Abstract

Keywords

۱٫ Introduction

۲٫ Research question

۳٫ L1 and L2 speech

۴٫ Method

۵٫ Results

۶٫ Discussion

۷٫ Conclusion

Author statement

Acknowledgements

References

Vitae

Abstract

This paper investigates how the language of instruction in Dutch higher education (Dutch versus English) affects speech production by L1 Dutch-speaking lecturers. In a pairwise design, three young lecturers that were highly proficient in English gave two comparable lectures each (L1 Dutch and L2 English). Results show that the L1 Dutch lectures were consistently given at slightly higher syllabic speech and articulation rates and that filled pauses were shorter and occurred less often in Dutch than in English lectures. In addition, L1 Dutch lectures contained a more diverse vocabulary and showed pitch patterns which have been shown to be associated with greater liveliness and higher perceived charisma of the speakers. We discuss possible reasons for the observed acoustic differences and the potential impact of our findings in the light of the ongoing transition from Dutch-medium instruction to English-medium instruction in Dutch higher education.

۱٫ Introduction

The number of English-medium instruction programmes is increasing rapidly all over the world. In Europe, the Netherlands is among the countries with the highest proportion of EMI programmes (Maiworm & Wächter, 2002; Wächter & Maiworm 2008, 2014). In many cases, this means that the number of Dutch-medium instruction (DMI) programmes is decreasing as the continuation of entirely mirrored programmes is considered inefficient and financially unprofitable (Wilkinson, 2013, p. 10). In practice, this does not only mean that many students have fewer programmes to choose from if they wish to study in their native language, but also that higher education (HE) lecturers increasingly teach in a language that is not their native language. What are the implications of this for the lectures that students attend in this setting?

Previous research into the nature of EMI lectures suggests that EMI speech is slower (Hincks, 2010; Thøgersen & Airey, 2011; Vinke, 1995; Vinke, Snippe, & Jochems, 1998) and more formal (Thøgersen & Airey, 2011) than lecturers’ native-language speech. Some investigations report more disfluencies in EMI speech (Thøgersen & Airey, 2011), others fewer (Vinke et al., 1998).