception (e.g., showing that /f/ is often indistinguishable from /s/ in radiotelephonic communications).

Whatever pedagogical decisions ESP instructors make, they need not become absolute experts in the learners’ field. A mere familiarization with the cognitive challenges and the communicative environment of the learners’ workplace would go a long way in helping instructors make sure that learners can cope with the constraints and challenges of real life communications. Ultimately, this will ensure that learners meet their objective– achieving language proficiency adequate for their workplace.

Extracted from: TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 42, no 3, September 2008.