editorial

Technology and second language

pronunciation
John M. Levis
Iowa State University

This issue addresses the intersection of technology and pronunciation, dis-

cussing past, current and future uses of technology, the use of technology
for researching L2 pronunciation, for training instructors, and for teaching
learners. Technology is put forth as an essential and interconnected element
of second language pronunciation. The topic grew out of the 8th Pronuncia-
tion in Second Language Learning and Teaching conference, held in August
2016 in Calgary, Alberta.

Keywords: technology, pronunciation, ASR, HVPT, pedagogy, feedback,

visualization, gesture

1. Introduction

A consistent and sometimes invisible thread in studies of second language pro-

nunciation, spanning many decades, is the importance of technology. A Google
Scholar search for “pronunciation and technology” comes up with large numbers
of studies and conceptual articles attesting to the intersection of the two fields.
Many of these references are empirical studies, while others are conceptual, or
are reviews of the field. In 2007, for example, I wrote an article on this topic,
limiting an overwhelmingly large topic to how technology was critical for dis-
cussions of teaching goals, pronunciation improvement, automatic feedback, and
mispronunciation identification (Levis, 2007). In other papers from the same era,
O’Brien (2006) and Chun (2012) outline the promise and limitations of various
applications of technology, looking at Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training
(CAPT) software, Automatic Speech Recognition or ASR (Levis & Suvorov, 2013),
and visualization of pronunciation. That this issue of the Journal of Second Lan-
guage Pronunciation focuses again on the intersection of technology and pronun-
ciation says that the problems that have so often been enumerated in technology
are not yet solved, but that technology continues to shine with potential.
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.00011.edi
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 4:2 (2018), pp. 173–181. issn 2215-1931 | e‑issn 2215-194x
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
174 John M. Levis

2. The intersection of technology and speech

Analyzing speech and the details of pronunciation used to be the province of

experts with gifted hearing and extensive practice, but technological tools to pre-
cisely describe and analyze pronunciation are now within reach for almost any-
one. Speech analysis software such as Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2016) not only
offer extensive tools but also the ability to analyze large amounts of data through
the use of specialized computer scripts.
It is also far easier to visualize elements of speech than it has ever been.
Animated sagittal diagrams such as videos and animations of the vocal tract,
and programs such as the University of Iowa’s Sounds of Speech (http://
soundsofspeech.uiowa.edu/), are widely available online or in computer apps. In
addition, careful phonetic analyses of pitch, spectra, fluency features, Voice Onset
Time, vowel formants, duration and a host of other important aspects of speech
are now expected in empirical research on pronunciation. They are also increas-
ingly being employed in pedagogically-oriented applications, though not neces-
sarily always to the best effect (Neri, Cucchiarini & Strik, 2002).
Technology and pronunciation intersect in a variety of ways. First, technology
can be used as a tool for research without any obvious pedagogical end goal. This
is the dominant use of technology in relation to pronunciation, and it is likely that
most pronunciation research we see today, whether related to laboratory phonet-
ics and phonology or second language pronunciation, could not occur without
technological tools. Even the modest number of articles in JSLP in the past four
years suggests how central technology is to research. These include at least the
following uses of technology: synthesizing vowels to control spectral and dura-
tional steps for judgments of vowel categorization (Sakai, 2018), spectral analyses
of overt and covert contrasts (Eckman, Iverson, & Song, 2015) and partial neutral-
ization of categorical contrasts (Kaneko, Heo, Iverson & Wilson, 2015), examining
the rhythm of L2 Mandarin spoken by learners of various L1s (Yang & Chu, 2016),
phonetic influences on the pronunciation of English interdental fricatives by Man-
darin learners (Huang & Evanini, 2016), identifying how phonological features
correlate with comprehensibility ratings (Saito & Akiyama, 2017), and the mea-
surement of developmental patterns in L2 Spanish spirantization (Nagle, 2017).
Technology may also be examined for its ability to promote L2 pronunciation
learning. This is an area in which L2 pronunciation questions important in JSLP
overlap significantly with research that is rarely read by teachers and applied lin-
guists, but which feeds into the future of L2 pronunciation. In serial publica-
tions like the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (Aurora, Lahiri, & Reetz,
2018) and Speech Communication (Labrunie et al., 2018; Szaszák, Tündik, & Gera-
zov, 2018), and in annual international conferences like Interspeech (Franken et al,
 Technology and second language pronunciation 175

2017; Suzuki, Wilson, & Watanabe, 2017), there are many studies involving pro-
nunciation training that employ interesting types of technology.
In the last four years, JSLP has included a number of studies that are peda-
gogically focused: an examination of the use of visualizations in the learning of
Mandarin tone contrasts (Chun, Jiang, Meyr, & Yang, 2015), how electropalatog-
raphy can help in the learning of Russian palatal/nonpalatal contrasts (Hacking,
Smith, & Johnson, 2017), using iPods to promote shadowing and improve compre-
hensibility (Foote & McDonough, 2017), phonetic training to improve production
(Huensch, 2016), and a review of ultrasound and other visualization options for
improving L2 pronunciation (Bliss, Abel & Gick, 2018). These are only the most
obvious uses of technology in the pedagogical studies in the journal.
Only a few times in JSLP do we see descriptions of technology that are directly
ready for the classroom, and we see these primarily in reviews of applications like
English Accent Coach (Foote, 2015), a set of materials called PronPack (Yoshida,
2018), and ebooks with technology-embedded features (Sonsaat, 2015).

3. This issue

This issue addresses the intersection of technology and pronunciation, discussing

past, current and future uses of technology, the use of technology for researching
L2 pronunciation, for training instructors, and for teaching learners. Technology
is put forth as an essential and interconnected element of second language pro-
nunciation. The topic grew out of the 8th Pronunciation in Second Language
Learning and Teaching conference, held in August 2016 in Calgary, Alberta. The
conference had a theme of Technology, and many of the papers in the proceedings
are connected to this theme (https://apling.engl.iastate.edu/alt-content/uploads/
2017/05/PSLLT_2016_Proceedings_finalB.pdf).
A generous Roundtable grant from the journal Language Learning allowed the
conference organizers to bring in experts from Canada, the United States, Ger-
many and the Netherlands to discuss the connections of technology and pronun-
ciation from different perspectives. In addition, all Roundtable participants and
other selected participants took place in a daylong discussion following the con-
ference. The results are found in the open access paper by O’Brien et al. in this
volume.
This issue is unusual as it provides, in addition to an empirical study, several
state-of-the-art papers coming from the Roundtable and conference. The first is a
paper that is based on the extensive discussions funded by the Roundtable grant.
It has 11 authors, headed by Mary Grantham O’Brien and Tracey Derwing, who
organized the Roundtable, took extensive notes, and wove them into a coherent
176 John M. Levis

narrative. Second is Ron Thomson’s review of High Variability Phonetic Training

(HVPT). Third is Debra Hardison’s paper on technology and gesture. Finally, the
fourth paper was developed from my plenary talk for the conference. In addition
to these full-length papers, this issue includes three reviews which have no neces-
sary connection to technology.
Starting in 2019, our 5th year, the Journal of Second Language Pronunciation
will move to three issues rather than two. In addition, we are now taking part
in John Benjamins “Online First” program in which papers are published online
before they are published in print. This is an exciting move and mirrors the prac-
tice of many other top journals.

3.1 Full-length articles

Directions for the future of technology in pronunciation research and teaching

(O’Brien, Derwing, et al.)
This paper is a joint production based on presentations at the Roundtable during
the 8th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference
in 2016. Part 1 of the paper presents how technology is used in pronunciation
research by both introducing some of the available technologies and reporting the
results of research which employed them. PRAAT and Anvil are introduced as
two open-source tools for speech analysis and video annotation for researchers.
However, it is noted that these tools require some level of expertise. Automatic
Speech Recognition (ASR) is a potentially useful technology for holistic pro-
nunciation assessment, but the authors state that it needs improvement for pro-
nunciation error detection. Collaboration between pronunciation researchers and
speech technologists is a must for the improvement. Text-to-Speech and cloud-
based applications are among the other technologies that are also used for pro-
nunciation research. Part 2 of the paper raises concerns about data collection in
pronunciation research, such as not researching a wider range of pronunciation
features, not using large sample sizes, not including participants from a wider
range of L1 backgrounds, and not focusing on longitudinal data. The authors pro-
pose creating spoken learner corpora as a solution to data collection issues, along
with several recommendations. Another solution offered is using crowdsourcing
platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk, which could increase sample sizes
for research and bring a greater range of listeners to human rating tasks. Part 3 of
the paper presents research on CAPT and provides examples of effective CAPT
programs (English Accent Coach, DISCO) and ASR-based tools. Benefits of these
kinds of programs and tools include keeping track of learners’ improvement and
providing feedback. The authors conclude by calling for collaboration of peo-
 Technology and second language pronunciation 177

ple from different areas to improve CAPT and by providing future suggestions
regarding how to best use technology for the benefits of pronunciation learning,
teaching and research.

High Variability Training: A proven technique about which every language

teacher and learner ought to know (Thomson)
In this review article, Ron Thomson presents a critical analysis of 32 studies focus-
ing on the use of HVPT in pronunciation teaching and learning. He states that
benefits of HVPT are not fully recognized by teachers and learners because most
of the relevant studies are published in venues to which most teachers have limited
or no access, and because teachers are not familiar with the science underlying
HVPT applications. Thomson’s analysis suggests HVPT is beneficial for pronun-
ciation teaching since all studies except for one reported improvement in learn-
ers’ perception and/or production. However, Thomson warns that there are things
to be considered more carefully regarding how HVPT can be most beneficial to
the learners, how it can be more accessible for teachers, and how future research
can be designed to learn about less certain aspects of HVPT. He suggests provid-
ing more control for learners, such as allowing them to choose the target sounds,
the number of talkers they want to hear, and the length of each learning session.
Thomson recommends that researchers write for teachers in a more user-friendly
manner and publish their work in venues that teachers are likely to read. For
researchers, Thomson says there is a need for longitudinal studies in which target
sounds are selected carefully, sample size is adequate, and the design of the study
includes a control group.

Visualizing the acoustic and gestural beats of emphasis in multimodal

discourse: Theoretical and pedagogical implications (Hardison)
In this empirical study, Hardison explores the temporal relationship between ges-
tures and speech on perceivers’ understanding of information and emphasis in
discourse in an academic context. The study involved three stages. Stage 1 was
based on the analysis of polyrhythmic sequences (different rhythms for speech
and gesture) in videorecordings of 20 NSs lecturing undergraduate students in the
US. Results showed that there is a dynamic relationship between the rhythm of
nonverbal beats (gestures) and the rhythm of speech. Stage 2 examined whether
the polyrhythmic sequences have any influence on perceivers’ (28 undergraduate
students) understanding of highlighted information in discourse. Findings sup-
ported the priming effect of both visual and acoustic gestures on perceivers’
understanding of information. In Stage 3, Hardison provided a five-step training
program to 10 Korean international teaching assistants (ITAs) to raise their aware-
ness between the relationship of their speech and gestures and to make their
178 John M. Levis

teaching more effective. Initially, ITAs watched the videorecordings of NSs and
themselves teaching to see how they used visual and acoustic gestures. They were
given suggestions about how to employ voice and gestures in their teaching in the
following stages. At the end of the training program, ITAs showed improvements
on use of gestures and variation in vocal stress and pitch. Survey results showed
improvement in their teaching confidence.

Plenary Talk: Technology and the intelligibility-based classroom (Levis)

This paper is the written development of a plenary addressed at the same con-
ference hosting the Roundtable. Levis argues that many changes are happening
quickly in L2 pronunciation, and says that technology is an essential element that
will drive further growth. Technology is an important part of the solution to
many of the structural weaknesses of the growing field. Some of these structural
weaknesses include the uneven expertise and confidence that teachers express, the
need to address individual needs in teaching, and the possibility of creating new
types of materials that combine online resources, use varied modalities, and pro-
vide multiple kinds of automated feedback. Finally, technology can not only pro-
vide ways to train teachers and provide instruction to learners, it is also a way to
research how teachers and learners approach pronunciation.

3.2 Reviews

This issue of JSLP includes three reviews

Marsha Chan (Sunburst Media) reviews Marla Yoshida’s book, Beyond repeat after
me: Teaching pronunciation to English learners. The book introduces the factors
affecting pronunciation learning and knowledge base teachers should have to
teach pronunciation. After presenting basic knowledge about phonology, Yoshida
deals with segmentals, suprasegmentals, and phonics. Some chapters in the book
provide teaching tips, various activity types and practical considerations because
of the difference of learners and teaching contexts. The reviewer praises the book
for presenting relevant concepts in a reader-friendly style.
Michael Burri (University of Wollongong) reviews Assessment in second lan-
guage pronunciation, edited by Okim Kang and April Ginther. This book is divided
into two parts as current issues in pronunciation assessment and the use of tech-
nology in pronunciation assessment. The issues addressed in the first five chap-
ters include (i) measurement of accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility, (ii)
validation in pronunciation assessment, (iii) pronunciation assessment in World
Englishes, (iv) the influence of raters in pronunciation assessment, and (v) the use
of numeric scales in pronunciation assessment. Chapters 6–8 deal with automated
 Technology and second language pronunciation 179

speech assessment in standardized tests, automated scoring of speech in more

controlled tasks such as read-alouds, and automated assessment of free speech.
The reviewer recommends this edited book as a useful resource for researchers
who are interested in pronunciation assessment.
Shannon McCrocklin (Southern Illinois University) reviews The Routledge
handbook of contemporary English pronunciation, edited by Okim Kang, Ron
Thomson and John Murphy. This edited book consists of 6 sections and 35 chap-
ters in total. Sections of the book are devoted to (i) basic concepts in pronunci-
ation, (ii) describing segmental and suprasegmental pronunciation features, (iii)
English varieties in the world, (iv) pronunciation instruction in different periods
and teacher training, (v) current issues in pronunciation research, and (vi) future
innovations in pronunciation teaching. The reviewer notes that this edited volume
is a comprehensive resource in connecting theory and practice, expanding on
issues like World Englishes and considering the future of pronunciation as a field.

References

Arora, V., Lahiri, A., & Reetz, H. (2018). Phonological feature-based speech recognition system
for pronunciation training in non-native language learning. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 143(1), 98–108.
Bliss, H., Abel, J., & Gick, B. (2018). Computer-assisted visual articulation feedback in L2
pronunciation instruction. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 4(1), 129–153.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat [software]. University of Amsterdam.
<http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat>
Chun, D. M. (2012). Computer-assisted pronunciation teaching. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The
encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Chun, D. M., Jiang, Y., Meyr, J., & Yang, R. (2015). Acquisition of L2 Mandarin Chinese tones
with learner-created tone visualizations. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(1),
86–114.
Eckman, F., Iverson, G., & Song, J. (2015). Overt and covert contrast in L2 phonology. Journal
of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(2), 254–278.
Foote, J. A. (2015). Review of English Accent Coach. <www.englishaccentcoach.com>
Developed by Ron Thomson. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(1), 115–118.
Foote, J. A., & McDonough, K. (2017). Using shadowing with mobile technology to improve L2
pronunciation. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3(1), 34–56.
Franken, M. K., Eisner, F., Schoffelen, J., Acheson, D. J., Hagoort, P., McQueen, J. M. (2017).
Audiovisual recalibration of vowel categories. In proceedings of Interspeech, 2017, 655–658.
Hacking, J. F., Smith, B. L., & Johnson, E. M. (2017). Utilizing electropalatography to train
palatalized versus unpalatalized consonant productions by native speakers of American
English learning Russian. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3(1), 9–33.
Huang, B., & Evanini, K. (2016). Think, sink, and beyond. Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation, 2(2), 253–275.
180 John M. Levis

Huensch, A. (2016). Perceptual phonetic training improves production in larger discourse

contexts. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 2(2), 183–207.
Kaneko, E., Heo, Y., Iverson, G. K., & Wilson, I. (2015). Quasi-neutralization in the acquisition
of English coronal fricatives by native speakers of Japanese. Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation, 1(1), 65–85.
Labrunie, M., Badin, P., Voit, D., Joseph, A. A., Frahm, J., Lamalle, L., Vilain, C., Boë, L. (2018).
Automatic segmentation of speech articulators from real-time midsagittal MRI based on
supervised learning. Speech Communication, 99, 27–46.
Levis, J. (2007). Computer technology in teaching and researching pronunciation. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–19.
Levis, J., & Suvorov, R. (2013). Automatic speech recognition. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The
encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Nagle, C. L. (2017). Individual developmental trajectories in the L2 acquisition of Spanish
spirantization. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3(2), 218–241.
Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., & Strik, H. (2002). Feedback in computer assisted pronunciation
training: technology push or demand pull?
<https://repository.ubn.ru.nl//bitstream/handle/2066/76209/76209.pdf>
O’Brien, M. (2006). Teaching pronunciation and intonation with computer technology. In
L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new
directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 127–148). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted
Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO).
Saito, K., & Akiyama, Y. (2017). Linguistic correlates of comprehensibility in second language
Japanese speech. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3(2), 199–217.
Sakai, M. (2018). Moving towards a bilingual baseline in second language phonetic research.
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 4(1), 11–45.
Sonsaat, S. (2015). Review of Phonology for listening: Teaching the stream of speech, by
Richard Cauldwell. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(1), 124–128.
Suzuki, K., Wilson, I., Watanabe, H. (2017). Visual learning 2: Pronunciation app using
ultrasound, video, and MRI. In proceedings of Interspeech, 2017, 831–832.
Szaszák, G., Tündik, M. A., & Gerazov, B. (2018). Prosodic stress detection for fixed stress
languages using formal atom decomposition and a statistical hidden Markov hybrid.
Speech Communication, 102, 14–26.
Yang, C., & Chu, J. (2016). Testing rhythm metrics in L2 Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Second
Language Pronunciation, 2(2), 208–224.
Yoshida, M. (2018). Review of PronPack by Mark Hancock. Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation, 4(1), 163–167.
 Technology and second language pronunciation 181

Address for correspondence

John M. Levis
Department of English
Iowa State University
Ross Hall, Room 337
Ames, IA 50011-1201
USA
jlevis@iastate.edu