Examining the Role of Explicit Phonetic Instruction in Native-like and

Comprehensible Pronunciation Development: An Instructed SLA

Approach to L2 Phonology

Presenter: Sze-Chu Liu

Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa Hsu

Date: March 24, 2014

Citation

Saito, K. (2011). Examining the role of explicit phonetic instruction in native-like and comprehensible pronunciation development: An instructed SLA approach to L2 phonology. Language Awareness, 20(1), 45-59.

204/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Content

IntroductionLiterature ReviewMethodResultsConclusionCritiques and Suggestions

304/10/2023 Individual Presentation

INTRODUCTION

4

Introduction

Background

Related Works

The Gap

Purpose of the Study04/10/2023 5Individual Presentation

Background•‘the

degree to which the pronunciation of an utterance sounds differ from an expected pronunciation pattern’

Accentedness

•‘listeners’ estimation of difficulty in understanding an utterance’

Comprehensibility

(Derwing & Munro, 2005)

Second language speech

04/10/2023 6Individual Presentation

Related Works

7

(Levis, 2005; Setter & Jenkins, 2005)

Accentedness vs. Comprehensibility

Realistic goals should be set for L2 learners such as comprehensibility rather than accentedness.

Comprehensibility

Accentedness

04/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Related Works

8

The importance of explicit phonetic instruction has been extensively discussed in the field of experimental phonetics as well as second language education.

(Derwing, 2008)

An instructional treatment is explicit if ruleexplanation forms part of the instruction (deduction) or if learners are asked to attend to particular forms and try to find the rules themselves (induction).

(DeKeyser, 2003)

Explicit Phonic Instruction

04/10/2023 Individual Presentation

The Gap

9

It still remains unclear the extent to which their instruction treatment impacted learners’ comprehensible pronunciation.

(Derwing, 2008; Derwing & Munro, 2005; Levis, 2005).

04/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Purpose of the Study

10

The current study investigates the relative effects of instruction via two different evaluation methods: accentedness and comprehensibility.

04/10/2023 Individual Presentation

LITERATURE REVIEW

11

Explicit Pronunciation Teaching

(Derwing & Munro, 2005)

Students learning L2 pronunciation benefit from being explicitly taught phonological form to help them notice the difference between their own productions and those of proficient speakers in the L2 community.

04/10/2023 12Individual Presentation

Segmental-Based Instruction

13

(Ladefoged, 2003)

English segmental features

Articulator organs

Place of articulation

Manner of articulation

04/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Eight English-Specific Segmental Features

1404/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Explicit Phonetic Instruction

15

Perception Production Feedback

04/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Perception Activities

16

•Clear account of formal properties of English-specific sounds one by one in a sequence

Identification

•Japanese sounds which might be confused with English sounds and asked to discriminate the target English sounds from the closest Japanese counterparts

Discrimination

04/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Production activities and feedback techniques

17

•segmental-level reading task

•word-level reading task

•sentence-level reading task

Production activities

•produce more output

•notice their errors

•self-repair errors in phonetic forms

Corrective Feedback

(Derwing, Munro, & Thomson, 2004)

04/10/2023 Individual Presentation

(Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001)

Research Questions

Does explicit phonetic instruction significantly improve ESL students’ accentedness?

Does explicit phonetic instruction significantly improve ESL students’ comprehensibility?

1804/10/2023 Individual Presentation

METHOD

19

Participants (I)•20 adult NJs of

intermediate proficiency

•Aged 27.6 years old in average

•Time in the USA: mean = 2.3 months

•Had learned English for more than 10 years

ESL Students

2004/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Participants (II)•4 (1 male, 3 females)•Recruited from X

University (in the USA)•All had grown up in the

United States•Reported normal

hearing•Experienced instructors

of either phonetics or ESL classes at X University

•‘trained NE listeners’

NE listeners

2104/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Participants (II)•a non-native

speaking teacher (L1 Japanese)

•graduated from an MA program in linguistics in the USA with a concentration in TESOL

The instructor

2204/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Research Design

23

Experimental Group Control Group

Pre-testPre-test

Compare

Post-test Post-test

4-hourExplicit phonetic

instructionNone

04/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Instruction Setting

A laboratory setting 1 hour/week × 4 weeksInstruction presented both in Japanese

and English

2404/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Pre- and Post- Tests

25

Sentence-reading task

Picture-description task

(Derwing & Munro, 1997; Derwing et al., 1998;Munro, Derwing, & Morton, 2006)

04/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Contents of loaded sentences

2604/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Rating

Four trained NE listenerslisten to one data CD that contained 210

randomized stimulirate them on the basis of the 9-point scale

accentedness– from 1 = native-like to 9 = heavily accented

comprehensibility– from 1 = no effort to understand to 9 = very hard to

understand

2704/10/2023 Individual Presentation

RESULTS

28

Inter-rater reliability

Accentedness: r = .66Comprehensibility: r = .53

Adequate reliability

04/10/2023 29Individual Presentation

Results - Accentedness

•no significant differences•for

group

•for time

Sentence Reading

Task

•no significant differences•for

group

•for time

Picture Description

Task

3004/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Results – comprehensibility ratings – The Experimental Group

3104/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Summary of comprehensibility ratings – The Control Group

32

Wrong data!

04/10/2023 Individual Presentation

ANOVA Results - Comprehensibility

•Significant differences for Group × Time interaction

•A simple main effect for Time was found significant for the experimental group.

•The control group did not show any significant gains.

Sentence Reading

Task

•no significant differences•for

group

•for time

Picture Description

Task3304/10/2023 Individual Presentation

CONCLUSION

34

Conclusion

The experiment confirmed that explicit instruction benefited NJs’ comprehensibility in the experimental group especially at the controlled speech level (sentence-reading).

It is important to make pedagogical suggestions for L2 classrooms and to inform future directions for instructed L2 phonology studies.

3504/10/2023 Individual Presentation

CRITIQUES AND SUGGESTIONS

36

Limited number of participants

Short Period of instruction

No summary for ANOVA

Increase the number of participants• at least 30Extend the instruction period• more than 12 weeksProvide the ANOVA summary• detail information

37

Critiques Suggestions

04/10/2023 Individual Presentation

Thank you for listening!