• Save
Examining the Link between Perception and Production: Practical Applications
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Examining the Link between Perception and Production: Practical Applications

on

  • 2,982 views

This presentation shows how teachers can use a freely available Internet-based speech-perception diagnostic tool to improve their students' pronunciation of English on an individualized basis by ...

This presentation shows how teachers can use a freely available Internet-based speech-perception diagnostic tool to improve their students' pronunciation of English on an individualized basis by examining problems in speech perception, without using a lot of precious instruction time.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,982
Views on SlideShare
2,982
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Examining the Link between Perception and Production: Practical Applications Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Examining the Link between Perception and Production: Practical Applications
    Justin R. Shewell
    TESOL International 2011
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    March 18, 2011, 7:30 – 8:15
    Convention Center, Room 206
    jshewell@asu.edu
    http://jshewell.com/cv
  • 2. Overview
    • Why Perception?
    • 3. What is the role of perception in acquisition of English pronunciation skills
    • 4. Is perception teachable?
    • 5. The POSE Test
    • 6. the overall format and rationale
    • 7. sample items
    • 8. Diagnosing problems
    • 9. Practice activities
    • 10. Q & A
  • Why Perception?
    • Research suggests that accurate perception of segmentals leads to more accurate production of these sounds
    • 11. Flege and Eefting, 1987
    • 12. Schneiderman, Bourdages, and Champagne, 1988
    • 13. Ingram and Park, 1997
    • 14. Chan, 2001
    • 15. No research available for suprasegmentals
    • 16. see Trofimovich& Baker, 2006;Chun, 2002
  • Why Perception?
    • Research also indicates that training in speech perception leads to improvement in both perception and production of English sounds
    • 17. de Bot, 1983
    • 18. Cenoz and Lecumberri, 1999
    • 19. Champane-Muzar,Schneiderman, andBourdages, 1993
  • Why Perception?
    • Students must take responsibility for their production mistakes in order to improve (Acton, 1984; Morley, 1991).
    • 20. Perception plays animportant role in self-monitoring speechproduction (Shewell, 2004;Zheng et. al, 2009)
  • What is the POSE Test?
    • The Perception of Spoken English Test
    • 21. Consists of five areas
    • 22. Vowels
    • 23. Consonants
    • 24. Word Stress
    • 25. Intonation (2 sections)‏
    • 26. Sentence Stress(2 sections)‏
  • What is the POSE Test?
    • Each item involves listening to a recorded sentence/word and then choosing from listed options the choice that best matches what was heard on the recording
    • 27. Each item uses minimal-pair sentences to helpdiagnose problems
  • Why Minimal-Pair Sentences?
    • Comparable to communicative environment in the “real world”
    • 28. Stress, intonation and other linguistic features remain the same (except for substituted word or suprasegmental feature) (Mora, 1998)
  • Vowels and Consonants
    • Items chosen based on functional load (Catford, 1987)
    • 29. Consonants: focused only on syllable initial/final contrasts (no medial contrasts)‏
    • 30. Images were used to helpovercome possible problemswith reading skills.
    • 31. Images and items camefrom Pronunciation Matters(Henrichsen et. al, 1999)or were original
  • Vowels and Consonants
    • Vowels: 38 total items (11 contrasts with up to 4 items per contrast)
    • 32. Consonants: 84 total items (25 contrasts with up to 4 items each)
    • 33. Some contrasts only have 2 items
    • 34. Arabic (Islamic) version has some items removed, leaving 37 and78 respectively
  • Vowels: Example Item
  • 35. Consonants: Example Item
  • 36. Word Stress
    • Items contained two to five syllables
    • 37. Items represented different parts of speech
    • 38. Presented in isolation to avoidproblems with grammar andother linguistic features beingused to determine answer
  • Word Stress: Example Item
  • 39. Intonation
    • Two sections (item types)‏
    • 40. Question/Statement
    • 41. Tag Questions
    • 42. Both focus on rising/falling intonation
    • 43. Items came from a testdeveloped by Amber Paugaand Brent Green at BYU-Hawaii or were original
  • Intonation Section 1: Example Item
  • 44. Intonation Section 2: Example Item
  • 45. Sentence Stress
    • Two sections
    • 46. Stressed word
    • 47. Thought groups (Gilbert, 2005) or pauses
    • 48. Items were original or taken from Pronunciation Matters (Henrichsen et. al)‏
    • 49. Each item presented with arejoinder that distinguished the difference in meaning on thescreen but not in the audio file
  • Sentence Stress Section 1: Example Item
  • 50. Sentence Stress Section 2: Example Item
  • 51. Diagnosing Problems:Vowels & Consonants
  • 52. Diagnosing Problems:Vowels & Consonants
    • Count up the number of correct, incorrect and “I don’t know” answers for each contrast
    • 53. 2 or 4 items for each contrast
    • 54. consonant contrasts could be in either initial or final position (marked on the results page)
    • 55. If the majority of responsesfor that contrast areincorrect or “I don’t know”,then intervention maybe needed
  • Practice Activities:Vowels & Consonants
    • Raise Awareness & Build Confidence
    • 56. Minimal Pair Sentences
    • 57. Pronunciation Matters (Cards)
    • 58. http://www.pronunciationmatters.com
    • 59. Write sentences on cards, draw pictures on cards or on chalkboard
    • 60. one person randomly readsone of the sentences in thepair, the learners points tothe correct card or picture
    • 61. repeat until the learnerindicates the correct cardor picture every time
  • Diagnosing Problems:Word Stress
  • 62. Diagnosing Problems:Word Stress
    • Count up the number of correct, incorrect and “I don’t know” answers
    • 63. results page shows patterns:
    • 64. o o O o (4 syllables, 3rd syllable is stressed)
    • 65. o O (2 syllables, 2nd syllable is stressed)
    • 66. o o O o o (5 syllables, 3rd syllable is stressed)
    • 67. may notice more incorrect or “I don’t know” responses for a particular pattern
  • Practice Activities:Word Stress
    • Raise Awareness & Build Confidence
    • 68. Marking Stress
    • 69. use a clear method (like big circle, little circle)
    • 70. have students practice marking stress in dictations or while doing listening exercises
    • 71. Focus on word stress in vocabulary
    • 72. have students sort vocabularywords by stress patterns andsyllable patterns
    • 73. discuss the word stress of newvocabulary words as theyare introduced
  • Diagnosing Problems:Intonation
  • 74. Practice Activities:Intonation
    • Raise Awareness & Build Confidence
    • 75. Perception Practice
    • 76. have someone say a sentence ending with either rising or falling intonation
    • 77. student points to the sentence they heard
    • 78. Production Practice
    • 79. have student say a sentence withrising or falling intonation
    • 80. teacher/tutor points to the onethey heard
  • Diagnosing Problems:Sentence Stress
  • 81. Practice Activities:Sentence Stress
    • Raise Awareness & Build Confidence
    • 82. Perception Practice
    • 83. have someone say the same sentence varying the stress
    • 84. student points to the sentence they heard
    • 85. Production Practice
    • 86. limmericks (recordings)
    • 87. sentences with unimportantwords missing
  • Questions?
  • 88. References
    Acton, W. (1984). Changing fossilized pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (1), 71-85.
    Catford, J.C. (1987). "Phonetics and the teaching of pronunciation", in Morley, J. (Ed.) Current perspectives on pronunciation: Practices anchored in theory. Washington D.C.: TESOL. pp. 83-100.
    Cenoz, J. & Lecumberri, L. G. (1999). The effect of training on the discrimination of English vowels. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 261-275.
    Champagne-Muzar, C., Schneiderman, E. I., & Bourdages, J. S. (1993). Second language accent: The role of the pedagogical environment. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 143-160.
    Chan, C. (2001). The perception (and production) of English word-initial consonants by native speakers of Cantonese. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 26-44.
    Chun, D. M. (2002). Discourse intonation in L2: From theory and research to practice. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    de Bot, K. (1983). Visual feedback of intonation I: Effectiveness and induced practice behavior. Language and Speech, 26, 331-350.
    Flege, J. E. & Eefting, W. (1987). Production and perception of English stops by native Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 67-83.
    Gilbert, J. (2005). Clear speech: Pronunciation and listening comprehension in North American English (3rd ed., Student’s Book). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • 89. References
    Henrichsen, L., Green, B., Nishitani, A., & Bagley, C. (1999) Pronunciation matters: Communicative, story-based activities for mastering the sounds of North American English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
    Ingram, J. C. L. & Park, S. G. (1997). Cross-language vowel perception and production by Japanese and Korean learners of English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 343-370.
    Mora, J. K. (1998). Teaching phonemic awareness & pronunciation with minimal contrast pairs. Retrieved March 7, 2006, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MinimalPairsMMdl/Default.htm
    Morely, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 481-520.
    Schneiderman, E., Bourdages, J., & Champagne, C. (1988). Second-language accent: The relationship between discrimination and perception in acquisition. Language Learning, 38, 1-19.
    Shewell, J. (2004). Hearing the difference: A computer-based speech-perception diagnostic tool for non-native speakers of English. Unpublished masters thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA.
    Trofimovich, P. & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. SSLA, 28, 1-30.
    Zheng, Z. Z., Munhall, K. G., Johnsrude, I. S. (2009). Functional overlap between regions involved in speech perception and in monitoring one’s own voice during speech production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1770-1781.