Pronunciation in Ten Min PDF

Teaching Pronunciation in Just Ten
Minutes a Day: A Method for Pronunciation

Instruction in First-Semester German
Language Classrooms
Ashley Roccamo
University of Southern California
Anyone who has studied a foreign language (FL) knows that acquiring satisfactory pronun-
ciation skills in that language is an elusive task. Even speakers at very high levels of proficiency
may continue to speak with a noticeable foreign accent. Pronunciation plays a vital role in effec-
tive communication of meaning (Hinofotis and Bailey, 1980; Hirschfeld, 1994; James, 1976),
yet is often ignored in beginner-level FL classrooms. Reasons for this vary; instructors may
worry about time constraints or a lack of resources in the classroom (Foote, Holtby, & Derwing,
2012) or believe that students will improve their pronunciation skills with more language expe-
rience or time abroad. Yet this is often not the case; many second language (L2) learners fail to
improve their accent on their own, even after years of instruction or immersion (Grosser, 1997;
Jilka, 1999; Munro & Derwing, 2008; Trofimovich & Baker, 2006). Providing beginning learn-
ers with pronunciation instruction has many potential advantages, from preventing fossilization
(Elliott, 1995, 1997) to helping L2 learners acquire syntax (Eskenazi, 1999). This article gauges
the effectiveness of pronunciation training for beginners and describes an effective pronuncia-
tion instruction unit designed for use as a warm-up in beginner-level German language
classrooms. First-semester German learners were trained on three important components of
German pronunciation: lexical stress placement, German /r/ sounds, and the voiceless
fricatives [] (the ich-laut) and [x] (the ach-laut). Results from this study demonstrate that it is
possible to effectively teach pronunciation to beginners in only ten minutes per day, and the ar-
ticle concludes with suggestions that instructors can use to begin training in their own first-year
classrooms.
Why Should We Teach Pronunciation to Beginners?
Target-like pronunciation skills are nearly impossible for late L2 learners to acquire, even
among highly proficient L2 speakers. Yet acquiring a basic level of pronunciation ability is
necessary for learners to communicate effectively and avoid comprehension problems, misun-
derstandings, and communication breakdowns (Hinofotis and Bailey, 1980; Hirschfeld, 1994;
James, 1976). Adult L2 learners are often aware of this strong connection between pronuncia-
tion and effective communication, but research suggests that they may not be able to repair
pronunciation problems on their own. Even after many years of exposure to the target language
either in the classroom or an immersion environment, many L2 learners pronunciation of
certain segments or prosodic features remains steady (Counselman, 2010; Derwing & Munro,
59
60 UP 48.1 (Spring 2015)
2013; Ducate & Lomicka, 2009; Elliott, 1995, 1997; Grosser, 1997; Jilka, 1999; Munro &
Derwing, 2008; Trofimovich & Baker, 2006). L2 learners often fail to identify aspects of their
own pronunciation that affect their ability to communicate and are unable to recognize their
own inaccurate productions, whether the patterns or segments are the same in, or very different
between, their two languages (Derwing & Rossier, 2002; Dlaska & Krekeler, 2008; Grosser,
1997). Thus, as L2 learners typically cannot acquire target-like pronunciation on their own, it
seems necessary to train them in this skill.
A variety of L2 pronunciation training studies have demonstrated that improving pronunci-
ation is an attainable goal for late L2 learners when they receive training. The goals behind
pronunciation training studies vary; some studies aim to improve pronunciation through
accent reduction and an increase in phonetic accuracy (e.g., Botero, 2011; Counselman, 2010;
Elliott, 1995, 1997; Flege, 1989; Harison, 2004; James, 1976; Lord, 2005, 2008; Neufeld,
1977; Saito & Lyster, 2012), but more recently, emphasis has shifted towards what Levis (2005)
names the intelligibility principlewe need to make sure our L2 students can be understood.
Goals of training programs with the intelligibility principle in mind aim to help L2 learners
communicate successfully by making their speech more understandable (Levis, 2005; p. 370).
Improvement is typically assessed through ratings of comprehensibility, defined as a listeners
perception of how difficult it is to understand an utterance (Derwing & Munro, 2005, p. 385),
and transcription tests that measure intelligibility, or the extent to which a listener actually
understands an utterance (Derwing & Munro, 2005, p. 385). These goals seem to be more
reasonable to expect of L2 learners and more beneficial for communication, and pronunciation
training can help learners achieve these goals (Akahane-Yamada, Tohkura, Bradlow, & Pisoni,
1996; Derwing, Munro & Wiebe, 1998; Saito & Lyster, 2012; Tanner & Landon, 2009;
Thomson, 2011).
The majority of this research has been undertaken in more advanced conversation or
phonetics courses (e.g., Counselman, 2010; Derwing, Munro & Wiebe, 1998; Elliott, 1995,
1997; Lord, 2008); experimental studies measuring the effects of training in basic four-skills
classrooms are rare. Yet there are numerous potential benefits that scholars have put forward to
support the recommendation that training should begin earlier rather than later (e.g., Counsel-
man, 2010; Elliott, 1995; Eskenazi, 1999; Gass, Svetics and Lemelin, 2003; Hardison, 2004;
Maldonado, 1994; Munro, 2013; OBrien, 2004). One common suggestion is that training for
beginners can help prevent fossilization, the phenomenon in which L2 learners continue using
inaccurate linguistic features in their interlanguage performance, even when these features do
not correspond with the desired or necessary ones in the target language (Selinker, 1972;
p. 215). Phonological fossilization occurs when pronunciation errors are not addressed as they
first arise and become ingrained over time through learners extended exposure to their own
errors and those of their peers (Elliott, 1995). In part because of fossilization, it may be more
difficult to reverse pronunciation problems once a certain level of proficiency has been reached
(Elliott, 1995; Hammerly, 1982; Maldonado, 1994; Munro, 2013; Storch, 1994). For example,
a training study targeting Spanish /e/ and /o/ by Counselman (2010) found that adjusting
pronunciation of recently learned words may be easier than that of words learned early on in L2
instruction. These arguments make it seem advantageous to begin training in the first semes-
ters, rather than having to reverse years of fossilization and incorrect habits at more advanced
proficiency levels.
Research has shown that beginning learners may be able to use training in pronunciation to
develop other aspects of their L2 as well. Students who receive pronunciation training may be
more likely to extend their knowledge and improve their accuracy of sounds that were not
specifically trained (Hardison, 2004; Ramrez-Verdugo, 2006). Additionally, Eskenazi (1999)
argues that prosodic instruction in the first year of language study could even facilitate the
ROCCAMO: TEACHING PRONUNCIATION 61
acquisition of syntactic structures. She argues that speakers preparing an utterance must simul-
taneously organize segments, prosody, and syntax and correct any deviations that do not fit
within trained prosodic forms, thereby reinforcing to students which word order or segments are
correct.
In sum, pronunciation is a vital component of communicative competence for L2 learners
that often needs to be specifically trained for improvement to occur. Such assistance is often not
provided to beginner learners, despite the fact that it may be more beneficial to begin training in
pronunciation as early as possible. Training beginners can help prevent phonological fossiliza-
tion, make reversing pronunciation problem areas easier, and even help them to acquire other
aspects of language, such as syntax. The following study addresses this issue by investigating
the effectiveness of a pronunciation training unit for beginning German learners that is imple-
mented in a first-semester language classroom. Training occurred in just ten minutes per day so
as to avoid taking too much time away from practicing other language skills. Three focal points
of German pronunciation that are characterized as difficult for English native speakers to ac-
quirelexical stress patterns, the allophones of /r/, and the voiceless fricatives [] and [x]were
chosen for training in the hopes of improving students comprehensibility in German.
Focus of the Current Study
This section describes a modular classroom pronunciation training unit that was developed
to address problem areas critical for beginning learners with the goal of aiding communication
through improved comprehensibility. The unit combines successful pronunciation training
methods employed in previous studies with peer feedback to provide a treatment appropriate
for beginning English-German learners in a four-skills classroom environment. While it is based
on previously used training methods, it also differs from previous research in significant ways.
Participants in previous studies have predominantly been learners at the intermediate level of
language study, while this study is aimed at learners at the beginner level. The planned unit also
will be incorporated into a regular four-skills language course, not a specialized pronunciation
or phonetics course. Thus, this pronunciation training unit helps to address a current gap in the
literature and attempts to discover whether earlier really is better for students in terms of pro-
nunciation training.
The main research question of this study is as follows:
Can a pronunciation training unit for beginning L2 learners in their first semester be effective in
significantly improving pronunciation when compared to a control group that does not receive
training?
It is expected that this pronunciation training unit will help beginner learners become more
aware of their pronunciation problems in German and therefore lead to measurable improve-
ment in pronunciation. This hypothesis is supported by the numerous suggestions in the litera-
ture that focused training of pronunciation may be more beneficial early on in a language
learning sequence (Counselman, 2010; Elliott, 1995; Eskenazi, 1999; Gass, Svetics and
Lemelin, 2003; Hardison, 2004; Maldonado, 1994; Munro, 2013; OBrien, 2004). If L2 learn-
ers in their first semester of study demonstrate improvement as a result of pronunciation train-
ing, it will support these suggestions and provide strength to the argument that pronunciation
training may be most beneficial to learners just beginning their study of the language, in con-
trast to advanced learners.
Targeted Areas of German Pronunciation
The aspects of German pronunciation chosen for this studylexical stress patterns, the allo-
phones of /r/, and the voiceless fricatives [] and [x]are strong shibboleths for an American
English accent in German and also feature prominently in both the comprehensibility of L2
German speech and the impressions of native speakers. Unexpected stress errors can influence
listener acceptability of an accent to a greater extent than the articulation of individual pho-
nemes, both lexically (Caspers, 2010; Field, 2005) and sententially or more globally (Ander-
son-Hsieh, Johnson, & Koehler, 1992; Hirschfeld, 1994; OBrien, 2004; Trofimovich & Baker,
2006; Wilkerson, 2007). For instance, Hirschfeld (1994) found that interference in expected
stress patterns is so severe that more than half of German listeners were unable to recognize
sentences correctly when lexical stress fell (incorrectly) on the last syllable of a verb. Segmental
features can interfere with comprehensibility and influence native speakers perceptions of L2
speech as well. OBriens (2004) survey of native German speakers found that they consider
rhotics and [x] and [] pronounced by American English L2 learners of German to be even
more distracting and badly pronounced than vowel sounds, and Schairer (1992) reports that
inaccurate pronunciation of /r/ negatively impacts comprehensibility of L2 speech as rated by
native speakers of Spanish. In fact, research suggests that the combination of errors in both
lexical stress and segments may be particularly detrimental for native speaker comprehension
(Caspers, 2010; Van Heuven, 2008), lending further support to targeting this combination of
suprasegmental and segmental aspects of German pronunciation.
Correct placement of lexical stress is crucial for word recognition and comprehension by
both native and L2 speakers. Both the German and English languages mark and use lexical
stress in similar ways, the main challenge for English learners of German lies in placing stress
assignment on the correct syllable. Placement varies according to the words structure, syllable
count, and linguistic origin, and often will lie on a different syllable in the L2 than in the L1. To
complicate matters further, English and German boast many cognate pairs that exhibit oppo-
site stress patterns, such as mu.sic vs. Musik, that are often problematic for L2 learners.
The challenge facing English native speakers learning German voiceless fricatives and
rhotics is twofold: L2 learners first acquire a number of new sounds that do not occur natively in
American English, including [] and [x],1 and the vocalic [X] and consonantal [] variants of /r/,
and then the allophonic distributions of each of these sounds.2 Voiceless fricatives and rhotics in
German occur in complementary distribution according to phonological environment. [x]
occurs only after central and back vowels and diphthongs, such as [a:], [o:], [u:], or [au], while
[] occurs everywhere else, including after front vowels, such as [i:] and [e:], and after the
consonants /n, l, r/ (Moulton, 1962). Vocalic /r/, designated by [X], is used exclusively after vow-
els at the end of words and syllables. In word- or syllable-initial position, consonantal /r/ is used,
which in Standard High German is typically pronounced as a voiced uvular fricative [].
Learning stress placements, segments, and allophonic variations is a demanding task for
beginning L2 learners. In many cases, when L2 learners are unsure of or do not have enough
information about the stress patterns or segments in particular words, they will resort to L1 sub-
stitutions from English (Wiese, 1996; Zampini, 2008). L2 learners must avoid L1 substitutions
of this type, which lend themselves to a foreign accent and may also impede comprehensibility.
For example, a substitution of [] for [] can lead to confusion between words that are differenti-
ated only by these two sounds, such as the pairs Kirche-Kirsche (church-cherry) or Mnnchen-
1 Although [] does appear in certain environments in English, such as in the onset of the words huge or
human, speakers are most often not aware of its use.

2 For the purposes of this paper, [] and [x] are considered allophones of the same phoneme.
Menschen (small man-people). Additionally, the substitution of the L1 retroflex /r/ for both
German allophones of /r/ is not only a major marker of an American English accent, but also
obstructs comprehension of non-native speech by native listeners in German as well as Spanish
(Hall, 1992; Schairer, 1992).
Providing Pronunciation Instruction for Beginners
The pronunciation training unit used in this study was designed as a supplement to the
normal four-skills classroom work. A key feature of this program is that training was broken up
into individual modules. This modular design was employed in order to provide beginning
students with intensive focus and practice on just one of the targeted pronunciation features at a
time. Each module was taught over a two-week time span during normal class time. In order to
preserve class time for other four-skills language practice, just ten minutes of class time each day
were devoted to pronunciation training, for a total of 40 minutes per week, or 80 minutes (1.33
hours) per module. All other aspects of both sections were the same as other first-semester
German courses at the university. Both the experiment and control groups were taught by the
same instructor to ensure that teaching methods were the same across sections. The instructor
was a native American English speaker who had been studying German for 13.5 years, four of
which were spent living in German-speaking countries. All lesson plans were designed by the
investigator and taught by this instructor.
Each module contained the same essential structure and followed the optimal progression
outlined by Chun (2002): (1) listening exercises, (2) explanation of the pronunciation feature,
(3) imitation and mimicking, (4) controlled speaking exercises, and (5) spontaneous speech ac-
tivities. Exercises began by raising students awareness of the current pronunciation feature and
how it is produced and represented in German. Special emphasis was also given to the impor-
tance of this particular feature for expressing meaning. On the first day, authentic texts such as
poems and songs were altered to highlight target forms and were used to focus students attention
on the feature being trained in the current module. Students then began with discriminatory and
active listening exercises for the first week of training. These included games and activities testing
their phonological discrimination abilities, where students must determine whether two words
said aloud were the same or different, and identification abilities, where students must choose
exactly which word it was that they heard. Speech samples varied from individual words to longer
dialogues, and included the speech of native German speakers as well as the instructor.
Production practice was conducted during the second week of training, after all listening
training had been completed. In production training, students began with a short explanation of
how to produce the pronunciation features and practiced them using traditional pronunciation
training methods, such as drills and mimicking. Students then progressed to more active con-
trolled speech exercises, beginning with small words and gradually working up to complex sen-
tences and short texts. To make the pronunciation warm-ups as communicative as possible,
these were completed with a partner and relied on proper pronunciation for accurate commu-
nication of meaning. The last step in each module was a free speech activity modeled after a
natural language situation. These free speech exercises finalized the importance of the pronun-
ciation feature for communicating meaning in a real life situation. This progression of training
is recommended because it allows students to learn how a certain sound or certain speech
pattern differs from others in both their L1 and L2 inventories, how to physically produce it, and
how to produce it in a variety of real-life speech situations.
As time was of the essence, pronunciation activities were designed to take the place of a
typical classroom warm-up activity. These warm-ups made use of a combination of mean-
ing-driven activities, focus on form, and explicit instruction to focus students attention on
pronunciation. Language games, partner work and dialogues helped students practice Ger-
man pronunciation while making use of the language in as communicative a way as possible. In
order to get the most value out of the activities in the shortest amount of time, topics for all
pronunciation activities closely matched the relevant vocabulary and grammar topics being
covered in the first-semester class. Topics for the unit in this study included family, food, objects
in the classroom, personality traits, commands, and verb conjugations.
When providing pronunciation training in beginner classrooms, it is important to also inte-
grate the concepts of noticing and peer feedback. As first-semester students are so new to the
language and have not yet learned much about it, a goal of each of the modules was to raise
students awareness of the targeted pronunciation features and how they are used in the
German language. Target features were often enhanced in the students input and activities to
draw attention to the correct pronunciation. In connection with raising students awareness of
German pronunciation, peer feedback was incorporated into activities both in and outside
class. Research has shown that by attending to another students pronunciation and offering
feedback, students can improve their own (Counselman, 2010; Lord, 2008). Partner work was
included in many of the in-class production activities so that students could test their listening
and speaking abilities at the same time, as well as provide each other with feedback. In addi-
tion, at the conclusion of each module, all participants in both groups completed four extra
pronunciation assignments outside of class time with a partner of their choice. Tasks for these
assignments were based on those used in Ramrez Verdugo (2006) and designed to focus stu-
dents attention on the pronunciation of the target feature previously studied. Participants
recorded themselves reading a short list of German words that had been used in training,
answered discussion questions posed by their partner, and evaluated their partners pronuncia-
tion and provided feedback. The tasks for the partner assignments were the same for each
module, but different words and discussion prompts were used based on which module had just
been taught. Results of the partner recordings are not presented in this article, but they were an
integral part of the students focus on and development of pronunciation during the modules.
Experimental Methodology and Procedure
This section explains the experimental procedure employed to measure the influence of the
pronunciation unit on the comprehensibility of first-semester students speech. A pre-test /
post-test design was employed in this study to determine effectiveness, and data were collected
from students in their first semester of German at a large university in the northeastern United
States.
Participants
Two intact sections of a first-semester four-skills German course were selected to participate
in the study. One section served as the experimental group, and the other as the control. The ex-
perimental group completed the in-class pronunciation training and four partner assignments,
whereas the control group only completed the partner assignments and received no explicit
training. A total of 37 participants took part in the study, although 12 participants were excluded
for having a native language other than English, for accumulating too many absences during
training, or for not completing all necessary assignments. In the end, data from 25 participants
were analyzed.
The experimental group contained a total of 14 participants: nine male and five female.
Their average age was 19.8 years, and all were native speakers of American English, including
one participant who grew up as a Spanish-English bilingual. Twelve of the students had only
been studying German for one month before pre-test, and none had spent more than a few
weeks traveling in a German-speaking country. Two students in this class had previously stud-
ied German before enrolling in this course, but were not excluded because their previous study
was an average of 2 years before the time of this study and their performance did not signifi-
cantly differ from that of the other students in their group. In order to provide a measure of
language proficiency independent of course level, participants were asked to self-rate their
German abilities on a scale from 1 to 10 in all four skills, with 10 being the best possible of their
skills. Self-ratings of listening and speaking are the skills most relevant to the tasks completed in
this study and are reported here. Participants in the experimental group self-rated themselves at
means of 2.6 for speaking and 2.3 for listening, while their self-ratings for these same skills in
English stood at means of 9.9 and 10, respectively.
The control group consisted of eleven participants: ten male and one female. The average
age was 21.8 years, and all were native speakers of American English. Nine participants had
spent only one month learning German before the pre-test, and one of these participants had
spent six weeks in Germany before enrolling in this course. The remaining two participants had
studied German prior to their arrival in this first-semester course, but this occurred an average of
7.5 years before the start of this beginner-level course. The participants self-rated their skills in
German speaking and listening at means of 2.4 and 2.9. Their mean self-ratings for English
were as follows: speaking was rated at 9.6, and listening at 9.5. Due to the small participant
numbers, a nonparametric statistical test, the Mann-Whitney U test, was used to compare the
participant groups. The two groups were only found to be significantly different on one feature,
their self-rated English listening abilities (Z = 1.967, p = .049).3 Table 1 shows a summary of
the descriptive details and average self-ratings for each section.
Stimuli
The experiment followed an identical pre- and post-test design. Each test consisted of four
parts: a perception test contrasting German and English sounds, followed by three production
tasksword-reading, paragraph-reading, and answering open-ended questions. In addition,
participants filled out a Language Background Questionnaire.
The German pronunciation features chosen for analysis were [], [x], [X], and [], as well as
four lexical stress conditions: cognates and noncognates with stress both on the first and second
syllables. Each target segment was tested in a variety of positions and phonological environ-
ments. Example stimuli are outlined in Table 2.
3 p is significant at the p < .05 level.

66 UP 48.1 (Spring 2015)
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Self-Ratings for each Participant Group

Characteristics Experimental Control
Number 14 11
Average Age 19.8 21.8
Average Age of Learning 19.00 19.1
English (14)
Native Languages English (11)
English-Spanish (1)
Number who Studied Abroad 2 1
Average Time Abroad 3 weeks 6 weeks
a
German Speaking 2.6 2.4
a
German Listening 2.3 2.9
a
English Speaking 9.9 9.6
a
English Listening 10 9.5
a
As rated on a scale from 1 to 10.
Table 2. Example Stimuli for each Training Condition

Condition Example Stimulus Tokens
st
Lexical Stress: Cognates with 1 -syllable stress Lampe 4
st
Lexical Stress: Noncognates with 1 -syllable stress Abend 4
nd
Lexical Stress: Cognates with 2 -syllable stress Student 4
nd
Lexical Stress: Noncognates with 2 -syllable stress bestimmt 4
[] ich 8
[x] machen 8
[X] Zimmer 8
[] Reise 8
The production tasks of the pre- and posttests contained 48 test stimuli and 27 fillers. All test
stimuli were real German content and function words chosen from the first two chapters of
Vorsprung, the participants first-semester German textbook. Words that had already been cov-
ered in the first-semester German classes before training began were necessary to ensure that
improvement would be based on pronunciation and not (un)familiarity with the words. All test
stimuli contained only one target segment or stress pattern at a time, and did not contain diffi-
cult-to-pronounce segments that were not the focus of training, such as [l] and front-rounded
vowels. As research has shown that cognates are processed differently than non-cognates,
which affects both their perception and production (Costa, Caramazza, & Sebastin-Galls,
2000; Costa, Santesteban, & Cao, 2005), cognates were avoided unless the condition re-
quired cognate status. Exceptions to these rules were made only when suitable stimuli could not
be found within the first two chapters of the textbook.
The pronunciation instruction unit was incorporated into the syllabus as 10% of the overall
course grade, and grading was based more on completion and effort than pronunciation ability.
Each student was required to complete all components for the course grade but gave consent in-
dependently as to whether their experimental data could be used for analysis. The pre-test and
post-test were both assigned as homework assignments in the fourth and twelfth weeks of the
semester, respectively. A Powerpoint file containing all necessary stimuli and detailed instruc-
tions for the three production tasks was made available to students through the universitys on-
line course management system. It was made very clear to the students exactly what the
expectations for good quality recordings were, as well as which file formats (.wav or .aiff) would
be accepted for their grade. Students were instructed to speak as clearly as possible; to make
sure that the room was quiet, with no television or roommate background noise; to avoid typing
on the keyboard while they were speaking; and to minimize background noise and static from
their computers microphone. Students were given one calendar week to complete the assign-
ment on their own time and were required to turn in all components before training began.
Participant Experimental Procedure
Participants began by recording themselves reading the list of 48 test words and 27 fillers
aloud, for a total of 75 words. The words were presented in a pseudo-random order in which the
presentation order was essentially random except for one restriction: no more than two words
from the same condition could be presented in a row. Each slide contained a single test word
that participants read aloud, progressing through the slides until they had finished reading all 75
words.
The second production task was a paragraph-reading task consisting of six different para-
graphs that each used all the same test and filler stimuli from the word reading task in appropri-
ate contexts. Each paragraph told a story that aligned with the topics introduced in the first two
chapters of Vorsprung. The paragraphs had an average length of 10.33 sentences and were
comprised of one- and two-clause sentences combined with coordinating conjunctions, which
do not require a change in word order in German. Participants were presented with one para-
graph at a time in a completely random order that was the same for each participant. Students
were instructed and encouraged to read the paragraph to themselves silently before beginning
to speak. Participants recorded themselves reading the paragraphs using the same manner as in
the word-reading task.
In the last production task, a free speech task, participants answered five question prompts
designed to elicit the production of each of the test conditions. The questions were of an appro-
priate level for students in a beginner course. Example questions are: Wann hast du Geburtstag?
(When is your birthday?) and Was ist dein Hauptfach? (What is your major?). Each slide con-
tained one of the question prompts, and students were instructed to record themselves
answering the questions as best as they could. There were no limits on how much or how little
they should say; they were told only to answer the question fully and in complete sentences.
Students progressed through the Powerpoint file in this manner, recording themselves and
moving from the word level to the free speech level. Students were prompted to stop and save
their recordings after each task, and after completion, all participants uploaded their three re-
cordings to their instructor. Participants in both groups were offered feedback from the investi-
gator in the form of praise for things done well and tips on pronunciation features to continue to
work on.
As part of the pre-test, a three-page Language Background Questionnaire was distributed to
each participant. Participants answered questions about their age, language learning history,
68 UP 48.1 (Spring 2015)
study abroad experience and amount of time spent practicing German outside of class, and
provided self-ratings of their proficiency in reading, writing, listening and speaking in both Eng-
lish and German.
A post-test identical in content to the pre-test was completed directly after training in the
12th week of a 15-week semester. Participants performed each block in the same order, begin-
ning with the word-reading task and ending with the free speech task. Within each block, all
stimuli were presented in a different order than in the pre-test, but this order was still
pseudo-randomized with the same restrictions as before.
Rating Procedure
To compare pre- and post-training pronunciation, ratings of comprehensibility were elicited

from five native German speakers who served as raters. The average age of the raters was 25.2
years, and four were female. All had English as a second language, but evaluated their English
knowledge at 5.2 on a scale of 10 and named German as their dominant language. None of the
raters had spent any time in an English-speaking country, and were currently immersed in their
L1 environment. The five raters originated from different dialect regions in Germany, but all
were currently living and studying in the same university town.
The raters were presented with a sample of participants productions that was created by
randomly choosing from individual participants recordings such that all target words, sen-
tences, and free speech prompts were represented as evenly as possible across participants and
sections. Pre-test and equivalent posttest files were matched to ensure accurate comparison.
Samples from the participants were mixed with identical control recordings from four native
and two advanced L2 German speakers, who served as a check on the raters. One quarter of all
audio files were chosen for this sample. The sample was separated into nine blocks of equal
length, and each block contained a mix of type of token (word, paragraph, or free speech) and
L2 participant in a random presentation.
Raters were tested individually over three days in a quiet laboratory in Marburg, Germany.
Procedure for each of the nine blocks was identical. Raters wore Audio-Technica ATH-M30
closed-back headphones and were presented with the speech samples in a random presenta-
tion with E-Prime software (Psychology Software Tools, Inc., 2010). Raters did not receive any
training before rating began; after presentation of the instructions and an example, raters began
immediately with the first test block. Raters first saw a fixation point and pressed the space bar to
hear a sound file played over the headphones. They heard each audio file only one time and
could not play the sound again or go backwards in the program. Directly after listening to the au-
dio file, the native speakers then provided their rating for comprehensibility on a 7-point Likert
scale. On this scale, 1 was the best possible rating and a rating of 7 was the worst possible rating.
A 7-point scale was chosen because it is sensitive enough for raters to define their perceptions
accurately while maintaining optimal inter-rater reliability (Cicchetti, Showalter, & Tyrer, 1985;
Colman, Norris, & Preston, 1997); a 7-point scale was also successfully implemented in a pro-
nunciation training study by Hardison (2004). In order to ensure accuracy as much as possible,
a number of on-screen prompts assisted the raters decisions. The phrase perfectly easy to
understand was displayed at the lower end of the scale above the score of 1, and impossible to
understand appeared at the higher end of the scale above the score of 7. In addition, a question
appeared at the top of the screen to remind raters of their task: Wie verstndlich ist diese Person?
(How comprehensible is this person?). Ratings were given by pressing a number from 1 to 7 on
the keyboard. Raters were advised to base their ratings on their best holistic impression, and to
make use of the entire rating scale. Raters completed this same sequence of events until they
reached the end of the block, and completed three blocks of ratings each day with breaks in be-
tween. Presentation order was counterbalanced across raters so that the same block was not al-
ways presented in the same position. Of the sample created, all tokens were rated by four raters,
and one rater rated two blocks.4
Results
Results of the native speaker ratings of comprehensibility, as well as statistical analyses, are
presented here to provide a thorough discussion of the effects of training on first-semester Ger-
man students.
Criteria for the elimination of rater data followed commonly accepted practice and included
instances where a rater could not identify the native and advanced L2 German speakers in-
cluded as a check, and when raters did not use the entire rating scale in their responses.5 Data
from the rater who only completed two blocks was excluded due to an inability to recognize and
accurately rate the native German speakers. In addition, this raters responses were inconsistent
and did not significantly correlate with those of the other four raters. The remaining four native
speakers could recognize native and advanced L2 speakers accurately and rated them appro-
priately; the native and advanced L2 speaker group received an average comprehensibility rat-
ing of 1.54 out of 7. A Cronbachs alpha calculated with the remaining four raters showed an
inter-rater reliability of 0.974.
Mean ratings of comprehensibility were calculated for the overall test as well as for each indi-
vidual task and each individual condition. There were no significant differences between the
overall comprehensibility ratings of the experimental and control groups at pre-test when com-
pared using a Mann-Whitney U test (Z = -.383, p = .702). Keeping in mind that a lower rating at
posttest demonstrates improvement, both groups showed improvement in their overall com-
prehensibility ratings from pre-test to post-test. When looking at the ratings for the individual
word-reading and paragraph-reading tasks, both groups improved from Time 1 to Time 2. On
the free speech task, participants in the experimental group showed a slight improvement, while
those in the control group show a decline in comprehensibility. Important to note is that while
both groups showed improvement at post-test, the experimental group always showed more
improvement than the control group and performed an average of .140 points better at
post-test. Additionally, with the one exception of the free speech task, the experimental group
always received a better average rating at post-test than the control group did. The average
comprehensibility rating per section at pre-test and post-test, as well as the amount of change, is
shown for the overall test in Table 3, the word-reading task in Table 4, the paragraph-reading
task in Table 5, and the free speech task in Table 6, below.
4 This rater chose to stop the process after completing only two blocks, but authorized the completed ratings
to be used for analysis.

5 It is standard procedure to exclude native speaker raters that do not recognize the native and advanced
speakers provided as a check or who do not make use of the entire rating scale (see Derwing, Munro & Wiebe,
1998).
70 UP 48.1 (Spring 2015)
Table 3. Average Ratings and Amount of Change, All Tasks

Group Pre-test Post-test Change
Experimental 4.458 4.145 0.313
Control 4.599 4.372 0.227
Note: All averages are on a scale from 1-7, with 1 being the highest possible rating. A negative amount of
change indicates an improvement, a positive amount of change indicates a decline.
Table 4. Average Ratings and Amount of Change, Word-Reading Task

Control 4.340 4.075 0.265
Note: All averages are on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 being the highest possible rating. A negative amount of
Table 5. Average Ratings and Amount of Change, Paragraph-Reading Task

Control 4.818 4.606 0.212
Table 6. Average Ratings and Amount of Change, Free Speech Task

Control 4.729 4.807 +0.078
Statistical analyses were used to measure improvement over time, and the level of statistical
significance was set at p < .05. The comprehensibility data were submitted to a repeated mea-
sures ANOVA with Time (1 or 2) and Section (experimental or control) as factors to compare
improvement. The main effect of Time was significant (F = 35.692, p < 0.001), but no signifi-
cant Time*Section interaction was found (F = 0.989, p = 0.330), suggesting that the improve-
ment in comprehensibility over time is statistically significant independent of training section. A
main effect of Time without a Time*Section interaction was also found when comparing the
comprehensibility ratings on the word-reading task (F = 23.287, p < 0.001) and the para-
graph-reading task (F = 20.767, p < 0.001), although not on the free speech task (F = 0.203,
p = 0.658). These main effects suggest that time plays a significant role in improvement in
overall comprehensibility and on the word- and paragraph-reading tasks, but a lack of
Time*Section interactions suggests that participant group does not have an effect on improve-
ment over time.
Further analysis of the improvement, as well as comparison between groups, was con-
ducted with simple statistical tests. A nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was chosen to
compare change within groups because of the small participant numbers. This analysis demon-
strates that both the experimental and control group showed significant improvement in their
overall comprehensibility ratings, as well as for the individual word-reading and paragraph-
reading tasks. No significant improvement for either group was found on the free speech task.
Table 7 provides results from the Wilcoxon tests for each of these discourse levels, split by group:
Table 7. Significant Improvements in Comprehensibility Ratings, per Task

Overall Word-Reading Paragraph-Reading
Group Free Speech Task
Comprehensibility Task Task
Z = 3.107 Z = 2.760 Z = 2.794 Z = 1.290
Experimental
p = .002* p = .006* p = 0.005* p = 0.197
Z = 2.934 Z = 2.667 Z = 2.547 Z = 0.211
Control
p = .003* p = .008* p = 0.011* p = 0.833
* p < .05
Improvement for each individual condition was also measured with Wilcoxon Signed Rank
tests. The comprehensibility ratings for the experimental group significantly improved in three
conditions on both the word-reading and paragraph-reading tasks. Significant improvement
was shown for cognates and noncognates with stress on the second syllable, the [x] (ach-laut),
and the vocalic /r/ ([X]) on the word-reading task. On the paragraph-reading task, the experi-
mental group showed significant improvement in three conditions as well: noncognates with
stress on the second syllable, cognates with stress on the first syllable, and [] (ich-laut). Their
improvement approached significance for cognates with stress on the second syllable. Table 8
shows the significant improvements on each individual condition for the experimental group.
The control group showed significant improvement in two different individual conditions:
noncognates with 2nd-syllable stress and [x] (ach-laut). These improvements surfaced in the
word-reading task only; students in the control group did not show any significant improve-
ments for the individual conditions for the paragraph-reading task. Table 9 shows which im-
provements were significant from pre-test to post-test for the control group.
Although both the experimental and control groups demonstrate significant improvement
in comprehensibility ratings from pre-test to post-test, the results show some interesting patterns
when they are broken down into each individual condition that was trained. The experimental
group received training and showed significant improvement in three conditions in the
word-reading task and three in the paragraph-reading task, with one more approaching signifi-
cance. The participants in the control group, on the other hand, did not receive training and
only showed significant improvement on two conditions in the word-reading task.
72 UP 48.1 (Spring 2015)
Table 8. Significant Improvements in Comprehensibility, per Condition for Experimental Group

Paragraph-Reading
Module Condition Word-Reading Task
Task
st Z = 2.952,
Cognates with 1 -syllable Stress
p = 0.003*
st
Noncognates with 1 -syllable Stress
Lexical Stress nd Z = 2.124, Z = 1.939,
Cognates with 2 -syllable Stress a
p = 0.034* p = 0.052
nd Z = 2.670, Z = 2.156,
p = 0.008* p = 0.031*
Z = 2.065,
[]
p = 0.039*
Ich and Ach
Z = 2.003,
[x]
p = 0.045*
Z = 2.669
[X]
German /r/ p = 0.008*
[]
*p < .05
a
approaches significance at the p < .05 level
Table 9. Significant Improvements in Comprehensibility, per Condition for Control Group

Paragraph-Reading
Module Condition Word-Reading Task
Task
st
st
Lexical Stress nd
nd Z = 1.956,
p = 0.050*
[]
Ich and Ach Z = 2.192,
[x]
p = 0.028*
[X]
German /r/
[]
*p < .05
Discussion
The above study demonstrates that significant improvement of comprehensibility can result
from an in-class pronunciation training unit designed specifically for beginning learners. Partici-
pants in the experimental group not only showed significant improvement in more individual
conditions than the control group did, they also showed improvement on a greater variety of
tasks. The experimental group significantly improved their comprehensibility ratings in three
conditions on both the word-reading and paragraph-reading tasks, whereas the participants in
the control group only showed significant improvement on two conditions in the word-reading
task.
These results suggest that training was able to help participants improve their comprehensi-
bility on more difficult tasks such as paragraph reading and spontaneous speech. A study
measuring the impacts of task type on pronunciation improvement by Liu (2011) reports that
improvement in pronunciation was greatest on a word-reading task, and then gradually waned
as participants progressed to sentence-reading and free speech tasks. The author explains that
L2 learners they can devote more time and mental resources to monitoring their pronunciation
when they only need to focus on words in isolation. As task demands increase, L2 learners
attention becomes divided and their mental resources are consumed by the processes of lexical
access, syntactic formulation and the organization of speech (see also Derwing, Munro, &
Wiebe, 1998). They then have fewer resources to expend on pronunciation and are not always
capable of monitoring their accuracy.
Yet participants in this study who received training were rated as more comprehensible in
individual conditions not only on the word-reading task, but also on the paragraph-reading
task. In addition, the experimental group as a whole improved from pre-test to post-test on the
most difficult task out of the three they were required to complete: the free speech task. Although
the improvement was not statistically significant, individual results shed light on the effects of
training in the experimental group. Nine students (64.3%) in the experimental group improved
from pre-test to post-test, with an average improvement of 0.44 points. Only four students
(28.6%) in the experimental group received a rating that was less comprehensible at post-test
than pre-test. Looking at individual improvement suggests students in the experimental group
were still able to improve their comprehensibility despite increasingly complicated task de-
mands. The control group, on the other hand, declined in comprehensibility on this task, and
equal numbers of students received better and worse comprehensibility ratings at post-test (5
each, 45%). Therefore, although students in the control group were able to show improvement
in the comprehensibility of their speech without training when reading words and paragraphs,
as the task demands increased and their mental resources were engaged by other burdens, their
pronunciation abilities both individually and as a group failed to show the same level of im-
provement as the experimental group had.
The experimental group also showed greater improvement of stress placement, a crucial
component in comprehension of L2 speech (Caspers, 2010; Hirschfeld, 1994). Students in the
experimental group showed significant improvement in five different condition and task-type
combinations: cognates and noncognates with stress on the second syllable on the word-read-
ing task, and cognates with first syllable stress and noncognates with second syllable stress in the
context of the paragraph-reading task. Of these, perhaps the most crucial lexical stress pattern
for English learners of German is found in cognates that have stress on the second syllable.
English learners of German learners must learn to suppress the instinct to transfer L1 stress pat-
terns onto words that look and sound the same as in their L1 and learn to place it on the second
syllable instead. Participants who received training on lexical stress were able to do this more
successfully than participants who did not receive training; they significantly improved lexical
74 UP 48.1 (Spring 2015)
stress placement on the word-reading task and approached significant improvement on the
more demanding paragraph-reading task. Therefore, results suggest that one of the units main
goals was fulfilledtraining enabled beginner L2 learners to better improve their comprehensi-
bility in areas that are most fundamental to the communication of meaning.
Further evidence that participants increased ability to correctly apply lexical stress in
German is a result of training can be found in the control groups results. Participants in the con-
trol group only showed significant improvement in one lexical stress condition: noncognates
with second-syllable stress. All test items for this condition contained frequent German prefixes
that never hold stress, such as ge- and be-. All groups showed significant improvement on this
condition, independent of training, which suggests that the unstressed prefix rule is easy for
first-semester German students to grasp and begin to use, even if they have not received train-
ing. The fact that control participants only improved on this one lexical stress condition, and no
others, further supports this suggestion.
Although the experimental group made larger gains in comprehensibility in more areas vital
to communication, both the experimental and control groups show significant improvement in
comprehensibility ratings at post-test. Upon further analysis, several reasons for the improve-
ment of both groups become apparent.
Twenty-one out of the 25 participants tested (84%) had no classroom exposure to the
German language prior to enrolling in the first-semester course. These participants began train-
ing with only four weeks knowledge of the language and its sound system, and had most likely
not yet formed any solid impressions about German pronunciation. Over the course of the
semester, however, their exposure to new input and continual four-skills language practice
helped these beginner-level students make great gains in their ability to produce and under-
stand German (Gass and Selinker, 2008; Krashen, 1987; Trahey and White, 1993). Due to
such an influx of input and the students subsequent language development, it is likely that the
greatest gains in pronunciation occur at the beginning stages of classroom learning for all
learners. A similar phenomenon has been found when researching L2 learners in immersion
environmentsthe most significant and noticeable gains in pronunciation are made in the first
few months of immersion but tend to stagnate after these early stages (Derwing and Munro,
2013; Flege, 1988; Flege, Munro & Skelton, 1992; Munro & Derwing, 2008). Although the two
learning environments exhibit drastic differences and are not directly comparable, it is possible
that learners in a classroom environment show a similar pattern. Students in the first semester
may show the greatest naturalistic improvement in pronunciation due to exposure and large
changes in proficiency and ability. The conclusion of the first semester may in fact be the time in
L2 phonological development where abilities begin to plateau and the process of phonological
fossilization begins, as Elliott (1995) and Maldonado (1994) warn about in their recommenda-
tions to begin pronunciation training early on.
Although it is possible that all or most L2 learners in their first semester will show improve-
ment in comprehensibility and overall pronunciation ability, this is not to say that training these
beginners does not have beneficial effects. The significant improvement found in comprehensi-
bility ratings for both groups is based on participants overall mean rating for all conditions and
all tasks on the post-test. Analysis of data in the individual conditions shows that students who
received training show greater improvement on the aspects that were trained than students who
did not receive training. Participants who received training also improved their pronunciation
on more difficult tasks and in areas most important for communication of meaning. Therefore,
we can see that training had a positive effect in making comprehensibility of the experimental
group better than that of the control.
The current study is one of the first conducted to measure the effectiveness of pronunciation
training for beginning learners and therefore this topic warrants further investigation. A longitu-
dinal study has the potential to further clarify whether receiving pronunciation training in the
first semester aids students as they continue on in their language study. After only eight weeks,
first-semester students who received training show important differences from those who did
not, but training may also have long-term benefits that cannot be measured in the current study.
A program that continues pronunciation training over the next two semesters could reveal
greater differences in comprehensibility that may appear between groups over time. It is possi-
ble that over the course of their language study, students who received training for their first
three semesters may be able to further separate themselves from students who studied German
for three semesters without training, particularly on the aspects most necessary for comprehen-
sibility. This combination of an early start plus continued training may be what is necessary to
produce the greatest benefit to L2 German learners, and a longitudinal study would clarify
whether beginning training from the start of language learning truly does prevent fossilization of
incorrect forms.
Implications and Suggestions for German Teachers
From the results presented above, one can make many suggestions about how to apply pro-
nunciation training to beginner classrooms. This method involves only 10 minutes per day and
was designed so that the pronunciation activities could be introduced as a warm-up without
taking too much time away from other classroom activities. Instructors have great flexibility in
designing their own pronunciation modules and activities, key is following the progression of
activities as outlined in the discussion of providing pronunciation instruction for beginners,
above. Training should being with Chuns (2002) first step: awareness-raising. A sample activity
involves listening to a song or poem and marking all instances of a certain feature, followed by a
discussion of the importance of this feature for meaning. A sample listening activity that
practices discrimination abilities provides students with pairs of English-German cognates like
music-Musik or student-Student. Their task is to decide whether the words in each pair have the
same or different stress patterns. Two activities to test identification skills include listening to a
dialogue and using pronunciation knowledge to fill in blanks with the words heard, and playing
Bingo with words that differ only in one sound, such as the pairs Nacht-nackt, or acht-Akt.
Optimal production exercises combine perceptual and production skills at the same time
such that students must listen closely to their partners pronunciation in order to provide the
correct response. Good sample production activities include playing Telephone6 with cognates
that have opposite stress patterns in English and German or completing partner question and
answer sessions. A poetry recital evaluated in small groups provides practice of pronunciation
in larger texts and gives students an outlet to attend to their partners pronunciation and provide
feedback. Sample free speech activities include planning a dinner party or describing their
rooms at home. These pronunciation warm-ups get students focused on pronunciation while
using German in meaningful ways each day of the week without too much off-time in be-
tween lessons.
When designing pronunciation training for a beginner classroom, one must include a
variety of topics, types of instruction, and activities. Content used for training must be coordi-
nated with the topics covered in the first-year textbook and classroom materials. Although this
unit was based on the textbook Vorsprung, the modules can be adapted to vocabulary or gram-
mar topics addressed in any first-year textbook. Instructors can use the vocabulary words and
themes in their own textbook, which tend to be similar across many first-semester curricula, to
6 Also called Whisper down the Lane or Operator.

76 UP 48.1 (Spring 2015)
address a variety of pronunciation features. For instance, vocabulary words dealing with family,
nationalities or months of the year are excellent for training /r/ in German, as many of them end
in the vocalic /r/, including Mutter, Vater, Amerikaner, Februar, and Oktober. These words can
be incorporated into production exercises involving short texts about family members and their
activities in different months of the year. Chapters dealing with food vocabulary can easily be
adapted to train the Ich- and Ach-Laut; words such as Gericht, Milch, Brtchen, Kuchen can be
used in combination with words such as kochen or mchte in the context of cooking at home or
ordering at restaurants. Instructors can also use food vocabulary such as Fleisch and Fisch to
highlight contrasts between the Ich-Laut and its close neighbor [] in listening activities. Gram-
mar activities can also be practiced within a training module. For example, students can practice
plural endings while focusing on the allophonic variation between voiceless fricatives and Ger-
man /r/ forms in words like Tier-Tiere, Tr-Tre, and Uhr-Uhren, or Buch-Bcher and
Fach-Fcher. Of utmost importance for instructors to consider is that words chosen for training
should be fairly frequent words that first-semester German students are likely to know and use
on a regular basis. Then, when students begin to speak with native speaking interlocutors, they
will be able to produce their best pronunciation on words commonly used, and improve their
likelihood of being understood. Additionally, this type of training will allow students to cement
good pronunciation habits early on in their language study and may help students to prevent
fossilization at a later date.
Perhaps the most unique quality of this pronunciation training program, and that which
makes it easily adaptable to beginner classrooms, is its module-style design. The individual
modules each focus on one aspect of pronunciation that is important for effective communica-
tion and positive native speaker perceptions. The modules can either work in cooperation with
the others as part of a larger unit, as was done in this study, or stand alone. Presentation to
students depends on each individual teachers wishes and needs. Each of the modules follows
the same progression of activities, beginning with perception practice and ending with produc-
tion practice in a variety of discourse levels. This pattern gives each module a sense of cohesion
with each of the others, while the individual activities chosen for each area of pronunciation
remain different enough not to become repetitive and boring for students if many modules are
chosen for use. Teachers can use the basic outline of the modules and the tips suggested here to
design their own modules and tailor the training to their students individual needs or classroom
time constraints.
A well-designed pronunciation training program should be an important component of FL
instruction. It teaches students how to pay attention both to their own pronunciation and that of
others, and gives them tools for practicing and improving their own pronunciation not only dur-
ing the unit, but throughout their study of the language. It is hoped that the tips listed here will
provide instructors of German with a starting point for implementing pronunciation training in
their own four-skills classrooms.
Conclusion
This paper described a pronunciation training unit that was designed for German students
in their first semester of language study. Results suggest that pronunciation training can be
beneficial for students at the beginner levels of proficiency. Students in both the experimental
and control groups showed an overall significant improvement in comprehensibility, but
students who had received training showed improvement on more difficult tasks and in more
individual conditions that were chosen for training. Students who had received training also
showed greater improvement in those areas deemed most important for communication of
meaning, such as lexical stress, particularly the placement of lexical stress of cognates with
second-syllable stress. Therefore, this training program can be said to be effective for beginner
learners, and may even show greater benefits as students continue their language study and
increase their proficiency.
References
Akahane-Yamada, R., Tohkura, Y., Bradlow, A. R., and Pisoni, D. B. (1996). Does training in speech perception modify
speech production? Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Philadelphia,
PA, Vol. 2, 606609.
Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between native Speaker judgments of nonnative
pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42 (4), 529555.
Botero, C. (2011). Factors Underlying the Improvement of L2 Phonological Production Using Technology outside the Class-
room. Doctoral Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University.
Cicchetti, D. V., Showalter, D., & Tyrer, P. J. (1985). The effect of number of rating scale categories on levels of inter-rater reli-
ability: a Monte-Carlo investigation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 3136.
Chun, D. (2002). Discourse Intonation in L2: From Theory and Research to Practice. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Colman, A. M., Norris, C. E., & Preston, C. C. (1997). Comparing rating scales of different lengths: Equivalence of scores
from 5-point and 7-point scales. Psychological Reports, 80, 355362.
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastin-Galls, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical
access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 12831296.
Costa, A., Santesteban, M., & Cao, . (2005). On the facilitatory effects of cognate words in bilingual speech production.
Brain and Language, 94, 94103.
Counselman, David. (2010). Improving Pronunciation Training in the Second Language Classroom. Doctoral Dissertation.
The Pennsylvania State University.
Derwing, T., and Munro, M. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach.
TESOL Quarterly, 39 (3), 379397.
Derwing, T., and Munro, M. (2013). The Development of L2 Oral Language Skills in Two L1 Groups: A 7-Year Study. Lan-
guage Learning, 63 (2), 163185.
Derwing, T., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in Favor of a Broad Framework for Pronunciation Instruction. Lan-
guage Learning, 48 (3), 393410.
Derwing, T., and Rossiter, M. J. (2002). ESL Learners perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies. System, 30,
155166.
Dlaska, A. & Krekeler, C. (2008). Self-assessment of pronunciation. System, 36, 506516.
Ducate, L., and Lomicka, L. (2009). Podcasting: An effective tool for honing language students pronunciation? Language
Learning & Technology, 13 (3), 6686.
Elliott, R. (1995). Foreign language phonology: Field independence, attitude, and the success of formal instruction in Span-
ish pronunciation. The Modern Language Journal, 79 (4), 530542.
Elliott, R. (1997). On the teaching and acquisition of pronunciation within a communicative approach. Hispania, 80 (1),
95108.
Eskenazi, Maxine (1999). Using a computer in foreign language pronunciation training: What advantages? CALICO Jour-
nal 16 (3), 447469.
Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39 (2). 399423.
Flege, J. E. (1988). Factors affecting degree of perceived foreign accent in English sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Soci-
ety of America, 84, 7079.
Flege, J. (1989). Using visual information to train foreign language vowel production. Language Learning, 38, 365407.
Flege, J., Munro, M., & Skelton, L. (1992). Production of the word-final English /t/-/d/ contrast by native speakers of English,
Mandarin and Spanish, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92, 128143.
Foote, J.A., Holtby, A.K., Derwing, T.M. (2012). Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada,
2010. TESL Canada Journal/ Revue TESL du Canada, 29 (1), 122.
Gass, S. M., and Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York: Routledge.
Gass, S., Svetics, I., & Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential effects of attention. Language Learning, 53 (3), 497545.
Grosser, W. (1997). On the acquisition of tonal and accentual features of English by Austrian learners. In J. Leather & A.
James (Eds.), Second Language Speech (pp. 211228). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hall, C. (1992). Modern German Pronunciation: An Introduction for Speakers of English. Manchester, UK: Manchester Uni-
versity Press.
78 UP 48.1 (Spring 2015)
Hammerly, H. (1982). Synthesis in second language teaching: an introduction to linguistics. Blaine, WA: Second Language
Publications.
Hardison, D. (2004). Generalization of computer-assisted prosody training: Quantitative and qualitative findings. Language
Learning and Technology, 8 (1), 3452.
Hinofotis, F., & Baily, K. (1980). American undergraduate reaction to the communication skills of foreign teaching assistants.
In Fisher, J., Clarke, M., & Schachter, J. (Eds.), On TESOL 80: Building Bridges: Research and Practice in TESL. Se-
lected Papers from the Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 120136). Wash-
ington, DC: TESOL.
Hirschfeld, U. (1994). Untersuchungen zur phonetischen Verstndlichkeit Deutschlernender. (Forum Phoneticum, Bd. 57).
Frankfurt am Main: Hector Verlag.
James, E. (1976). The acquisition of prosodic features using a speech visualizer. International Review of Applied Linguistics
in Language Teaching, 14, 227243.
Jilka, M. (1999). Intonational foreign accent in the speech of American speakers of German. JASA Vol. 105, No. 2, Pt. 2, p.
1094 (Proceedings of 137th Regular Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America on CD Rom).
Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Prentice-Hall International.
Levis, J. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 369377.
Liu, Q. (2011). Factors influencing pronunciation accuracy: L1 negative transfer, task variable and individual aptitude. Eng-
lish Language Teaching, 4 (4), 115120.
Lord, G. (2005). (How) can we teach foreign language pronunciation? On the effects of a Spanish phonetics course. His-
pania, 88 (3), 557567.
Lord, G. (2008). Podcasting communities and second language pronunciation. Foreign Language Annals, 41 (2), 374389.
Maldonado, C. (1994). Some aspects of foreignness in the pronunciation of upper intermediate English students of Span-
ish. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 5, 7897.
Moulton, William G. (1962). The Sounds of English and German. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Munro, M. (1995). Nonsegmental factors in foreign accent. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 1734.
Munro, M. (2013). The phonetic learning process and second-language teaching: A synthesis of new findings. New Sounds
2013: International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech. Concordia University, May 1719,
2013.
Munro, M. & Derwing, T. (2008). Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production.
Language Learning, 58 (3), 479502.
Neufeld, G. (1977). Language learning ability in adults: A study on the acquisition of prosodic and articulatory features.
Working Papers in Bilingualism, 12, 4560.
OBrien, M. G. (2004). Pronunciation Matters. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German. 37 (1), 19.
Ramrez Verdugo, D. (2006). A study of intonation awareness and learning in non-native speakers of English. Language
Awareness, 15 (3), 141159.
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development
of // by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62 (2), 595633.
Schairer, K. (1992). Native Speaker Reaction to Non-Native Speech. Modern Language Journal, 76 (3), 30919.
Selinker (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10 (2), 209231.
Storch, G. (1994). Kontrastivitt als ein Grundpfeiler der Ausspracheschulung. In Breitung, H. (Ed.), Phonetik, Intonation,
Kommunikation, 7689. Munich: Goethe Institut.
Tanner, M., and Landon, M. (2009). The effects of computer-assisted pronunciation readings on ESL learners use of paus-
ing, stress, intonation and overall comprehensibility. Language Learning & Technology, 13 (3), 5165.
Thomson (2011). Computer assisted pronunciation training: Targeting perception aids pronunciation. CALICO Journal, 28
(3), 744765.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 15 (2), 181204.
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and
fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 130.
Van Heuven, V. (2008). Making sense of strange sounds: (Mutual) intelligibility of related language varieties. A review. Inter-
national Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 2(12), 3962.
Wiese, Richard. (1996). The Phonology of German. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wilkerson, M. (2007). (In)variability in accent perception: A comparison of native and non-native speakers of German of
varying proficiency on what constitutes nativeness of accent in German. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Wiscon-
sin, Madison, WI.
Zampini, M. (2008). L2 speech production research. In Hansen Edwards, J.G., and Zampini, M. (Eds.), Phonology and Sec-
ond Language Acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Appendix A. Stimuli for Pre-Test and Post-Test
Word-Reading Task
Test Items:
Warum ich Katze
zurck sich Tante
Uhren nicht Neffe
spazieren endlich Student
verheiratet gleich Musik
Reise Nichte August
rufen Geschichte Moment
fahren mich Abend
Zimmer machen Augen
Fenster lachen Junge
DVD-Spieler suchen Leute
Schweizer Woche Gepck
ihr Hauptfach bestimmt
Kinder Mittwoch Geschft
aber nach Geschenk
Schwester auch
Lampe
Fillers:
Tisch Deutschland Landkarte
Wand Tafel Enkelkind
klein Kuli Verwandten
Kunst Eltern
Universitt
Paragraph-Reading Task
1. Mein Zimmer ist klein und nett. Es hat nur ein Fenster. Eine Lampe steht gegen die Wand. Ein Kuli liegt
auf dem Tisch. Die Steckdose ist unter dem Tisch, und mein DVD-Spieler ist da. An der Wand hngen
zwei Uhren. Sie sind nicht gleich, denn eins ist blau und eins ist gelb. Ich habe eine Landkarte von
Deutschland. Meine Katze schlft auf meinem Bett.
2. Zwei Kinder spielen ein Junge und ein Mdchen. Sie lachen viel. Er kickt einen Ball und sagt: Geh
schnell! Das Mdchen luft nach dem Ball. Ihre Eltern rufen sie rein, aber sie hren nicht. Endlich
kommen sie. Ihre Freunde fragen: Warum geht ihr jetzt?
3. Anja und Hans machen eine Reise. Sie nehmen viel Geld mit. Sie bringen ihr Gepck ins Auto. Wohin
fahren sie? Nach Hamburg! Es sind viele Leute in der Stadt. Anja und Hans suchen das Schloss. Sie
wissen nicht, wo es ist. Aber Hamburg hat kein Schloss! Sie gehen durch die Stadt spazieren. Am
Abend kaufen sie in einem Geschft ein. Dann fahren sie zurck nach Hause.
4. Meine Familie ist nett. Ich habe eine Schwester. Sie ist verheiratet und ihre Augen sind blau. Wen liebt
sie? Ihr Mann ist Schweizer und er heit Johann. Sie haben ein Kind. Mein Neffe heit Dieter. Er hat
im August Geburtstag. Meine Eltern sind seine Opa und Oma. Sie lieben ihr Enkelkind sehr. Ich habe
auch andere Verwandten, zum Beispiel meine Tante Lena. Ich bin ihre Nichte. Sie bleibt im Moment
hier. Wir wohnen alle zusammen.
5. Ich bin Student. Ich studiere an der Universitt in Berlin. Mein Hauptfach ist Musik, aber ich
interessiere mich auch fr Kunst. Meine Freundin studiert Geschichte. Sie hat diese Woche
Geburtstag. Ich muss ein Geschenk kaufen. Wir gehen am Mittwoch ins Restaurant. Dann gehen wir
um zehn Uhr ins Kino.
80 UP 48.1 (Spring 2015)
6. Lara ist sehr jung. In diesem Monat fngt sie mit der Schule an. Der Lehrer fragt Lara etwas. Er sagt:
Steh auf. Sie schreibt an die Tafel und dann setzt sie sich wieder. Der Lehrer sagt: Seht ihr die
Antwort an. Ist sie richtig? Die Schler sagen, es ist bestimmt richtig!
Free Speech Task
1. Wie alt bist du?

2. Was ist dein Hauptfach?
3. Was gibt es in deinem Zimmer?
4. Wann hast du Geburtstag? Was machst du an deinem Geburtstag?
5. Beschreiben Sie Ihre Familie.
Appendix B. Pronunciation Attitude Inventory
Adapted from Elliott (1995) and Botero (2011)
Please rate these statements on a scale from 1 to 5. Ratings are described below.
5 = always or almost always true of me (totally agree)

4 = usually true of me
3 = somewhat true of me
2 = usually not true of me
1 = never or almost never true of me (totally disagree)
1. Id like to sound as native as possible when speaking German.

2. Acquiring proper pronunciation in German is important to me.
3. I will never be able to speak German with a good accent.
4. I believe I can improve my pronunciation skills in German.
5. I believe more emphasis should be given to proper pronunciation in class.
6. One of my personal goals is to acquire proper pronunciation skills and preferably be able to pass as a
near-native speaker of the language.
7. I try to imitate German speakers as much as possible.
8. Communicating is much more important than sounding like a native speaker of German.
9. Good pronunciation skills in German are not as important as learning vocabulary and grammar.
10. I want to improve my accent when speaking German.
11. Im concerned with my progress in my pronunciation of German.
12. Sounding like a native speaker is very important to me.
13. I do not practice a native-like accent in class because of how other students in class would perceive it.
14. Which set of statements best suits your attitude towards speaking a foreign language?
a. I like to speak a language perfectly. I like to learn grammar and make sure that I speak correctly when I
say things. I like to think about what I will say in a foreign language and how I will say it before I say it.
b. When I speak a foreign language, I aim to communicate. I dont worry as much about speaking per-
fectly or getting all of the grammar right. Im alright with making some mistakes as long as the other
speakers understand what I mean.
15. What is the reason for your interest in learning German?
Appendix C. Language Background Questionnaire
Initials (use all 3): _______
This questionnaire is designed to give us a better understanding of your experience with

other languages. We ask that you be as accurate and as thorough as possible when answering
the following questions.
Part I
1. Gender: _______
2. Age: ______ years
3. Do you have any known hearing problems (either corrected or uncorrected)?

No
Yes [Please explain: ______________________]
4. Native Language(s) (Please check all that apply.)

English
Other [Please specify: ___________________]
5. What language do you currently think is your dominant language (i.e., the language you are most
comfortable using on a daily basis)? (Please check one)
English
Spanish
German
Chinese
Other [Please specify: __________________ ]
Part II The next section of the questionnaire deals with your second language learning experi-
ence.
6. Please check all of the following that apply and indicate the starting age and length of study for any
second language(s) learned.
Home/Outside School Language(s): ________________________
Starting age? __________ For how long? ________
Elementary School Language(s): ________________________
Middle School Language(s): ________________________
High School Language(s): ________________________
College Language(s): ________________________
7. Please list the most advanced second language course(s) you have completed in college:
8. What do you consider to be your primary second language? (You may check more than one if you feel
that you have multiple primary second languages.)
English
Spanish
82 UP 48.1 (Spring 2015)
German
Chinese
Other [Please specify: ____________________]
9. Have you studied and/or lived abroad?

Yes
No
If YES, where and when did you study, for how long, and what language(s) did you speak?
Country Approx. dates Length of Stay Language
10. Are you: (Please check all that apply and indicate which language each applies to if you have studied
more than one second language at college.)
Taking German for a requirement but interested in being a major or minor.
Taking German for a requirement; NOT interested in being a major or minor.
A German minor.
A German major.
Other [Please explain: _________________]
11. Do you have any native German friends or acquaintances? If yes, please list.
a. Relationship to Person 1: _____________________
How close are you? ________________ How often do you see this person? _____________
b. Relationship to Person 2: ______________________
c. Relationship to Person 2: ______________________
12. How much contact do you have with native German speakers?
None Very little Monthly Weekly Every day
13. How much time do you spend practicing each of these skills in German outside of class time?
Reading
None 130 minutes 3060 minutes 12 hours 24 hours 4+ hours
Writing
Speaking
Listening
Part III. The next section of the questionnaire deals with your GERMAN language skills.
Please rate yourself on each measure by circling the appropriate number. These ratings are for
GERMAN.
14. Your reading proficiency in this language. (1=not literate and 10=very literate)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
15. Your writing proficiency in this language. (1=not literate and 10=very literate)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
16. Your speaking ability in this language. (1=not fluent and 10=very fluent)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
17. Your speech comprehension ability in this language. (1=unable to understand conversation and
10=perfectly able to understand)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part IV. The next section of the questionnaire deals with your ENGLISH language skills.
Please rate yourself on each measure by circling the appropriate number. These ratings are for
ENGLISH.
18. Your English reading proficiency. (1=not literate and 10 = very literate)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
19. Your English writing proficiency. (1=not literate and 10=very literate)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
20. Your English speaking ability. (1=not fluent and 10=very fluent)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
21. Your English speech comprehension ability. (1=unable to understand conversation and 10=per-
fectly able to understand)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Thank you for your participation!

Pronunciation in Ten Min PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pronunciation in Ten Min PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Teaching Pronunciation in Just Ten

Minutes a Day: A Method for Pronunciation

Why Should We Teach Pronunciation to Beginners?

Focus of the Current Study

Targeted Areas of German Pronunciation

human, speakers are most often not aware of its use.

Providing Pronunciation Instruction for Beginners

Experimental Methodology and Procedure

3 p is significant at the p < .05 level.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Self-Ratings for each Participant Group

Table 2. Example Stimuli for each Training Condition

Participant Experimental Procedure

To compare pre- and post-training pronunciation, ratings of comprehensibility were elicited

to be used for analysis.

Table 3. Average Ratings and Amount of Change, All Tasks

Table 4. Average Ratings and Amount of Change, Word-Reading Task

Table 5. Average Ratings and Amount of Change, Paragraph-Reading Task

Table 6. Average Ratings and Amount of Change, Free Speech Task

Table 7. Significant Improvements in Comprehensibility Ratings, per Task

Table 8. Significant Improvements in Comprehensibility, per Condition for Experimental Group

Table 9. Significant Improvements in Comprehensibility, per Condition for Control Group

Implications and Suggestions for German Teachers

6 Also called Whisper down the Lane or Operator.

Appendix A. Stimuli for Pre-Test and Post-Test

Free Speech Task

1. Wie alt bist du?

Appendix B. Pronunciation Attitude Inventory

Adapted from Elliott (1995) and Botero (2011)

5 = always or almost always true of me (totally agree)

1. Id like to sound as native as possible when speaking German.

Appendix C. Language Background Questionnaire

Initials (use all 3): _______

This questionnaire is designed to give us a better understanding of your experience with

2. Age: ______ years

3. Do you have any known hearing problems (either corrected or uncorrected)?

4. Native Language(s) (Please check all that apply.)

9. Have you studied and/or lived abroad?

Country Approx. dates Length of Stay Language

Thank you for your participation!

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen