Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:41:55.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can corrective feedback on second language speech perception errors affect production accuracy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2016

ANDREW H. LEE  and
ROY LYSTER
ANDREW H. LEE*
Affiliation:
McGill University
ROY LYSTER
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Andrew H. Lee, Department of Integrated Studies in Education, McGill University, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, QC H3A 1Y2, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated whether different types of corrective feedback (CF) in second language speech perception training have differential effects on second language speech production. One hundred Korean learners of English were assigned to five different groups and participated in eight computer-assisted perception training sessions focusing on English vowels. While no CF was provided to the control group, participants in the four treatment groups received one of three types of auditory CF or a visual type of CF. A pretest, an immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest each consisted of a production measurement at a controlled-speech level. Results revealed that the extent to which the participants’ production accuracy benefited from the perception training depended on CF type. In addition, by adopting the perception accuracy data by Lee and Lyster (2016b), the current study found that improvement in perception accuracy was a significant predictor of improvement in production accuracy.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , March 2017 , pp. 371 - 393
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, W., Trofimovich, P., Flege, J. E., Mack, M., & Halter, R. (2008). Child-adult differences in second-language phonological learning: The role of cross-language similarity. Language and Speech, 51, 317–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, W., Trofimovich, P., Mack, M., & Flege, J. E. (2002). The effect of perceived phonetic similarity on non-native sound learning by children and adults. In Fisch, S. A., Scarabela, B., & Do, A.-H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 26, pp. 36–47). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bent, T., Bradlow, A. R., & Smith, B. L. (2007). Phonemic errors in different word positions and their effects on intelligibility of non-native speech: All's well that begins well. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 331–347). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issue in cross-language research (pp. 171–204). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.41) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R. (2008). Training non-native language sound patterns: Lessons from training Japanese adults on the English /r/-/l/ contrast. In Edwards, J. G. H. & Zampini, M. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 287–308). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Colantoni, L., & Steele, J. (2008). Integrating articulatory constraints into models of second language phonological acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 489–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 450 million words, 1990–present. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca Google Scholar
de Jong, K., Hao, Y.-C., & Park, H. (2009). Evidence for featural units in the acquisition of speech production skills: Linguistic structure in foreign accent. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issue in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2002). Interactions between the native and second-language phonetic system. In Burmeister, P., Piske, T., & Rohde, A. (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp. 217–244). Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google 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., Schirru, C., & MacKay, I. R. A. (2003). Interaction between the native and second language phonetic subsystems. Speech Communication, 40, 467–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goto, H. (1971). Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “L” and “R.” Neuropsychologia, 9, 317–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardison, D. M. (2003). Acquisition of second-language speech: Effects of visual cues, context, and talker variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardison, D. M. (2012). Second language speech perception: A cross-disciplinary perspective on challenges and accomplishments. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349–363). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3099–3111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingram, J. C., & Park, S. (1997). Cross-language vowel perception and production by Japanese and Korean learners of English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 343–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, P., Hazan, V., & Bannister, K. (2005). Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: A comparison of methods for teaching English /r/-/l/ to Japanese adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 3267–3278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissling, E. M. (2014). What predicts the effectiveness of foreign-language pronunciation instruction? Investigating the role of perception and other individual differences. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 70, 532–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambacher, S. G., Martens, W. L., Kakehi, K., Marasinghe, C. A., & 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
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2016a). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2016b). Effects of different types of corrective feedback on receptive skills in a second language: A speech perception training study. Language Learning, 66, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H. (1993). Korean. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 23, 28–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: II. The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In García Mayo, P., Gutierrez-Mangado, M., & Martínez Adrián, M. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2008). Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning, 58, 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., & Strik, H. (2006). Selecting segmental errors in non-native Dutch for optimal pronunciation training. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44, 357–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, R. (2012). Learning PHP, MySQL, JavaScript, and CSS: A step-by-step guide to creating dynamic websites (2nd ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, S., & Bouchon, C. (2011). The relation between perception and production in L2 phonological processing. In Trancoso, S. (Chair), 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2011) (Vol. 1, pp. 168–171). Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruitt, J. S. (1995). Perceptual training on Hindi dental and retroflex consonants by native English and Japanese speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., & Schumann, J. H. (1994). Neurobiological mechanisms of language acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 681–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R. M. (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K. (2013). The acquisitional value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching the perception and production of English /ɹ/ to adult Japanese learners. Language Learning, 63, 499–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K. (2015). The role of age of acquisition in late second language oral proficiency attainment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 713–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Brajot, F. (2013). Scrutinizing the role of length of residence and age of acquisition in the interlanguage pronunciation development of English /ɹ/ by late Japanese bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 847–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Hanzawa, K. (2015). Developing second language oral ability in foreign language classrooms: The role of the length and focus of instruction and individual differences. Applied Psycholinguistics. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, A., & Strange, W. (1982). The acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English: Evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strange, W. (2006). Second-language speech perception: The modification of automatic selective perceptual routines. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 3137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strange, W. (2007). Selective perception, perceptual modes, and automaticity in first- and second-language processing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 2970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strange, W., & Shafer, V. L. (2008). Speech perception in second language learners: The re-education of selective perception. In Edwards, J. G. H. & Zampini, M. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 153–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. I. (2011). Computer assisted pronunciation training: Targeting second language vowel perception improves pronunciation. CALICO Journal, 28, 744–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsukada, K., Birdsong, D., Bialystok, E., Mack, M., Sung, H., & Flege, J. E. (2005). A developmental study of English vowel production and perception by native Korean adults and children. Journal of Phonetics, 33, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uther, M., Knoll, M. A., & Burnham, D. (2007). Do you speak E-NG-LI-SH? A comparison of foreigner- and infant-directed speech. Speech Communication, 49, 2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X., & Munro, M. J. (2004). Computer-based training for learning English vowel contrasts. System, 32, 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. A. (2003). Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin tone productions before and after perceptual training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 1033–1043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watkins, K., & Paus, T. (2004). Modulation of motor excitability during speech perception: The role of Broca's area. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 978–987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, B. (1996). A comparative study of American English and Korean vowels produced by male and female speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar