Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:09:09.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REEXAMINING EFFECTS OF FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ON L2 PRONUNCIATION DEVELOPMENT

The Role of Explicit Phonetic Information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2012

Kazuya Saito
Kazuya Saito*
Affiliation:
Waseda University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kazuya Saito, School of Commerce, Waseda University, 1-6-1 Nishi Waseda Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8050, Japan; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study examines whether and to what degree providing explicit phonetic information (EI) at the beginning of form-focused instruction (FFI) on second language pronunciation can enhance the generalizability and magnitude of FFI effectiveness by increasing learners’ ability to notice a new phone. Participants were 49 Japanese learners of English in English as a foreign language setting. Whereas the control group (n = 14) received meaning-oriented lessons without any focus on form, the experimental groups received 4 hr of FFI treatment designed to encourage them to practice the target feature of an English /ɹ/ in meaningful discourse. Instructors provided EI (i.e., multiple exposure to an exaggerated model pronunciation of /ɹ/ and rule presentation on the relevant articulatory configurations) to the FFI+EI group (n = 17) but not to the FFI-only group (n = 18). Their pre- and posttest performance was acoustically analyzed according to various lexical, task, and following vowel conditions. The results of the ANOVAs showed that (a) the FFI-only group demonstrated moderate improvement with medium effects (e.g., change from hybrid exemplars to poor exemplars), particularly in familiar lexical contexts, and (b) the FFI+EI group not only demonstrated considerable improvement with large effects (e.g., change from hybrid exemplars to good exemplars) but also generalized the instructional gains to unfamiliar lexical contexts beyond the instructional materials.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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

Best, C., & Tyler, M. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception. In Bohn, O. & Munro, M. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honour of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenik, D. (2009). Praat: Doing phonetic by computer [Computer software]. Retrieved December 2009, fromhttp://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. (2008). Training non-native language sound patterns. In Hansen, J. & Zampini, M. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 287–308). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradlow, A., & Pisoni, D. (1999). Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: Talker-, listener- and item-related factors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2074–n2085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradlow, A., Pisoni, D., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299–2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, R. L., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2011a). Vocabulary size is associated with second-language vowel perception performance in adult learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 433–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, R. L., Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2011b). Vocabulary size matters: The assimilation of second-language Australian English vowels to first-language Japanese vowel categories. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, F., Gick, B., Wilson, I., & Vatikiotis-Bateson, E. (2010). Spatial and temporal properties of gestures in North American English /ɹ/. Language and Speech, 53, 49–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catford, J., & Pisoni, D. (1970). Auditory vs. articulatory training in exotic sounds. Modern Language Journal, 54, 447–481.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for learners of English to speakers of other languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody and the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40, 141–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2004). L2 fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54, 655–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, R., Lotto, A., & Holt, L. (2004). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 149–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 257–310). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, A. (1997). On the teaching and acquisition of pronunciation within a communicative approach. Hispania, 80, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espy-Wilson, C. (1992). Acoustic measures for linguistic features distinguishing the semivowels /wjrl/ in American English. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 92, 736–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espy-Wilson, C., Boyce, S., Jackson, M., Narayanan, S., & Alwan, A. (2000). Acoustic modeling of American English /r/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. (1989). Chinese subjects’ perception of the word-final English /t/-/d/ contrast: Performance before and after training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86, 1684–1697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. (1995). Second language speech learning. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. (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. 319–355). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. (2009). Give input a chance! In Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp.175–190). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Flege, J., Frieda, E., Walley, A., & Randazza, L. (1998). Lexical factors and segmental accuracy in second-language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 155–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J., Takagi, N., & Mann, V. (1995). Japanese adults learn to produce English /ɹ/ and /l/ accurately. Language and Speech, 38, 25–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaskell, G., & Dumay, N. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 89, 105–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, Z., Park, E., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibility. Applied Linguistics, 29, 597–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattori, K., & Iverson, P. (2009). English /r/-/l/ category assimilation by Japanese adults: Individual differences and the link to identification accuracy. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B. (2009). More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, S., Walley, A., & Flege, J. (2005). Lexical frequency and neighborhood density effects on the recognition of native and Spanish-accented words by native English and Spanish listeners. Acoustical Society of America, 117, 896–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iverson, P., Kuhl, P. K., Akahane-Yamada, R., Diesch, E., Tohkura, Y., Kettermann, A., & Siebert, C. (2003). A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition, 87, 847–857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhl, P. K. (2000). A new view of language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 97, 11850–11857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831–843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larson-Hall, J. (2006). What does more time buy you? Another look at the effects of long-term residence on production accuracy of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese speakers. Language and Speech, 49, 521–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lively, S., Logan, J., & Pisoni, D. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /ɹ/ and /l/. II: The role of phonetic environments and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242–1255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lotto, A. J., Sato, M., & Diehl, R. (2004). Mapping the task for the second language learner: The case of Japanese acquisition of /r/ and /l/. In Slifka, J., Manuel, S., & Matthies, M. (Eds.), From sound to sense: 50+ years of discoveries in speech communication (pp. C381–C386). Cambridge, MA: Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second-language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.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. (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K. (2011). Effects of FFI on L2 phonological development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633.CrossRefGoogle 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 /ɹ/ and /l/ by Japanese learners of English: Evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Gatbonton, E. (2006). Repetition and focus on form in L2 Spanish word processing: Implications for pronunciation instruction. Modern Language Journal, 90, 519–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Walley, A. (2007). Speech learning, lexical reorganization, and the development of word recognition by native and non-native English speakers. In Bohn, O. & Munro, M. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honour of James Emil Flege (pp. 315–330). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Kuhl, P. K., Imada, T., Iverson, P., Pruitt, J., Stevens, E., Kawakatsu, M., Tohkura, Y., & Nemoto, I. (2009). Neural signatures of phonetic learning in adulthood: A magnetoencephalography study. Neuroimage, 46, 226–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed