Third Generation Computer-Assisted Pronunciation Training

After decades of being treated by much of the language education community as an afterthought, second language pronunciation is benefiting from renewed focus from educators and researchers. As emphasis on conversational or communicative language skills increases in academic and professional environments, more pronunciation and listening comprehension materials are finding their way to market in the United States and overseas. This paper provides a review of recent literature on software-based pronunciation programs that outlines the rationale behind focusing on the suprasegmental components of language and the value of training the voice and the ear together. In addition, an overview of the benefit of computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT) and the importance of appropriate feedback are presented.

Suprasegmental Components To be able to speak and listen in a second language, it is clear that language learners need something other than just phonemic correctness. Joy Egbert, 2004 Of the three strands of speech segments, suprasegmentals and voice quality researchers and educators are beginning to move from a focus on segments, or individual phonemes, to the suprasegmentals of stress, rhythm and intonation. Recent research suggests that individual segmental components of language are not sufficient on their own and are less efficient than suprasegmentals in acquiring intelligibility in a second language (Brown 1992, Esling 1983). Eskenazi advocates for the teaching of suprasegmentals, or prosody, right from the beginning as a person with good segmental phonology who lacks correct timing and pitch will be hard to understand. Rather than taking a bottom-up approach that initiates pronunciation training with the teaching of discrete phonemes, second language acquisition researchers are increasingly recommending a more complete approach that places greater emphasis on suprasegmentals and voice quality (Celce-Murcia 1996, Egbert 2002, Strange 1995). Voice Quality If a learner can be trained to abandon the long-term settings of his or her native language and switch to those of the L2, then this large-scale adjustment will facilitate small-scale changes needed in the articulation of the particular vowels and consonants of the language. -Adam Brown, 1992 Differences in voice quality may be a greater contributor than segmentals to intelligibility problems in second language learners. Each language, when spoken by native speakers, utilizes a unique set of frequencies which provide the fundamental groundwork which pervades and, to an extent, determines the phonetic character and specific timbre of a language (Honikman 1964). In negotiating this difference, Jenner notes that Even when a learner can produce individual sound segments which are very similar to those produced by a native speaker, they may still sound wrong or foreign because the overall voice quality is different. We ought, therefore, to look systematically for aspects of voice quality which are common to all speakers of a [target language] and employ those similarities in our teaching (Jenner 1991). Even long-term students of foreign languages who have mastered individual sounds have difficulty employing the same acoustic parameters as native speakers (Sebastian-Galles 2005).

2006, GenevaLogic

Training the Ear Since every individual is so powerfully conditioned by his mother tongue to interpret in terms of it the phenomena of other languages learnt subsequently, the only effective solution must surely be to set out deliberately to achieve a certain amount of deconditioning of every learner as he comes to his first foreign languages. -Peter MacCarthy, 1976 Although our perceptual systems have a high degree of plasticity, they can be unyielding when learning second languages (Sebastian-Galles 2005). The challenge can be attributed to interference phenomena for the L1 built-in phonological representations (Fledge 1995). Repetitious practice alone is neither sufficient for bridging gaps in pronunciation nor for improving listening comprehension (Eskenazi 1999). As MacCarthy suggests, each learner needs beforehand to learn how to listen in the target language in order to break barriers to pronunciation (MacCarthy 1976). By training the ear to the frequencies and other key qualities of the target language, the stage is quickly set for accelerated production. In order to best apprehend the fundamental differences between languages, it would be helpful for a student to hear his/her own speech with correct prosody (Sundstrom 2005). With new technologies, such as SpeedLingua, it is now possible for students to hear their own speech in the correct prosody in real time. The Advantage of Computer-Assisted Pronunciation Training Noticing a problem pushes the learner to modify his/her output. -Carole Chapelle, 1998 Employing computer-based pronunciation programs can benefit students and teachers in that such programs make it possible to address individual problems, allow students to work at their own tempo, and may lead to reduction in classroom anxiety (Neri 2002). Overall, CAPT allows for increased practice time to more closely approach the advantages of total immersion learning (Eskenazi 1999). Success in the language lab, or any self-study environment, requires appropriate feedback. Early forms of computer-based instruction featured aids such as head diagrams and visual models aids that have questionable educational benefit (Brown 2002, Chun 1998). Later forms of CAPT included automatic speech recognition (ASR) features such as spectrograms or oscillograms that look impressive but may be uninterpretable to learners (Eskenazi 1999, Hirata 2004, Neri 2002) and may be better suited to practice than learning (Hinks 2005). The next generation of CAPT features technology that allows learners to hear their own voices, in real time, modulated into the frequency of the target language. Rather than relying on visual models or graphical representations, students learn to listen and speak in a second language by following the sound of their own voices. Technologies such as SpeedLingua close the gap between listening and speaking, removing the barriers to intelligibility and comprehension.

2006, GenevaLogic

Why SpeedLingua Works The active process of SpeedLingua comprises instantaneous analysis, modification and replay of the users speech. The result of this process is that learners hear their voices, as they speak, with suprasegmental qualities of the target language. SpeedLinguas patented, research-based technology represents a breakthrough in preparing students for successful listening and speaking and is designed to complement classroom-based and electronic language education. In order to be perceived as synchronal with the users speech, the analysis-restitution delay, or latency, must be less than 20 milliseconds. SpeedLingua creates this apparent concurrence using Microsoft DirectX technology. Stereo headphones with a built-in microphone are required to use SpeedLingua; no additional hardware or software is needed on a computer that has Windows 2000 or XP and up-to-date DirectX. The SpeedLingua process can be represented with a simple flow chart:
Capture Input Card Microphone SpeedLingua Analysis Rendering Output Card Headphones

Network Benefits SpeedLingua can be installed across a network or on a single client workstation. Networked installations do not require a dedicated server. When installed over a network, the administrative functions allow teachers and school leaders to closely monitor student usage and success. Individual evaluation reports allow teachers to track and communicate student progress both on suprasegmental and phonemic language strands. The SpeedLingua Advantage Developed by SpeedLingua, S.A., in Europe and distributed in North America, China, and Germany by GenevaLogic, SpeedLingua brings together cutting edge technology and GenevaLogics reputation as a global leader in classroom solutions. SpeedLingua has been adopted by universities, corporations, and private language programs in France, Belgium and Luxembourg and will soon be available in North America. To learn more about SpeedLingua, contact us at:

15725 SW Greystone Court, Suite 105 Beaverton, Oregon 97006 Main: 503.352.3599 Fax: 503.352.3413 www.genevalogic.com

2006, GenevaLogic

Resources
Brown, Adam (Ed.), Teaching English Pronunciation: A Book of Readings. London: Routledge, 1991. Brown, Adam (Ed.), Approaches to Pronunciation Teaching. Hertfordshire: Phoenix ELT, 1992. Brown A., Head diagrams. In: A. Brown (Ed.), Teaching English Pronunciation: A Book of Readings. Routledge: London, 1991. Celce-Murcia, M., D. Brinton, & J. Goodwin, Teaching Pronunciation: A Reference for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Chun, D. (1998), Signal analysis software for teaching discourse intonation. Language Learning & Technology, July 1998, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 74-93. Davison, C. (Ed.), Information Technology and Innovation in Language Education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2005. Egbert, J., Review of connected speech. Language Learning & Technology, January 2004, Volume 8, Number 1, pp. 24-28. Egbert, J., T. Paulus, & Y. Nakamichi (2002), The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, September 2002, Volume 6, Number 3, pp. 108-126. Esling, J. & R. Wong (1983), Voice quality settings and the teaching of pronunciation. In: A. Brown (Ed.), Teaching English Pronunciation: A Book of Readings. Routledge: London, 1991. Eskenazi, M. (1999), Using automatic speech processing for foreign language pronunciation tutoring: Some issues and a prototype. Language Learning & Technology, January 1999, Volume 2, Number 2 pp. 62-76 Flege, J.E., Second-language speech learning: Findings and problems. In: W. Strange (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Timonium, MD: York Press, 1995. Fotos, S., & C. Browne (Eds.), New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 2004. Hincks, R. (2005), Computer Support for Learners of Spoken English. Stockholm: KTH School of Computer Science and Communication, 2005. Hirata, Y., Computer assisted pronunciation training for native English speakers learning Japanese pitch and durational contrasts. Computer Assisted Language Learning 2004 Vol. 17, Nos. 3-4, pp. 357-376. Honikman, B. (1964), Articulatory settings. In: A. Brown (Ed.), Teaching English Pronunciation: A Book of Readings. London: Routledge, 1991. Jenner, B., The English voice. In: A. Brown (Ed.), Teaching English Pronunciation: A Book of Readings. Routledge: London, 1991. Levy, M., Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. MacCarthy, P. (1976), Auditory and articulatory training for the language teacher and learner. In: A. Brown (Ed.), Teaching English Pronunciation: A Book of Readings. London: Routledge, 1991. Morley, J. (Ed.), Current Perspectives on Pronunciation: Practices Anchored in Theory. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 1987. Morley, J. (Ed.), Pronunciation Pedagogy and Theory: New Views, New Directions. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 1994. Neri, A., C. Cucchiarinim & H. Strick (2002), Feedback in Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training: When technology meets pedagogy, A2RT, Department of Languages and Speech University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Sebastian-Galles, N., Cross-language speech perception. In: D. Pisoni and R. Remez (Eds.), The Handbook of Speech Perception. Malden: Blackwell, 2005. Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research. Timonium, MD: York Press, 1995. Sundstrm, A. (1998), Automatic prosody modification as a means for foreign language pronunciation training. Proceedings of ISCA Workshop on Speech Technology in Language Learning (STILL 98), Marholmen, Sweden, Department of Speech, Music and Hearing, KTH, 49-52.

2006, GenevaLogic