Perceptual and Ultrasound Articulatory Training Effects on English L2 Vowels Production by Italian Learners

Authors: I. Sonia d’Apolito, Bianca Sisinni, Mirko Grimaldi, Barbara Gili Fivela

Abstract:

The American English contrast /ɑ-ʌ/ (cop-cup) is difficult to be produced by Italian learners since they realize L2-/ɑ-ʌ/ as L1-/ɔ-a/ respectively, due to differences in phonetic-phonological systems and also in grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules. In this paper, we try to answer the following research questions: Can a short training improve the production of English /ɑ-ʌ/ by Italian learners? Is a perceptual training better than an articulatory (ultrasound - US) training? Thus, we compare a perceptual training with an US articulatory one to observe: 1) the effects of short trainings on L2-/ɑ-ʌ/ productions; 2) if the US articulatory training improves the pronunciation better than the perceptual training. In this pilot study, 9 Salento-Italian monolingual adults participated: 3 subjects performed a 1-hour perceptual training (ES-P); 3 subjects performed a 1-hour US training (ES-US); and 3 control subjects did not receive any training (CS). Verbal instructions about the phonetic properties of L2-/ɑ-ʌ/ and L1-/ɔ-a/ and their differences (representation on F1-F2 plane) were provided during both trainings. After these instructions, the ES-P group performed an identification training based on the High Variability Phonetic Training procedure, while the ES-US group performed the articulatory training, by means of US video of tongue gestures in L2-/ɑ-ʌ/ production and dynamic view of their own tongue movements and position using a probe under their chin. The acoustic data were analyzed and the first three formants were calculated. Independent t-tests were run to compare: 1) /ɑ-ʌ/ in pre- vs. post-test respectively; /ɑ-ʌ/ in pre- and post-test vs. L1-/a-ɔ/ respectively. Results show that in the pre-test all speakers realize L2-/ɑ-ʌ/ as L1-/ɔ-a/ respectively. Contrary to CS and ES-P groups, the ES-US group in the post-test differentiates the L2 vowels from those produced in the pre-test as well as from the L1 vowels, although only one ES-US subject produces both L2 vowels accurately. The articulatory training seems more effective than the perceptual one since it favors the production of vowels in the correct direction of L2 vowels and differently from the similar L1 vowels.

Keywords: L2 vowel production, perceptual training, articulatory training, ultrasound.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1132090

References:

[1] C. T. Best, M. D. Tyler, “Nonnative and Second Language Speech Perception: Commonalities and Complementarities”, in Second Language Speech Learning: The Role of Language Experience in Speech Perception and Production, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 2007, pp. 13-34.
[2] J. S. Logan, S. E. Lively, D. B. Pisoni, “Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report”, in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 89(2), 1991, pp. 874-886.
[3] A. R. Bradlow, D. B. Pisoni, R. Akahane-Yamada, Y. I. Tohkura, “Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. IV: some effects of perceptual learning on speech production”, in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 101(4), 1997, pp. 2299-2310.
[4] N. Kartushina, A. Hervais-Adelman, U. H. Frauenfelder, & N. Golestani, “The effect of phonetic production training with visual feedback on the perception and production of foreign speech sounds”, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 138(2), 2015, pp. 817-832.
[5] C. Pillot-Loiseau, T. K.Antolík, T. Kamiyama, “Contribution Of Ultrasound Visualization To Improving The Production Of The French /y/-/u/ Contrast By Four Japanese Learners”, in Phonetics, Phonology, Languages In Contact. Contact: Varieties, Multilingualism, Second Language Learning, 2013, pp. 86-89.
[6] S. M. Wilson, B. Gick, “Ultrasound Technology and Second Language Acquisition Research”, in Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference, 2006, pp. 148–152.
[7] A. M. Schmidt, & J. Beamer, “Electropalatography treatment for training Thai speakers of English”, in Journal of Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, vol. 12 (5), 1998, pp.389-403.
[8] A. Suemitsu, & J. Dang, T. Ito, M. Tiede, “A real-time articulatory visual feedback approach with target presentation for second language pronunciation learning”, in Journal of Acoustical Society of America, vol. 138 (4), 2015, pp. 382-387.
[9] R. Akahane-Yamada, E. McDermott, T. Adachi, H. Kawahara, J. S. Pruitt, “Computer-based second language production training by using spectrographic representation and HMM-based speech recognition scores”, in Proceedings of ICSLP, 1998, Sydney, Australia.
[10] M. Carey, “CALL visual feedback for pronunciation of vowels: Kay Sona-Match”, in CALICO Journal, vol. 21 (3), pp. 571-601.
[11] I. Wilson, “Using Ultrasound For Teaching And Researching Articulation”, in Acoustical Science & Technology, vol. 35(6), 2014, pp. 285-289.
[12] B. Gick, B. M. Bernhardt, P. Bacsfalvi, I. Wilson, “Ultrasound imaging applications in second language acquisition”, in Phonology and Second Language Acquisition, 2008, pp. 309-322.
[13] P. Iverson, & B. G. Evans, “Learning English vowels with different first language vowel system II: Auditory training for native Spanish and German speakers” in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 126, 2009, pp. 866-877.
[14] S. Ylinen, M. Uther, A., Latvala, S. Vepsäläinen, P. Iverson, R. Akahane-Yamada, R. Näätänen, “Training the brain to weight speech cues differently: A study of Finnish second-language users of English, in Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 22(6), 2010, pp. 1319-32.
[15] S. E. Lively, D. B. Pisoni, R. A. Yamada, Y. Tokhura, and T. Yamada, “Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/ III. Long-term retention of new phonetic categories”, in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 96, 1994, pp. 2076-2087.
[16] M. Posner, and S. Keele, “On the genesis of abstract ideas”, in Journal Experimental Psychology, vol. 77, 1968, 353-363.
[17] P. Escudero, T. Benders, K. Wanrooij, “Enhanced Vowel Distributions Facilitate The Learning Of Second Language Vowels”, in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 130(4), 2011, pp. El206-El212.
[18] J. E. Flege, I. Mackay, & D. Meador, “Native Italian Speakers’ Production And Perception Of English Vowels”, in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 106, 1999, pp. 2973-2987.
[19] P. Escudero, B. Sisinni, M. Grimaldi, “The Effect Of Vowel Inventory And Acoustic Properties In Salento Italian Learners Of Southern British English Vowels”, in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol.135(3), 2014, pp. 1577-1584.
[20] B. Bassetti & N. Atkinson, “Effects Of Orthographic Forms On Pronunciation In Experienced Instructed Second Language Learners”, in Orthographic Effects In Second Language Phonology. Special Issue. Applied Psycholinguistics, vol. 36(1), 2015, pp. 67-91.
[21] R.I. Thomson, “Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training: Targeting second language vowel perception improves pronunciation” in CALICO Journal, vol. 28(3), 2011, pp. 744-765.
[22] P. Boersma, and D. Weenink, “Praat: Doing phonetics by computer” (computer program), Version 6.0, 2016. http://www.praat.org/
[23] K. Chládková, P. Escudero, P. Boersma, “Context-Specific Acoustic Differences Between Peruvian And Iberian Spanish Vowels”, in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 130, 2011, pp. 416–428.
[24] B. Sisinni, I. S. d’Apolito, B. Gili Fivela, M. Grimaldi, Ultrasound articulatory training for teaching pronunciation of L2 vowels, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference ICT for Language Learning, 17-18 November, Florence, Italy, 2016, pp. 265-270.