Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:58:55.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL OF PHONETIC SYMBOLS AND KEYWORDS AS LABELS FOR PERCEPTUAL TRAINING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2020

Jonás Fouz-González Open the ORCID record for Jonás Fouz-González [Opens in a new window]  and
Jose A. Mompean Open the ORCID record for Jose A. Mompean [Opens in a new window]
Jonás Fouz-González*
Affiliation:
University of Murcia
Jose A. Mompean
Affiliation:
University of Murcia
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jonás Fouz-González, Department of Didactics of Language and Literature, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain. E-mail: jfouz@um.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the potential of phonetic symbols and keywords as response labels for perceptual training of L2 sounds. Seventy-one Spanish learners of English were assigned to three groups: symbols, keywords, and control. Students in the symbols and keywords groups followed a 4-week High Variability Phonetic Training (HVPT) program based on identification tasks. The target aspects addressed were eight English vowels that tend to be problematic for Spanish EFL learners (/iː ɪ æ ʌ ɜː e ɒ ɔː/). Training stimuli consisted of consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) nonwords featuring these vowels on a range of phonetic contexts. Overall, the results revealed significant differences between the perception gains made by the two experimental groups, which performed similarly, and the control group. Both experimental groups were able to transfer gains to untrained nonwords, and to untrained voices. Moreover, gains were maintained over time. Improvements were also made in real words, especially by the symbols group, although no significant differences were found between groups. The results suggest that both phonetic symbols and keywords are effective labels for perceptual training and the creation/consolidation of perceptual sound categories. The study offers further evidence of the effectiveness of HVPT for pronunciation training as well as implications for perceptual training studies and language teaching.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , May 2021 , pp. 297 - 328
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We are very grateful to Luke Plonsky, the journal's senior associate editor, as well as the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback on earlier versions of this article. Their comments and recommendations have been extremely helpful. Our thanks also go to Francisco Javier Ibáñez López for his advice on the statistical analyses. Finally, we would like to thank the students who volunteered to participate in this study.

References

Aliaga-García, C., & Mora, J. C. (2009). Assessing the effects of phonetic training on L2 sound perception and production. In Watkins, A. M. A., Rauber, A. S., & Baptista, B. O. (Eds.), Recent research in second language phonetics/phonology: Perception and production (pp. 2–31). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Barriuso, T. A., & Hayes-Harb, R. (2018). High variability phonetic training as a bridge from research to practice. The CATESOL Journal, 30, 177–194.Google Scholar
Best, C., & Tyler, M. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Bohn, O. & Munro, M. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, J. R. (2016). Phoneme perception. In Hickok, G., & Small, S. L. (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 447–461). Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohn, O.-S., & Flege, J. E. (1992). The production of new and similar vowels by adult German learners of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 131–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohn, O.-S. (2002). On phonetic similarity. In Burmeister, P., Piske, T., & Rohde, A. (Eds.). An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp. 191–216). Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299–2310.Google Scholar
Brown, A. (1988). Functional load and the teaching of pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 593–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cant, J. P. N. (1976). Phonetic information and pronunciation: Some theoretical considerations. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 14, 298–303.Google Scholar
Carlet, A. (2017). L2 perception and production of English consonants and vowels by Catalan speakers: The effects of attention and training task in a cross-training study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Carlet, A., & Cebrian, J. (2014). Training Catalan speakers to identify L2 consonants and vowels: A short-term high variability training study. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech. Concordia University working papers in applied linguistics, 5, pp. 85–98.Google Scholar
Carlet, A., & Cebrian, J. (2019). Assessing the effect of perceptual training on L2 vowel identification, generalization and long-term effects. In Nyvad, A. M., Hejná, M., Højen, A., Jespersen, A. Bothe, & Sørensen, M. Hjortshøj (Eds.), A sound approach to language matters—In honor of Ocke-Schwen Bohn (pp. 91–119). Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. (1987). Phonetics and the teaching of pronunciation. In Morley, J. (Ed.), Current perspectives on pronunciation (pp. 87–100). TESOL.Google Scholar
Cebrian, J. (2019). Perceptual assimilation of British English vowels to Spanish monophthongs and diphthongs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 145, EL52–EL58. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5087645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Couper, G. (2006). The short and long-term effects of pronunciation instruction. Prospect, 21, 46–66.Google Scholar
Couper, G. (2011). What makes pronunciation teaching work? Testing for the effect of two variables: Socially constructed metalanguage and critical listening. Language Awareness, 20, 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper, G. (2015). Applying theories of language and learning to teaching pronunciation. In Reed, M. & Levis, J. (Eds.), Handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 413–432). Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (2014). Gimson’s pronunciation of English (8th ed.). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delattre, P. (1964). Comparing the vocalic features of English, German, Spanish, and French. IRAL, 2, 71–97.Google Scholar
Escudero, P., & Boersma, P. (2002). The subset problem in L2 perceptual development: Multiple-category assimilation by Dutch learners of Spanish. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S., & Do, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 1, pp. 208–219). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second-language speech learning: theory, findings and problems. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues in cross-language speech research (pp. 233–277). York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2003). Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and perception. In Meyer, A. & Schiller, N. (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 319–358). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2018). It’s input that matters most, not age. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 919–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O.-S., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., & MacKay, I. R. A. (2004). Perceiving vowels in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Wayland, R. (2019). The role of input in native Spanish late learners’ production and perception of English phonetic segments. Journal of Second Language Studies, 2, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouz-González, J. (2020). Using apps for pronunciation training: An empirical evaluation of the English File Pronunciation app. Language Learning & Technology, 24, 62–85.Google Scholar
Fouz-González, J., & Mompean, J. A. (in press). Phonetic symbols vs keywords in perceptual training: The learners’ views. ELT Journal.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2001). Teaching pronunciation: A handbook for teachers and trainers. TAFE Access Division.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2006). Phonological concepts and concept formation: Metatheory, theory and application. International Journal of English Studies, 6, 55–75.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2009). Pronunciation as categorization: The role of contrast in teaching English /r/ and /l/. In Mahboob, A. & Lipovsky, C. (Eds.), Studies in applied linguistics and language learning (pp. 289–306). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Ghaffarvand Mokari, P., & Werner, S. (2017). Perceptual training of second-language vowels: Does musical ability play a role? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Lacabex, E., García-Lecumberri, M. L., & Cooke, M. (2008). Identification of the contrast full vowel-schwa: Training effects and generalization to a new perceptual context. Ilha do Desterro, 55, 173–196.Google Scholar
Guion, S. G., & Pederson, E. (2007). Investigating the role of attention in phonetic learning. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (Eds.), Second-language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production: A festschrift in honour of James E. Flege (pp. 57–77). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, P., Hazan, V., & Banister, K. (2005). Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: A comparison of methods for teaching English /r/-/l/ to Japanese adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 3267–3278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1904). How to teach a foreign Language. George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kondaurova, M. V., & Francis, A. L. (2010). The role of selective attention in the acquisition of English tense and lax vowels by native Spanish listeners: Comparison of three training methods. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 569–587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.Google Scholar
Lambacher, S., Martens, W., Kakehi, K., Marasinghe, C., & Molholt, G. (2005). The effects of identification training on the identification and production of American English vowels by native speakers of Japanese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, B., Plonsky, L., & Saito, K. (2020). The effects of perception- vs. production-based pronunciation instruction. System, 88, 1–13. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lintunen, P. (2004). Pronunciation and phonetic transcription (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Turku.Google Scholar
Lively, S., Pisoni, D., Yamada, R., Tohkura, Y., & Yamada, T. (1994). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. III: Long-term retention of new phonetic categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2076–2087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, J. S., & Pruitt, J. S. (1995). Methodological issues in training listeners to perceive non-native phonemes. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 351–378). York Press.Google Scholar
Martínez-Celdrán, E., Fernández-Planas, A. M., & Carrera-Sabaté, J. (2003). Castilian Spanish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 33, 255–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullan, J. (1988). Finding time for the phonetic alphabet. Modern English Teacher, 15, 9–12.Google Scholar
Mompean, J. A. (2001). A comparison between English and Spanish subjects’ typicality ratings in phoneme categories: A first report. International Journal of English Studies, 1, 115–156.Google Scholar
Mompean, J. A. (2003). Concept formation as a tool for teaching English phonetics. In Luque-Agullo, G., Bueno-González, A., & Tejada-Molina, G. (Eds.), Languages in a global world (CD-ROM 02) (pp. 12–20). AESLA/Universidad de Jaén.Google Scholar
Mompean, J. A. (2005). Taking advantage of phonetic symbols in the foreign language classroom. Proceedings of the Phonetics Teaching and Learning Conference, 2005, 50–54.Google Scholar
Mompean, J. A., & Lintunen, P. (2015). Phonetic notation in foreign language teaching and learning: Potential advantages and learners’ views. Research in Language, 13, 292–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroy-Casas, R. (2001). Profiling the phonological processes shaping the fossilised IL of adult Spanish learners of English: Some theoretical implications. International Journal of English Studies, 1, 157–217.Google Scholar
Moyer, A. (2009). Input as a critical means to an end: Quantity and quality of experience in L2 phonological attainment. In Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 159–174). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Nishi, K., & Kewley-Port, D. (2007). Training Japanese listeners to perceive American English vowels: Influence of training sets. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1496–1509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortega, M., Mora, J. C., & Mora-Plaza, I. (2021). Differential effects of lexical and non-lexical high-variability phonetic training on the production of L2 vowels. In Kirkova-Naskova, A., Henderson, A., & Fouz-González, J. (Eds.), English pronunciation instruction: Research-based insights. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rato, A. (2013). Cross-language perception and production of English vowels by Portuguese learners: The effects of perceptual training (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidade do Minho.Google Scholar
Rato, A., Rauber, A. S., Kluge, D. C., & Santos, G. R. (2015). Designing speech perception tasks with TP. In Mompean, J. A. & Fouz-González, J. (Eds.), Investigating English pronunciation: Trends and directions (pp. 295–313). Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roach, P. (2004). British English: Received pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34, 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roach, P., Setter, J., & Esling, J. (2011). The Cambridge English pronouncing dictionary (18th ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2013). Re-examining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development: The role of explicit phonetic information. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A proposed framework and meta-analysis. Language Learning, 69, 652–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakai, M., & Moorman, C. (2018). Can perception training improve the production of second language phonemes? A meta-analytic review of 25 years of perception training research. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 187–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. I. (2011). Computer assisted pronunciation training: Targeting second language vowel perception improves pronunciation. CALICO Journal, 28, 744–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. I. (2018). High variability [pronunciation] training (HVPT): A proven technique about which every language teacher and learner ought to know. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 4, 208–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. I., & Derwing, T. M. (2016). Is phonemic training using nonsense or real words more effective? In Levis, J., Le, H., Lucic, I., Simpson, E., & Vo, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th PSLLT Conference (pp. 88–97). Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. I., & Isaacs, T. (2009). Within-category variation in L2 English vowel learning. Canadian Acoustics, 37, 138–139.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. C. (2008). Longman pronunciation dictionary (3rd ed.). Longman.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1958/1974). Philosophical investigations. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wong, J. W. S. (2015). Does proficiency matter? The effects of L2 vowel training on Cantonese ESL learners with high and low proficiency levels. In Mompean, J. A. & Fouz-González, J. (Eds.), Investigating English pronunciation: Trends and directions (pp. 219–240). Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Fouz-González and Mompean supplementary material

Fouz-González and Mompean supplementary material

Download Fouz-González and Mompean supplementary material(File)
File 41.5 KB