Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:55:21.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Effects of Corrective Feedback on Second Language Pronunciation Development

from Part V - Corrective Feedback and Language Skills

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Kazuya Saito
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

Given that the pedagogical potential of corrective feedback (CF) for second language (L2) pronunciation development has received rapidly increasing interest in recent years (e.g., Saito & Lyster, 2012 in Language Learning), it is timely and prudent to provide a piece of scholarly work which focuses on synthesizing and presenting the current state of affairs. According to existing descriptive studies, both teachers and learners equally consider the provision of CF to be a crucial component of L2 pronunciation development, especially when the errors in question hinder successful communication. More recently, a growing number of scholars have investigated the acquisitional value of pronunciation-focused CF by conducting quasi-experimental studies with a pre-test/post-test design in both classroom and laboratory settings. Whereas the results have generally shown that pronunciation-focused CF facilitates the development of both segmental and suprasegmental accuracy, the effectiveness of such CF techniques appears to be subject to a great deal of individual variability. Specifically, the potentials of pronunciation-focused CF can be maximized (a) when L2 learners have enough phonetic knowledge, conversational experience, and perceptual awareness of target sounds; (b) when CF provides model pronunciation forms (e.g., recasts rather than prompts); and (c) when the target of instruction concerns communicatively important and salient features.

Keywords

corrective feedbackpronunciationspeechassessmentteaching
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 407 - 428
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adolphs, S. & Schmitt, N. (2003). Lexical coverage of spoken discourse. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 425–438.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.Google Scholar
Baker, A. & Burri, M. (2016). Feedback on second language pronunciation: A case study of EAP teachers’ beliefs and practices. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. & Tyler, M. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception. In Bohn, O., & Munro, M. (eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honour of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Akahane-Yamada, R. & Tohkura, Y. I. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(4), 2299–2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundgaard-Nielsen, R., Best, C., Kroos, C. & Tyler, M. (2012). Second language learners’ vocabulary expansion is associated with improved second language vowel intelligibility. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(3), 643–664.Google Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D. & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 209–236.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., Goodwin, J. & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Bot, K. (1983). Visual feedback of intonation: I. Effectiveness and induced practice behaviour. Language and Speech, 26(4), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In Williams, J.. & VanPatten, B. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M. & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Derwing, T., Munro, M., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilāns, G. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in the adult ESL classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 787–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dlaska, A. & Krekeler, C. (2013). The short-term effects of individual corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation. System, 41(1), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 399–423.Google Scholar
Flege, J. (2016). The role of phonetic category formation in second language speech acquisition. Plenary address delivered at New Sounds, Aarhus University, Denmark, June 10–12, 2016.Google Scholar
Flege, J., Munro, M. & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995). Factors affecting degree of perceived foreign accent in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(5), 3125–3134.Google Scholar
Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.Google Scholar
Gooch, R., Saito, K. & Lyster, R. (2016). Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English [r] to Korean adult EFL learners. System, 60, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. & Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343.Google Scholar
Hahn, L. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201–223.Google Scholar
Hincks, R. (2003). Speech technologies for pronunciation feedback and evaluation. ReCALL, 15(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
Hincks, R. & Edlund, J. (2009). Promoting increased pitch variation in oral presentations with transient visual feedback. Language Learning & Technology, 13(3), 32–50.Google Scholar
Huang, X. & Jia, X. O. (2016). Corrective feedback on pronunciation: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(6), 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, T., (2008). Towards defining a valid assessment criterion of pronunciation proficiency in non-native English-speaking graduate students. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 555–580.Google Scholar
Isaacs, T., Trofimovich, P. & Foote, J. A. (2017). Developing a user-oriented second language comprehensibility scale for English-medium universities. Language Testing, 35(2), 193–216. DOI: 10.1177/0265532217703433.Google Scholar
Isaacs, T., Trofimovich, P. & Foote, J. A. (2018). Developing a user-oriented second language comprehensibility scale for English-medium universities. Language Testing, 35, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joly-Pottuz, B., Mercier, M., Leynaud, A. & Habib, M. (2008). Combined auditory and articulatory training improves phonological deficit in children with dyslexia. Neuropsychological rehabilitation, 18(4), 402–429.Google Scholar
Kang, O., Rubin, D. & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of English language learner proficiency in oral English, Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 554–566.Google Scholar
Kim, J. & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap? In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies (pp. 269–297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kissling, E. M. (2013). Teaching pronunciation: Is explicit phonetics instruction beneficial for FL learners? Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 720–744.Google Scholar
Kissling, E. M. (2014). What predicts the effectiveness of foreign-language pronunciation instruction? Investigating the role of perception and other individual differences. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70, 532–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (2000). A new view of language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 97(22), 11850–11857.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2), 112–127.Google Scholar
Lee, A. H. & Lyster, R. (2016a). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A. H. & Lyster, R. (2016b). Effects of different types of corrective feedback on receptive skills in a second language: A speech perception training study. Language Learning, 66, 809–833.Google Scholar
Lee, A. H. & Lyster, R. (2017). Can corrective feedback on second language speech perception errors affect production accuracy? Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 371–393.Google Scholar
Lee, B., Plonsky, L. & Saito, K. (2020). The effects of perception- vs. production-based pronunciation instruction. System. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J. & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 345–366.Google Scholar
Li, M. & DeKeyser, R. (2017). Perception practice, production practice, and musical ability in L2 Mandarin tone-word learning. Studies in Second Language Learning, 39(4), 593–620.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S. & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91–104.Google Scholar
Logan, J., Lively, S. & Pisoni, D. (1992). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /ɹ/ and /l/: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89(2), 874–886.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lord, G. (2005). (How) can we teach foreign language pronunciation? On the effects of a Spanish phonetics course. Hispania, 557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167–184.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Corrective feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCandliss, B. D., Fiez, J. A., Protopapas, A., Conway, M. & McClelland, J. L. (2002). Success and failure in teaching the [r]-[l] contrast to Japanese adults: Tests of a Hebbian model of plasticity and stabilization in spoken language perception. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2(2), 89–108.Google Scholar
Moskovsky, C., Assulaimani, T., Racheva, S. & Harkins, J. (2016). The L2 motivational self system and L2 achievement: A study of Saudi EFL learners. Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 641–654.Google Scholar
Munro, M. & Derwing, T. (2006). The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34(4), 520–531.Google Scholar
Munro, M. & Derwing, T. (2008). Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning, 58(3), 479–502.Google Scholar
Nagle, C. (2018). Motivation, comprehensibility, and accentedness in L2 Spanish: Investigating motivation as a time-varying predictor of pronunciation development. Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 199–217.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T., Pham, T. & Pham, M. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(4), 416–434.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758.Google Scholar
Parlak, Ö. & Ziegler, N. (2017). The impact of recasts on the development of primary stress in a synchronous computer-mediated environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 257–285.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2013). The acquisitional value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching the perception and production of English /ɹ/ to adult Japanese learners. Language Learning, 63(3), 499–529.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2015a). Variables affecting the effects of recasts on L2 pronunciation development. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 276–300.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2015b). Communicative focus on L2 phonetic form: Teaching Japanese learners to perceive and produce English /ɹ/ without explicit instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 377–409.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2017). Effects of sound, vocabulary and grammar learning aptitude on adult second language speech attainment in foreign language classrooms. Language Learning, 67(3), 665–693.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2018). Advanced segmental and suprasegmental acquisition. In P. Malovrh & A. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 282–303). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2019). Individual differences in second language speech learning in classroom settings: Roles of awareness in the longitudinal development of Japanese learners’ English /ɹ/ pronunciation. Second Language Research, 35(2), 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K. & Akiyama, Y. (2017). Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 67(1), 43–74.Google Scholar
Saito, K., Dewaele, J.-M. & Hanzawa, K. (2017). A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between motivation and late second language speech learning in classroom settings. Language and Speech, 60(4), 614–632.Google Scholar
Saito, K. & Lyster, R. (2012a). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of [r] by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595–633.Google Scholar
Saito, K. & Lyster, R. (2012b). Investigating pedagogical potential of recasts for L2 vowel acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 387–398.Google Scholar
Saito, K. & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A proposed measurement framework and meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 69(3), 652–708.Google Scholar
Saito, K., Sun, H. & Tierney, A. (2019). Explicit and implicit aptitude effects on second language speech learning: Scrutinizing segmental, prosodic and temporal sensitivity and performance via behavioral and neurophysiological measures. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(5), 1123–1140.Google Scholar
Saito, K., Suzuki, S., Oyama, T. & Akiyama, Y. (2019). How does longitudinal interaction differentially promote experienced vs. inexperienced learners’ L2 speech learning? Second Language Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319884981.Google Scholar
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P. & Isaacs, T. (2016). Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(2), 217–240.Google Scholar
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P. & Isaacs, T. (2017). Using listener judgments to investigate linguistic influences on L2 comprehensibility and accentedness: A validation and generalization study. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 439–462.Google Scholar
Saito, K. & Wu, X. (2014). Communicative focus on form and L2 suprasegmental learning: Teaching Cantonese learners to perceive Mandarin tones. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(4), 647–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakai, M. & Moorman, C. (2018). Can perception training improve the production of second language phonemes? A meta-analytic review of 25 years of perception training research. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(1), 187–224.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 1–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA‐Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244–258.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874.Google Scholar
Solon, M., Long, A. Y. & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2017). Task complexity, language-related episodes, and production of L2 Spanish vowels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 347–380.Google Scholar
Suzukida, Y. & Saito, K. (2019). Which segmental features matter for successful L2 comprehensibility? Revisiting and generalizing the pedagogical value of the Functional Load principle. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819858246.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past-tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235–263.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. & Granena, G. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 147–161.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×