Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technological advances in researching and teaching phonology

  • Chapter
Phonology in Context

Part of the book series: Palgrave Advances in Linguistics ((PADLL))

Abstract

Technology has been used for many decades for phonological research as well as for teaching phonetics, phonology, and pronunciation. However, it is only in the last 15 years that the incorporation of speech technology into linguistic and applied linguistic inquiry has begun to yield major results in research and practice. The purpose of this chapter is to examine advances and new directions in acoustic analysis and speech recognition as they relate to issues of phonology, both from a research perspective of quantifying and measuring segmental phonemes and prosody, and from the practical perspective of using technology to teach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alwang G. (1999). Speech recognition. PC Magazine, 10 November 1999. Cited in Gupta & Schulze (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson-Hsieh, J. (1992). Using electronic visual feedback to teach supraseg- mentals. System, 20, 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson-Hsieh, J. (1994). Interpreting visual feedback on suprasegmentals in computer assisted pronunciation instruction. CALICO Journal, 11, 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayley, R., & Preston, D.R. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, J. (1997). Automatic spoken language assessment by telephone (Technical Report No. 5–97), Menlo Park, CA: Entropic, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, R. (2000). Review of Roberto’s Restaurant CD-ROM. Language Learning and Technology, 4 (2), 31–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, P. (2001). PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5(9/10), 341–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 219–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology, 6, 201–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, M. (2004). Visual feedback for pronunciation of vowels: Kay Sona-Match. CALICO Journal, 21, 571–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cauldwell, R. (2002). Streaming speech: Listening and pronunciation for advanced learners of English. In D. Teeler (Ed.), Talking computers (pp. 18–22). Whitstable, U.K.: IATEFL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cedergren, H. J. & Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language, 50, 333–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S. (2002). A syllable, articulatory-feature, and stress-accent model of speech recognition. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun, D. M. (1998). Signal analysis software for teaching discourse intonation. Language Learning & Technology, 2, 61–77. Retrieved January 31, 2006, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun, D. M. (2002). Discourse intonation in L2: From theory and research to practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, D. M. (2005). Review of Streaming Speech. TESOL Quarterly 39, 559–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun, D. M., Hardison, D. M., & Pennington, M. C. (2004). Technologies for prosody in context: Past and future of L2 research and practice. Paper presented in the Colloquium on the State-of-the-Art of L2 Phonology Research at the Annual Conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics. Portland, Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosi, P., Cohen, M. A., & Massaro, D. W. (2002). Baldini: Baldi speaks Italian! In J. H. L. Hansen, & B. Pellom (Eds.), International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 2002 (pp. 2349–52). Sydney, Australia: Causal Productions PTY, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (Eds.) (1996). Prosody in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalby, J. and Kewley-Port, D. (1999). Explicit pronunciation training using automatic speech recognition technology. CALICO Journal, 16, 425–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darhower, M. (2003). Review of Connected Speech, CALICO Journal, 20 (3), 603–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bot, K. (1983). Visual feedback of intonation I: Effectiveness and induced practice behavior. Language and Speech, 26, 331–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Vaux, S. K., & Massaro, D. W. (2004). Audiovisual speech gating: Examining information and information processing. Cognitive Process, 5, 106–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmonte, R. (2000). SLIM prosodic automatic tools for self-learning instruction. Speech Communication, 30, 145–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derwing, T., & Munro, M. J. (2001). What speaking rates do non-native listeners prefer? Applied Linguistics, 22, 324–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derwing, T., Munro, M., & Carbonaro, M. (2000). Does popular speech recognition software work with ESL speech? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 592–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Paolino, D., & Cumming, S. (1992). Discourse transcription. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, 4. Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, University of California at Santa Barbara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, K. B. (1999). Speaking: A critical skill and a challenge. CALICO Journal, 16, 277–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egbert, J. (2004). Review of Connected Speech, Language Learning and Technology, 8 (1), 24–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehsani, F., & Knodt, E. (1998). Speech technology in computer-aided language learning: Strengths and limitations of a new CALL paradigm. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eskenazi, M. (1998). Using automatic speech processing for foreign language pronunciation tutoring: Some issues and a prototype. Language Learning and Technology 2(2), 62–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eskenazi, M. (1999). Using a computer in foreign language pronunciation training: What advantages? CALICO Journal, 16, 447–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco, H., & Neumeyer, L. (1996). Automatic scoring of pronunciation quality for language instruction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100, 2763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco, H., Neumeyer, L., Kim, Y., & Ronen, O. (1997). Automatic pronunciation scoring for language instruction. Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Volume 2, pp. 1471–74. Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galley, M., McKeown, K., Hirschberg, J., & Shriberg, E. (2004). Identifying agreement and disagreement in conversational speech: Use of Bayesian networks to model pragmatic dependencies. To appear in Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the ACL, Barcelona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, S. (2005). From here to utility — Melding phonetic insight with speech technology. In W. Barry and W. van Dommelen (Eds.), The integration of phonetic knowledge in speech technology (pp. 107–32). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, P., & Schulze, M. (2000). Human language technologies. Retrieved January 31, 2006, from http://www.ict41t.org/en/en_mod3-5.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardison, D. M. (1999). Bimodal speech perception by native and nonnative speakers of English: Factors influencing the McGurk effect. Language Learning, 49, 213–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardison, D. M. (2003). Acquisition of second-language speech: Effects of visual cues, context and talker variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 495–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardison, D. M. (2004). Generalization of computer-assisted prosody training: Quantitative and qualitative findings. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 34–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Retrieved January 31, 2006, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8numl/hardison.

  • Hardison, D. M. (2005). Contextualized computer-based L2 prosody training: Evaluating the effects of discourse context and video input. CALICO Journal, 22, 175–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harless, W. G., Zier, M. A. & Duncan, R. C. (1999). Virtual dialogues with native speakers: The evaluation of an interactive multimedia method. CALICO Journal, 16, 313–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, N. (2000). Considerations for use in language training. Retrieved January 31, 2006, from http://www.dyned.com/about/speech.shtml.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hew, S.-H., & Ohki, M. (2004). Effect of animated graphic annotations and immediate visual feedback in aiding Japanese pronunciation learning: A comparative study. CALICO Journal, 21, 397–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hincks, R. (2003). Speech technologies for pronunciation feedback and evaluation. ReCALL 15(1), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschberg, J. (2002). Communication and prosody: Functional aspects of prosody. Speech Communication, 36, 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jager, S., Nerbonne, J., & Van Essen, A. (Eds.) (1998). Language teaching and language technology. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. (2004). Research in teaching pronunciation and intonation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 109–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaltenboeck, G. (2001). A multimedia approach to suprasegmentals: Using a CD- ROM for English intonation teaching. Phonetics Teaching and Learning Conference Proceedings (pp. 19–22). London. Retrieved January 31, 2006 from Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawai, G., & Hirose, K. (1997). A CALL system using speech recognition to train the pronunciation of Japanese long vowels, the mora nasal and mora obstruents. Proceedings of Eurospeech, the 3rd European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, 2 (pp. 657–60). Rhodes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawai, G., & Hirose, K. (2000). Teaching the pronunciation of Japanese double- mora phonemes using speech recognition technology. Speech Communication, 30, 131–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Franco, H., & Neumeyer, L. (1997). Automatic pronunciation scoring of specific phone segments for language instruction. Proceedings of Eurospeech, the 3rd European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Volume 2 (pp. 645–8). Rhodes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipp, M. (2001). Anvil — A generic annotation tool for multimodal dialogue. Proceedings of Eurospeech, the 7th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp. 1367–70). Aalborg, Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System 32, 145–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45, 715–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladefoged, P. (1996). Elements of acoustic phonetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladefoged, P. (2001). Vowels and consonants. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladefoged, P. (2004). Phonetic data analysis: An introduction to phonetic fieldwork and instrumental techniques. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaRocca, S., Morgan, J., & Bellinger, S. (1999). On the path to 2X learning: Exploring the possibilities of advanced speech recognition. CALICO Journal, 16, 295–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levis, J. M. (1999). Intonation in theory and practice, revisited. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 37–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levis, J. M. and Pickering, L. (2004). Teaching intonation in discourse using speech visualization technology. System, 32, 505–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lion, A. (2004). Review of Streaming Speech, Language Learning and Technology, 8 (2), 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llisterri, J. (2004). Computer assisted pronunciation teaching references. Retrieved January 31, 2006, from http://liceu.uab.es=/~joaquim/applied_linguistics/L2_phonetics/CALL_Pron_Bib.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsi, E. (2001). Intonation in spoken language generation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massaro, D. W. & Light, R. (2003). Read my tongue movements: Bimodal learning to perceive and produce non-native speech/r/and/l/. Proceedings of Eurospeech (Interspeech), 8th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology. Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2001). Modeling perceptions of the accentedness and comprehensibility of L2 speech: The role of speaking rate. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 451–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2002). The pedagogy-technology interface in computer assisted pronunciation training. CALL Journal, 15, 441–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumeyer, L., Franco, H., Digalakis, V., & Weintraub, M. (2000). Automatic scoring of pronunciation quality. Speech Communication, 30, 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, M. C. (1999). Computer-aided pronunciation pedagogy: Promise, limitations, directions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12, 427–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, M. C., Ellis, N. C., Lee, Y. P., & Lau, L. (1999). Instructing intonation in a second language: Lessons from a study with Hong Kong Cantonese undergraduate English majors. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, M. C. & Esling, J. H. (1996). Computer-assisted development of spoken language skills. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 153–89). Houston: Athelstan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrie, G. M. (2005). Review of Streaming speech: Listening and pronunciation for advanced learners of English, CALICO Journal, 22, 731–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, L. (2001). The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 233–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, L. (2002). Patterns of intonation in cross-cultural communication exchange structure in NS TA and ITA classroom discourse. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Language, Interaction and Culture (pp. 1–17). University of California at Santa Barbara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, L. (2004). The structure and function of intonational paragraphs in native and nonnative instructional discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 19–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003), Probabilistic phonology: Discrimination and robustness. In R. Bod, J. Hay & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probability theory in linguistics (pp. 177–228). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitrelli, J. F., Beckman, M. E., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). Evaluation of prosodic transcription labeling reliability in the ToBI framework. International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Volume 1 (pp. 123–6). Yokohama.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rixon, S. (2004). Review of Streaming Speech. Modem English Teacher, 77–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rypa, M. E., & Price, P. (1999). VILTS: A tale of two technologies. CALICO Journal, 16 (3), 385–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Setter, J. (2003). Review of Streaming Speech: Listening and pronunciation for advanced learners of English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 33, 240–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shriberg, E., & Stolcke, A. (2004a). Direct modeling of prosody: An overview of applications in automatic speech processing. Proceedings of the International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 1–8). Nara, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shriberg, E., & Stolcke, A. (2004b). Prosody modeling for automatic speech recognition and understanding. In M. Johnson, M. Ostendorf, S. Khudanpur, & R. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Mathematical foundations of speech and language modeling, Volume 138 in IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications (pp. 105–14). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Price, P., Pierrehumbert, J., and Hirschberg, J. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. Proceedings of International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Volume 2 (pp. 867–70). Banff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhofstadt, K. (2002). A critical analysis of commercial computer-assisted pronunciation materials. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ghent. Retrieved January 31, 2006, from http://members.tripod.com/katrienverhofstadt/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachowicz, K. A., and Scott, B. (1999). Software that listens: It’s not a question of whether, it’s a question of how. CALICO Journal, 16, 253–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, A., and Knoerr, H. (2003). Learning French pronunciation: Audiocassettes or multimedia? CALICO Journal, 20(2), 315–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weltens, B., & de Bot, K. (1984). Visual feedback of intonation II: Feedback delay and quality of feedback. Language and Speech, 27, 79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennerstrom, A. (1997). Discourse intonation and second language acquisition: Three genre-based studies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington at Seattle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennerstrom, A. (2000). The role of intonation in second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 102–27). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennerstrom, A. (2001). The music of everyday speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wichmann, A. (2000). Intonation in text and discourse. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. (2004). Review of Streaming Speech. English Teaching Professional, 32, 46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt, S., & Young, S. (1997). Language learning based on non-native speech recognition. Proceedings of Eurospeech, the 3rd European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp. 633–6). Rhodes.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Dorothy M. Chun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania, USA

    Martha C. Pennington (Distinguished Professor of Linguistics) (Distinguished Professor of Linguistics)

Copyright information

© 2007 Dorothy M. Chun

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chun, D.M. (2007). Technological advances in researching and teaching phonology. In: Pennington, M.C. (eds) Phonology in Context. Palgrave Advances in Linguistics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625396_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation