Which Phonetic Features Should Pronunciation Instructions Focus on? An Evaluation on the Accentedness of Segmental/Syllable Errors in L2 Speech

• Authors: Zhiyan Gao , Steven Weinberger
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Many English language instructors are reluctant to incorporate pronunciation instruction into their teaching curriculum (Thomson 2014). One reason for such reluctance is that L2 pronunciation errors are numerous, and there is not enough time for teachers to address all of them (Munro and Derwing 2006; Thomson 2014). The current study aims to help language teachers set priorities for their instruction by identifying the segmental and structural aspects of pronunciation that are most foreign-accented to native speakers of American English. The current study employed a perception experiment. 100 speech samples selected from the Speech Accent Archive (Weinberger 2016) were presented to 110 native American English listeners who listened to and rated the foreign accentedness of each sample on a 9-point rating scale. 20 of these samples portray no segmental or syllable structure L2 errors. The other 80 samples contain a single consonant, vowel, or syllable structure L2 error. The backgrounds of the speakers of these samples came from 52 different native languages. Global prosody of each sample was controlled for by comparing its F0 contour and duration to a native English sample using the Dynamic Time Warping method (Giorgino 2009). The results show that 1) L2 consonant errors in general are judged to be more accented than vowel or syllable structure errors; 2) phonological environment affects accent perception, 3) occurrences of non-English consonants always lead to higher accentedness ratings; 4) among L2 syllable errors, vowel epenthesis is judged to be as accented as consonant substitutions, while deletion is judged to be less accented or not accented at all. The current study, therefore, recommends that language instructors attend to consonant errors in L2 speech while taking into consideration their respective phonological environments.

Keywords

EN

accentedness; speech perception; pronunciation instruction

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 135-154

Dates

published

2018-06-30

Contributors

author

Zhiyan Gao

• George Mason University

author

Steven Weinberger

• George Mason University

References

• Altmann, Christian, Uesaki, Maiko, Ono, Matsuhashi, Masao, Mima, Tatsuya and Hidenao Fukuyama. 2014. Categorical speech perception during active discrimination of consonants and vowels. Neuropsychologia, 64, 13–23.
• Boersma, Paul and David Weenink. 2015. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3. 23. Available from: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ [Accessed: 24th January 2015]
• Chan, Kit Ying, Hall, Michael, and Ashley Assgari. 2016. The role of vowel formant frequencies and duration in the perception of foreign accent. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29 (1), 1–12.
• Couper, Graeme. 2006. The short and long-term effects of pronunciation instruction. Prospect, 21 (1), 46–66.
• Demuth, Katherine, Culbertson, Jennifer and Jennifer Alter. 2006. Word-minimality, epenthesis and coda licensing in the early acquisition of English. Language and Speech, 49 (2), 137–173.
• Difallah, Djellel, Filatova, Elena and Panos Ipeirotis. 2018. Demographics and Dynamics of Mechanical Turk Workers. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM). 135–143.
• van den Doel, Rias. 2006. How friendly are the natives? An evaluation of native speaker judgements of foreign-accented British and American English. PhD Dissertation. University of Utrecht, Utrecht: LOT.
• Edwards, Jette G Hansen. 2011. Deletion of /t, d/ and the Acquisition of Linguistic Variation by Second Language Learners of English. Language Learning, 61 (4), 1256–1301.
• Ennis, Sharon, Ríos-Vargas, Merarys and Nora G Albert. 2011. The Hispanic population: 2010. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.
• Enochson, Kelly and Jennifer Culbertson. 2015. Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon Mechanical Turk. PloS one, 10 (3), e0116946.
• Flege, James and Wieke Eefting. 1987. Production and perception of English stops by native Spanish speakers. Journal of phonetics, 15, 67–83.
• Fry, Dennis, Abramson, Arthur, Eimas, Peter and Alvin M Liberman. 1962. The identification and discrimination of synthetic vowels. Language and speech, 5 (4), 171–189.
• Giorgino, Toni. 2009. Computing and visualizing dynamic time warping alignments in R: the dtw package. Journal of statistical Software, 31 (7), 1–24.
• Gluszek, Agata and John Dovidio. 2010. Speaking with a nonnative accent: Perceptions of bias, communication difficulties, and belonging in the United States. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29 (2), 224–234.
• Gonzalez-Bueno, Manuela. 1997. Voice-onset-time in the perception of foreign accent by native listeners of Spanish. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 35 (4), 251–268.
• Gouskova, Maria. 2001. Falling sonority onsets, loanwords, and syllable contact. CLS, 37 (1), 175–185.
• Grant, Linda and Donna Brinton. 2014. Pronunciation myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Guy, Gregory R. 1991. Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change, 3 (1), 1–22.
• Hansen, Jette G. 2001. Linguistic constraints on the acquisition of English syllable codas by native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. Applied Linguistics, 22 (3), 338–365.
• Huang, Becky H and Sun-Ah Jun. 2015. Age matters, and so may raters. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37 (04), 623–650.
• Iverson, Paul and Patricia K Kuhl. 2000. Perceptual magnet and phoneme boundary effects in speech perception: Do they arise from a common mechanism? Perception & Psychophysics, 62 (4), 874–886.
• Kang, Okim, Rubin, Don and Lucy Pickering. 2010. Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. The Modern Language Journal, 94 (4), 554–566.
• Kronrod, Yakov, Coppess, Emily and Naomi H Feldman. 2012. A unified model of categorical effects in consonant and vowel perception. In Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the cognitive science society. 629–634.
• Kunath, Stephen and Steven Weinberger. 2010. The wisdom of the crowd’s ear: speech accent rating and annotation with Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Association for Computational Linguistics, 168–171.
• Labov, William. 1997. Resyllabification. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4, 145–180.
• Labov, William, Ash, Sharon and Charles Boberg. 2005. The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Magen, Harriet. 1998. The perception of foreign-accented speech. Journal of phonetics, 26 (4), 381–400.
• Major, Roy. 1987. Phonological similarity, markedness, and rate of L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9 (01), 63–82.
• McCullough, Elizabeth. 2013. Acoustic correlates of perceived foreign accent in non-native English. PhD Dissertation. The Ohio State University, Ohio: Columbus.
• Milroy, Jim. 1983. On the Sociolinguistic History of H-dropping in English. In Davenport, Michael, Hansen, Erik, and Hans Frede Nielsen (eds.), Current topics in English historical linguistics. Odense University Press, 37–53.
• Morrill, Tuuli and Zhiyan Gao. 2016. Discriminability of non-native tonal contours in low-pass filtered speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139 (4), 2162–2163.
• Munro, Murray J. 1993. Productions of English Vowels by Native Speakers of Arabic: Acoustic Measurements and Accentedness Ratings. Language and Speech, 36 (1), 39–66.
• Munro, Murray and Tracey Derwing. 1998. The Effects of Speaking Rate on Listener Evaluations of Native and Foreign-Accented Speech. Language Learning, 48 (2), 159–182.
• Munro, Murray and Tracey Derwing. 2001. Modeling perceptions of the accentedness and comprehensibility of L2 speech the role of speaking rate. Studies in second language acquisition, 23 (04), 451–468.
• Munro, Murray and Tracey Derwing. 2006. The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34 (4), 520–531.
• Nair, Ramesh, Krishnasamy, Rajasegaran and Geraldine De Mello. 2006. Rethinking the teaching of pronunciation in the ESL classroom. The English Teacher, (35), 27–40.
• Pisoni, David. 1973. Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels. Perception & Psychophysics, 13 (2), 253–260.
• Repp, Bruno and Robert Crowder. 1990. Stimulus order effects in vowel discrimination. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88 (5), 2080–2090.
• Rilliard, Albert. Alexandre Allauzen. and Philippe Boula de Mareüil. 2011. Using Dynamic Time Warping to Compute Prosodic Similarity Measures. In INTERSPEECH. 2021–2024.
• Riney, Timothy, Takada, Mari and Mitsuhiko Ota. 2000. Segmentals and global foreign accent: The Japanese flap in EFL. Tesol Quarterly, 34 (4), 711–737.
• Riney, Timothy and Naoyuki Takagi. 1999. Global foreign accent and voice onset time among Japanese EFL speakers. Language Learning, 49 (2), 275–302.
• Sato, Charlene. 1984. Phonological processes in second language acquisition: Another look at interlanguage syllable structure. Language Learning, 34 (4), 43–58.
• Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason, and Alan Yu (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 435–483.
• Sprouse, Jon. 2010. A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43 (1), 155–167.
• Tagliamonte, Sali and Rosalind Temple. 2005. New perspectives on an ol’variable:(t, d) in British English. Language Variation and Change, 17 (03), 281–302.
• Thomson, Ron. 2014. Myth 6: Accent reduction and pronunciation instruction are the same thing. In Grant, Linda and Donna Brinton (eds.), Pronunciation myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 160–187.
• Vitevitch, Michael and Paul Luce. 2004. A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (3), 481–487.
• Waniek-Klimczak, Ewa, Rojczyk, Arkadiusz and Andrzej Porzuczek. 2015. ‘Polglish’in Polish Eyes: What English Studies Majors Think About Their Pronunciation in English. In Teaching and Researching the Pronunciation of English. Springer, 23–34.
• Wayland, Ratree. 1997. Non-native Production of Thai: Acoustic Measurements and Accentedness Ratings. Applied Linguistics, 18 (3), 345–373.
• Weinberger, Steven. 2016. Speech accent archive [online]. Geroge Mason University. Available from: http://accent.gmu.edu [Accessed: 6th May 2016]
• Weinberger, Steven, Nelson, Jill, Kunath, Stephen, Gao, Zhiyan, Luu, Vu and Thao vy Vo. 2017. Transcribing non-native speech: the development of a crowdsourcing tool to evaluate perceptions of accented speech. Presented at the 11th International Conference on Native and Non-native Accents of English, Łódź, Poland.
• Wilson, Colin and Lisa Davidson. 2013. Bayesian analysis of non-native cluster production. In Kan, Seda, Moore-Cantwell, Claire, and Robert Staubs (eds.), Proceedings of the Northeast linguistics society 40. 265–276.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/rela-2018-0012