Article published In: ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 167:2 (2016) ► pp.190–209
Second language articulatory training and computer-generated feedback in L2 pronunciation improvement
An acoustic–phonetic approach
Published online: 14 February 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.2.04rah
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.2.04rah
This paper investigates the efficacy of articulatory training and acoustic feedback on Persian L2 learners’ production of English segmental (/ɒ/). A sample of 30 Persian ESL learners was recruited- 10 learners were randomly assigned to the experimental group 1, 10 to the experimental group 2, and 10 to the control group. Over a five-week period, the experimental group 1 received training on the manner of articulation of the segment, the experimental group 2 received acoustic-articulatory training and was exposed to CALL software for receiving feedback, and the control group was only exposed to auditory input. The groups were given a pretest, an immediate posttest, and a generalization test. The results of the study showed a significant improvement in the performance of the participants in both the posttest and the generalization test in the experimental group 2. These findings suggest the inefficiency of the mere knowledge of the manner of articulation of the segment and lend support to the feasibility of using acoustic features of sounds and computer-based, learner-centred programs for second language segmental acquisition.
References (39)
Ansarin, A.A. (2004, September). An acoustic analysis of Modern Persian vowels. Paper presented at the
9th Conference on Speech and Computer
, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Bassetti, B. (2008). Orthographic input and second language phonology. In T. Piske &M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 191–206). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Beeson, P.M., & Robey, R.R. (2006). Evaluating single-subject treatment research: Lessons learned from the aphasia literature. Neuropsychology Review, 16(4), 161–169.
Best, C.T. (1995). A direct cross-realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strang (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 233–277). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
Best, C.T., & Tyler, M.D. (2007). Nonnative and second language speech perception. commonalities and complementarities. In M.J. Munro & O. -S. Bohn (Eds.), Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 391, 379–397.
Deterding, D. (1997). The formants of monophthong vowels in standard Southern British English pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 271, 47–55.
. (2006). The North Wind versus a Wolf: short texts for the description and measurement of English pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 36(2), 187–196.
Engwall, O. (2012). Analysis of and feedback on phonetic features in pronunciation training with a virtual teacher. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 37–64.
Engwall, O., & Bälter, O. (2007). Pronunciation feedback from real and virtual language teachers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 201, 235–262.
Ertmer, D.J., & Maki, J.E. (2000). A comparison of speech training methods with deaf adolescents: Spectrographic versus noninstrumental instruction. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 431, 1509–1523.
Escudero, P., & Boersma, P. (2004). Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(4), 551–585.
Eskenazi, M. (2009). An overview of spoken language technology for education. Speech Communication, 511, 832–844.
Flege, J.E. (1995). Second language speech learning theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Flege, J.E., Takagi, N., & Mann, V. (1996). Lexical familiarity and English‐language experience affect Japanese adults’ perception of/ɹ/and/l. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(2), 1161–1173.
Frankel, J., Wester, M., & King, S. (2007). Articulatory feature recognition using dynamic Bayesian networks. Computer, Speech and Language, 211, 620–620.
Golonka, E.M., Bowles, A.R., Frank, V.M., Richardson, D.L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105.
Hunter, G., & Kebede, H. (2012). Formant frequencies of British English vowels produced by native speakers of Farsi. Proceedings of the
Acoustics 2012 Conference
, 23–27.
Iverson, P., & Kuhl, P. (1995). Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(1), 553–562.
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, 871, B47–B57.
Kartushina, N., & Frauenfelder, U.H. (2013). On the role of L1 speech production in L2 perception: Evidence from Spanish learners of French. Proceedings of the
Interspeech
2013, 2118–2122.
. (2014). On the effects of L2 perception and of individual differences in L1 production on L2 pronunciation. Frontiers in Psychology, 51, 1–17.
Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich, P. (2010). Language awareness and second language pronunciation: A classroom study. Language Awareness, 19(3), 171–185.
Lambacher, S.G. (1996). Using electronic visual feedback to teach English segmentals. The Language Teacher, 201, 22–27.
Levis, J. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 391, 367–377.
Major, R.C. (2008). Transfer in second language phonology. In J.G. Hansen Edwards & M.L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 63–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mora, J.C., Rochdi, Y., & Kivistö-de Souza, H. (2014). Mimicking accented speech as L2 phonological awareness. Language Awareness, 23(1-2), 57–75.
Neri, A., Mich, O., Gerosa, M., & Giuliani, D. (2008). The effectiveness of computer assisted pronunciation training for foreign language learning by children. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 211, 393–408.
Ouni, S. (2013). Tongue control and its implication in pronunciation training. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(5), 439–453.
Patten, I., & Edmonds, L.A. (2013). Effect of training Japanese L1 speakers in the production of American English / r/ using spectrographic visual feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(3), 241–259.
Quintana-Lara, M. (2012). Effect of Acoustic Spectrographic Instruction on production of English /i/ and /I/ by Spanish pre-service English teachers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(3), 207–227.
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.
Strik, H., Truong, K., de Wet, F., & Cucchiarini, C. (2009). Comparing different approaches for automatic pronunciation error detection. Speech Communication, 511, 845–852.
Sturm, J.L. (2013). Explicit phonetics instruction in L2 French: A global analysis of Improvement. System, 411, 654–662.
Venkatagiri, H.S., & Levis, J.M. (2007). Phonological awareness and speech comprehensibility: An exploratory study. Language Awareness, 16(4), 263–277.
Wang, X., & Munro, M.J. (2004). Computer-based training for learning English vowel contrasts. System, 321, 539–552.
Wells, J.C. (1962). A study of the formants of the pure vowels of British English. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of London. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.