R221 Okada, Y., Sawaumi, T., & Ito, T. (2018). How do speech model proficienc...
Presentation 1030324(v2)
1. 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
2. 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.
22014/3/23 Individual Presentation
6. 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
2014/3/23 6Individual Presentation
7. 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
2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
8. 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 rule
explanation 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
2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
9. 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).
2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
10. Purpose of the Study
10
The current study investigates the
relative effects of instruction via two
different evaluation methods:
accentedness and comprehensibility.
2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
12. 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.
2014/3/23 12Individual Presentation
16. 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
2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
17. 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)
2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
(Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001)
20. 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
202014/3/23 Individual Presentation
21. 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
212014/3/23 Individual Presentation
22. 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
222014/3/23 Individual Presentation
23. Research Design
23
Experimental Group Control Group
Pre-testPre-test
Compare
Post-test Post-test
4-hour
Explicit phonetic
instruction
None
2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
24. Instruction Setting
A laboratory setting
1 hour/week × 4 weeks
Instruction presented both in Japanese
and English
242014/3/23 Individual Presentation
27. Rating
Four trained NE listeners
listen to one data CD that contained 210
randomized stimuli
rate 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
272014/3/23 Individual Presentation
30. Results - Accentedness
• no significant differences
• for group
• for time
Sentence
Reading
Task
• no significant differences
• for group
• for time
Picture
Description
Task
302014/3/23 Individual Presentation
33. 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
Task
332014/3/23 Individual Presentation
35. 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.
352014/3/23 Individual Presentation
37. Limited number of
participants
Short Period of
instruction
No summary for
ANOVA
Increase the number of
participants
• at least 30
Extend the instruction
period
• more than 12 weeks
Provide the ANOVA
summary
• detail information
37
Critiques Suggestions
2014/3/23 Individual Presentation
