Visual feedback and second language segmental production: The generalizability of pronunciation gains

Abstract

While a number of researchers have noted the lack of research on pronunciation instruction, relative to other aspects of language (i.e. syntax), pronunciation has been shown to be crucial for facilitating intelligible and comprehensible second language (L2) productions. Addressing the need for empirically tested pedagogical methods, the current study considers the use of a classroom-based visual feedback paradigm for the instruction of a segmental feature, namely voice onset time, which has been shown to be a distinctive marker of accent for Englishdominant L2 learners of Spanish. In addition, this study examines the potential generalizability of gains made through the visual feedback paradigm, assessing whether gains made in controlled reading tasks (i.e. carrier sentences) will extend to more continuous and spontaneous speech. The results demonstrate significant improvements in voice onset time produced by participants following the visual feedback paradigm, relative to a control group. Furthermore, while the visual feedback training was limited to short, controlled utterances (i.e. carrier sentences), benefits were observed for more continuous and spontaneous speech.

Feature Acquisition in Second Language Phonetic Development: Evidence From Phonetic Training

“…Although visual feedback was initially implemented for teaching suprasegmental features (Anderson‐Hsieh, ; Chun, ; de Bot, ; Hardison, ; Levis & Pickering, ), more recently visual feedback in the form of spectrograms and waveforms has been shown to improve segmental production for vowel length (Okuno, ), singleton/geminate production (Motohashi‐Saigo & Hardison, ), vowel formant accuracy (Saito, ), and consonantal lenition (Olson, ). More specifically, this study replicated the improvement in VOT previously shown in Offerman and Olson (). In addition, the parallel findings for words in isolation and words in connected speech provide further evidence for the notion that training words in isolation may improve production in connected speech (see also Offerman & Olson, ; Olson, ).…”

“…More specifically, this study replicated the improvement in VOT previously shown in Offerman and Olson (). In addition, the parallel findings for words in isolation and words in connected speech provide further evidence for the notion that training words in isolation may improve production in connected speech (see also Offerman & Olson, ; Olson, ).…”

“…Although effect sizes were relatively small ( d = 0.28, 95% CI [0.02, 0.53]), this was not unexpected given the short duration of the training. As a comparison, Offerman and Olson () found reductions in VOT of approximately 20 milliseconds following a series of three visual feedback paradigm trainings (effect size not available), whereas the current study showed reductions of approximately 8 milliseconds. However, most importantly for the current study, there was no significant difference between the amount of change in VOT for the trained and nontrained phonemes.…”

“…Although effect sizes are informative, caution should be exercised with comparisons to predetermined effect size benchmarks (e.g., Cohen, ; Plonsky & Oswald, ). A number of factors may have mitigated the size of the effects in this study, including the short length of treatment (see Offerman & Olson, ), the in‐class (rather than laboratory) paradigm, and the focus on consonantal segments (for discussion of effect sizes in pronunciation instruction research, see Lee et al., ). Moreover, it should be noted that the main goal of this study was not necessarily to maximize the benefit of phonetic training but rather to examine the potential for links between phonemes at the abstract feature level.…”

Effects of Second Language Pronunciation Teaching Revisited: A Proposed Measurement Framework and Meta‐Analysis

“…Second, experts’ subjective ratings of specific aspects of pronunciation proficiency were operationalized as experts’ ratings of segmental (e.g., Lee & Lyster, ), prosodic (e.g., Hardison, ), and temporal (e.g., Gorsuch, ) qualities. Third, objective measures of specific aspects of pronunciation proficiency were operationalized as acoustic analyses of segmental (e.g., Offerman & Olson, ), prosodic (e.g., Parlak & Ziegler, ), and temporal (e.g., De Jong & Perfetti, ) information.…”