Presentations Abstracts Barrett, Catrice University of Pennsylvania Music in the pronunciation classroom: Are all approaches created equal?

Brinton, Donna (UCLA – retired)

Chan, Marsha (Mission College)

What’s Hot? What’s Not? Insights from Pronunciation Practitioners

(2) request for/provision of references on a topic; and (3) general discussion of issues.

intonation in oral presentations given by eight nonnative graduate students at a Canadian University (4 females and 4 males).

English speakers (1 female and 1 male) were also examined. Descriptive statistics will be used to compare the native and nonnative speaker data and to report longitudinal changes in the L2 speakers’ use of intonation. Pedagogical implications for English for Academic Purposes will also be discussed.

This paper reports on a study in which 35 first-year Mandarin Chinese learners were taught (1) to record themselves and create pitch curves of their spoken word tones using an open source program (Praat) and (2) to compare their pitch curves with those of native speakers. Building on an earlier short-term pilot study, which suggested that visualizations could be helpful for improving tone production (Chun, Jiang, & Ávila, 2013), the learners in this study received

sustained, systematic training for pronunciation of disyllabic words and phrases using the visualizations that they had created themselves. The training took place for 20-25 minutes every week over 9 weeks. Two types of data analyses were performed. First, four native speakers of Mandarin auditorily rated the pre- and post-test recordings. The ratings of the learners’ recordings by native speakers revealed that learners’ pronunciation of tones improved between the pre- and post-tests. Second, acoustic analyses of the learners’ recordings were conducted, also using Praat, and the learners’ production data was compared

with native speakers’ production. Results of these analyses indicated that in the pre-test students had difficulty with either pitch height or pitch contour (sometimes both). In the post-test, students’ pronunciation of some tones improved, depending on whether they were high- or low-proficiency learners. In general, the auditory analyses by the native speakers were corroborated by the acoustic data. In addition, post-treatment surveys indicated that two-

thirds of the participants perceived that viewing pitch curves was helpful for tone acquisition. This study confirms previous work that employed both auditory and acoustic analyses of tone production, and has implications for the use of pitch visualizations for pedagogical purposes.

Dickerson, Wayne (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)

A NAIL in the Coffin of Stress-Timed Rhythm

Conventional wisdom in the TESL community is that English phrases are spoken with stress-timed rhythm, where rhythmic accents occur at regular intervals. For seventy years, this claim has held such appeal that TESL practitioners have largely ignored the research on a variety of languages that has repeatedly failed to confirm the existence of stress timing in any language (Cauldwell 2002).

If stress timing is a myth, then what accent pattern does English really have? Bolinger (1961:135) says the majority of spoken English phrases have only one or two accents, a pattern he depicts as a two-tower suspension bridge. Wells (2006:192) says: “An IP [intonational phrase] usually contains only one or two accents (onset and nucleus or just a nucleus).”

So why has this accent pattern not gained currency in TESL? Because its two accents have not been predictable enough to guide learners’ production. While good descriptions of the second peak—the nucleus—exist, there have been no adequate descriptions of the first peak—the onset.

This paper reports on research that addresses the question: Where is the onset? The result is a rule that is sufficiently accurate and simple that learners can find the onset and use the two-accent pattern for themselves. NAIL is an acronym that stands for categories of words that attract the onset. After using the rule for two years with university-level students, we share our observations about its success. This rule holds the promise of finally putting stress timing behind us and teaching English as it is actually spoken.

References

Bolinger, D. 1961. Three analogies. Hispania, 44, 134-137.

Cauldwell, R. 2002. The functional arhythmicality of spontaneous speech: A discourse view of speech rhythms. Apples 2(1), 1-24.

Wells, J. 2006. Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Foote, Jennifer (Concordia University)

McDonough, Kim (Concordia University)
Form-focused Pronunciation Activities: To Repeat or Not to Repeat?
The second language (L2) classrooms that are believed to provide optimal conditions for learning are those with a primary focus on authentic communication and a secondary focus on form (Ellis, 2001; 2005). However, pronunciation instruction tends to be the reverse, having a strong focus on form, often by way of repetition, while authentic communication is secondary (e.g., Gilbert, 2005; Grant, 2010). Repetitive, form-focused instruction has been shown to have a positive effect on L2 speakers’ pronunciation (e.g., Couper 2003, 2006; Derwing, Munro & Wiebe, 1997; Saito & Lyster, 2012). Given the popularity of communicative approaches to instruction, an interesting question is how L2 speakers view form-focused, repetition-heavy pronunciation activities.

This study investigates the perceptions of university-level L2 English speakers (N = 16) about a popular pronunciation activity called shadowing. Shadowing is a form-focused technique where speakers copy a speech stimulus by repeating it nearly simultaneously. Over an eight-week period, each participant received a weekly dialogue for shadowing practice and used an Ipod app to record their practice. They were required to practice at least four times per week for a minimum of 10 minutes per time and to log their practice times. At both the midpoint and the end of the study, the participants were interviewed about their perceptions about shadowing. Weekly logs indicated that participants frequently practiced longer than the minimum required. The interviews revealed that most participants were positive about the tasks despite, or even because of, their focus on repetition. Implications for pronunciation instruction are highlighted.

References
Couper, G. (2003). The value of an explicit pronunciation syllabus in ESOL teaching. Prospect, 18, 53-70.

Couper, G. (2006). The short- and long-term effects of pronunciation instruction. Prospect, 21, 46-66.

Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. E (1997). Pronunciation instruction for “fossilized” learners: Can it help? Applied Language Learning, 8, 217-235.

Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focussed instruction. Language Learning, 51(Supp. 1), 1-46.

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224.

Gilbert, J. (2005). Clear speech: Pronunciation and listening comprehension in American English (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grant, L. (2010). Well said (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Saito, K. and Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese Learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 2, 595–633.

As a result of the proliferation of short-term (less than 8 weeks) study abroad (SA) programs in North America and Europe, researchers (e.g., Duperron & Overstreet, 2009) have increasingly underlined the importance of investigating the impact of these programs on the development of second-language (L2) skills. Although little research currently exists in this area, it does suggest that length of stays of as little as three weeks can positively impact both lexical and oral production skills, especially fluency (Llanes, 2011). Thus far, however, virtually no research has systematically examined the influence of short-term SA contexts on the development of adults’ L2 oral production skill from a tri-dimensional perspective (Derwing & Munro, 2013) targeting the notions of perceived fluency, comprehensibility and accentedness.

This study set out to investigate the development of adult L2 (French) learners’ (n = 100) fluency (flow of language output), comprehensibility (perceived difficulty of understanding) and accentedness (perceived difference in accent with respect to Québec French) when enrolled in a short-term (5-week) SA program in Quebec, Canada. Learners’ oral production was assessed during the first week (Time 1) and last week (Time 2) of the program using a picture-narrative task based on The Suitcase Story (Derwing et al., 2004). Time 1 and Time 2 speech samples (M = 32 sec) were then randomized and rated on each of the three dimensions by expert Québec French speakers (n = 10) using a 9-point Likert scale.

The findings from this study will be presented in terms of the following questions: 1) Is a 5-week intensive learning period sufficient enough to observe significant changes in French (L2) learners oral production skill indexed as a tri- dimensional model (perceived fluency, comprehensibility and accentedness)? 2) Do initial (Time1) levels of oral production skill have a differential impact on the development of these dimensions over the five-week period? 3) To what extent do the findings converge with the large body of empirical work with English as the target language?

Llanes, À. (2011). The many faces of study abroad: An update on the research on L2 gains emerged during a study abroad experience. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3, 189-215.

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2013). The development of L2 oral language skills in two L1 groups: A 7-year study. Language Learning, 63(2), 163-185.

Derwing, T.M, Rossiter, M.J., Munro, M.J., & Thomson, R.I. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54 (4), 655-679.

Duperron, L., & Overstreet, M. H. (2009). Preparedness for study abroad: Comparing the linguistic outcomes of a short-term program by third, fourth and sixth semester L2 learners. Frontiers, 18, 157-179.

Grim, Frederique (Colorado State University)

Miller, Jessica (University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire)
Spoken French in a Phonetics Course: Impressions and Applications
In L2 French courses in the United States, standard French, also called international French, is the preferred language taught. The goal is to teach learners to communicate anywhere in the world. However, this arbitrary view of the French language creates a linguistic dichotomy as the youth, in any Francophone country, do not speak standard French (Guadet & Guérin, 2008; Primoz, 2002). L2 Learners are exposed to an unauthentic way to communicate and might face challenges when travelling or studying abroad and intermingling with native speakers. Few studies have compared the use of standard French vs. spoken French (Armstrong, 2001; Knaus & Nadasdi, 2001; Meissener, 1999), particularly in light of the communicative language approach. In a Canadian and immersion context, studies have shown that learners tend to lean towards the use of standard French and do not consider the communicative language focus most curricula have adopted in the past years (Knaus & Nadasdi, 2001; Meissener, 1999).

Through online pre-course and post-course surveys, this presentation will share the opinion of students taking a 3^rd-year French phonetics course from 2 different institutions. In the course, they were exposed to the pronunciation of standard French and spoken French. Their comparisons of spoken French and standard French will be presented, along with pedagogical implications for language courses, regardless of language and content.

Though age of learning effects on second language (L2) speech perception and production in a naturalistic setting are well documented (e.g., Flege, 1999), it is controversial whether or not early foreign language (FL) learning in an instructional setting (i.e., a few hours’ classroom contact per week) will benefit L2 speech learning. Some studies show perceivable age effects of FL on phonemic perception (e.g., Larson-Hall, 2008; Lin et al., 2004, only under noise condition), whereas others (e.g., García Lecumberri & Gallardo, 2003; Muñoz, 2011) report no age of learning effects. This study investigated 1) age effects of English language learning in the instructional setting on the perception of English consonants produced by several talkers under different noise conditions, and 2) the relationship of learners’ phonemic discrimination ability with their language learning experiences in both childhood and adulthood. The participants were native speakers of English (n = 10) and two groups of Japanese university students: one group (n = 21) started studying English for a few hours a week between ages of three and eight (early learners), and the other (n = 24) began to study in junior high school at the age of twelve or thirteen (late learners). The selected target phonemes were word-medial approximants (/l, r/). Each nonword (i.e., ala, ara), produced by six American English-speaking talkers, was combined with speech babble at the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of 8 dB (medium noise) and 0 dB (quite high noise for L2 listeners). A discrimination test was given in the ABX format (e.g., A: ala, B: ara, X: ala). Results showed that as opposed to the assumption that the earlier the better, the late learners discriminated /l/ and /r/ better than the early learners regardless of the noise and talker conditions (p < .05). Regression analyses also indicated that the only factor found to be significantly correlated with the early learners’ discrimination scores was the length of learning, while the late learners’ performance was accounted for by their current classroom interaction with teacher and peers, and use of spoken English outside of classroom (p < .05). This may support Muñoz’s (2011) finding that in early FL learning in instructional settings, late learners may catch up depending on the quality and quantity of input.