Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:09:35.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TASK-BASED PRONUNCIATION TEACHING AND RESEARCH

KEY ISSUES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2017

Joan C. Mora  and
Mayya Levkina
Joan C. Mora*
Affiliation:
Universitat de Barcelona
Mayya Levkina
Affiliation:
Universitat de Barcelona
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joan C. Mora, Departament de Llengües i Literatures Modernes i Estudis Anglesos, Facultat de Filologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 585, 08007 Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: mora@ub.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article synthesizes the conclusions of the empirical studies in this special issue and outlines key questions in future research. The research reported in this volume has identified several fundamental issues in pronunciation-focused task design that are discussed in detail and on which suggestions for further research are outlined. One crucial issue is how attention to pronunciation resulting in language-related episodes effectively leads to robust gains in accuracy. Another important aspect discussed is the need to adapt task design features to the phonological domain under focus and how to incorporate systematic patterns of first language interference into the task structure. Finally, we propose that future research in task-based pronunciation teaching and second language phonetics and phonology should systematically examine learner factors known to affect task performance and task features established in the research domains of lexical and grammatical development.

Type
Epilogue to the Special Issue
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 39 , Special Issue 2: TBLT and L2 Pronunciation: Do the Benefits of Tasks Extend Beyond Grammar and Lexis? , June 2017 , pp. 381 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank the editors of this special issue for their useful comments and suggestions on a previous version of this article. We would also like to thank the contributors to this volume for their inspiring presentations and discussion at the 2015 TBLT conference in Leuven (Belgium). This research is partly funded by AGAUR grant SGR137 from the Catalan government to the first author.

References

REFERENCES

Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. Modern Language Journal, 78, 155–168.Google Scholar
Amengual, M., & Chamorro, P. (2015). The effects of language dominance in the perception and production of the Galician mid vowel contrasts. Phonetica, 72, 207–236.Google Scholar
Baker, A. (2014). Exploring teachers’ knowledge of second language pronunciation techniques: Teacher cognitions, observed classroom practices, and student perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 136–163.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (Eds.). (2014). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Baran-Łucarz, M. (2014). The link between pronunciation anxiety and willingness to communicate in the foreign-language classroom: The Polish EFL context. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70, 445–473.Google Scholar
Benzeghiba, M., De Mori, R., Deroo, O., Dupont, S., Erbes, T., Jouvet, D., et al. (2007). Automatic speech recognition and speech variability: A review. Speech Communication, 49, 763–786.Google Scholar
Best, C., & Strange, W. (1992). Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 305–331.Google Scholar
Best, C., & Tyler, M. (2007). Non-native and second language speech perception. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning (pp. 15–34). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S., & Munro, M. J. (Eds.). (2007). Language experience in second language speech learning. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. (2008). Training non-native language sound patterns: Lessons from training Japanese adults on the English /ɹ/-/l/ contrast. In Hansen Edwards, J. G. & Zampini, M. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 287–308). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica, 49, 155–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgess, J., & Spencer, S. (2000). Phonology and pronunciation in integrated language teaching and teacher education. System, 28, 191–215.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising learners’ performances on tasks. In Willis, J. & Willis, D. (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). London, UK: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (Ed.). (2000). Tasks in language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4, 185–192.Google Scholar
Carlet, A., & Cebrian, J. (2015). Identification vs. discrimination training: Learning effects for trained and untrained sounds. In the Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow. Retrieved from http://www.icphs2015.info/pdfs/proceedings.html.Google Scholar
Cebrian, J. (2006). Experience and the use of non-native duration in L2 vowel categorization. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 372–387.Google Scholar
Cebrian, J., & Carlet, A. (2014). Second-language learners’ identification of target-language phonemes: A short-term phonetic training study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70, 474–499.Google Scholar
Darcy, I., Ewert, D., & Lidster, R. (2012). Bringing pronunciation instruction back into the classroom: An ESL Teachers’ pronunciation “toolbox.” In Levis, J. & LeVelle, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 93–108). Ames: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Darcy, I., Mora, J. C., & Daidone, D. (2016). The role of inhibitory control in second language phonological processing. Language Learning, 66, 741–773.Google Scholar
Darcy, I., Park, H., & Yang, C. L. (2015). Individual differences in L2 acquisition of English phonology: The relation between cognitive abilities and phonological processing. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 63–72.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s speaking model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
de Jong, N. H., Groenhout, R., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 223–243.Google Scholar
de Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 121–142). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T., & Foote, J. (2011). 2010 National survey of pronunciation teaching: Deja vu. Paper presented at the Annual Association for Applied Linguistics, Chicago, IL, March 26, 2011.Google Scholar
Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (2014). Once you have been speaking a second language for years, it’s too late to change your pronunciation. In Grant, L. (Ed.), Pronunciation myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching (pp. 34–55). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379–397.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42, 476–490.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2013). The development of L2 oral language skills in two L1 groups: A seven-year study. Language Learning, 63, 163–185.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation Fundamentals: Evidence-Based Perspectives for L2 Teaching and Research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. M., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393–410.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter, M. J. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 533–557.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117–135.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in L2 motivation research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Escudero, P. (2009). Linguistic perception of “similar” L2 sounds. In Boersma, P. & Hamann, S. (Eds.), Phonology in Perception (pp. 151–190). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2003). Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and perception. In Meyer, A. & Schiller, N. (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 319–355). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2009). Give input a chance! In Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 175–190). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O. S., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Schirru, C., & MacKay, I. R. (2003). Interaction between the native and second language phonetic subsystems. Speech Communication, 40, 467–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Frieda, E. M., Walley, A. C., & Randazza, L. A. (1998). Lexical factors and segmental accuracy in second language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 155–187.Google Scholar
Foote, J. A., Holtby, A. K., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESOL Journal Canada, 20, 1–22.Google Scholar
Gao, X. (2014). The interface of linguistic difficulty and task type on the use of the Chinese ba construction by L2 learners. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 3, 27–51.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007a). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007b). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and [+/-Here-and-Now]: Effects on L2 oral production. In García Mayo, M. P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, M. A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 367–395.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gordon, J., Darcy, I., & Ewert, D. (2013). Pronunciation teaching and learning: Effects of explicit phonetic instruction in the L2 classroom. In Levis, J. & LeVelle, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 194–206). Ames: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Guion, S. G., & Pederson, E. (2007). Investigating the role of attention in phonetic learning. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language learning (pp. 57–77). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Plonsky, L. (in press). Look who’s interacting: A scoping review of research involving non-teacher/non-peer interlocutors. In Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Henderson, A., Frost, D., Tergujeff, E., Kautzsch, A., Murphy, D., Kirkova-Naskova, A., et al. (2012). The English pronunciation teaching in Europe survey: Selected results. Research in Language, 10, 5–27.Google Scholar
Henriksen, N. C., Geeslin, K. L., & Willis, E. W. (2010). The development of L2 Spanish intonation during a study abroad immersion program in León, Spain: Global contours and final boundary movements. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 3, 113–162.Google Scholar
Hieke, A. E. (1984). Linking as a marker of fluent speech. Language and Speech, 27, 343–354.Google Scholar
Hirata, Y. (2004). Computer assisted pronunciation training for native English speakers learning Japanese pitch and durational contrasts. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 357–376.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, P., Hazan, V., & Bannister, K. (2005). Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: A comparison of methods for teaching English/r/-/l/ to Japanese adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 3267–3278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iverson, P., Pinet, M., & Evans, B. G. (2012). Auditory training for experienced and inexperienced second-language learners: Native French speakers learning English vowels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, D. G., & Morosan, D. E. (1986). Training non-native speech contrasts in adults: Acquisition of the English/ð/-/θ/contrast by francophones. Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 205–215.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jung, Y., Kim, Y., & Murphy, J. (2017). The role of task repetition in learning word stress patterns through auditory priming tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2). doi: 10.1017/S0272263117000031 Google Scholar
Kartushina, N., Hervais-Adelman, A., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Golestani, N. (2015). The effect of phonetic production training with visual feedback on the perception and production of foreign speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138, 817–832.Google Scholar
Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich, P. (2010). Language awareness and second language pronunciation: A classroom study. Language Awareness, 19, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, S., Blanchet, J., & Trofimovich, P. (2014). Learner pronunciation, awareness, and instruction in French as a second language. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 79–96.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41, 829–840.Google Scholar
Kissling, E. M. (2013). Teaching pronunciation: Is explicit phonetics instruction beneficial for FL learners? Modern Language Journal, 97, 720–744.Google Scholar
Kivistö-de Souza, H. (2015). Phonological awareness and pronunciation in a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech Production and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Sáfár, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 261–271.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (2008). Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: New data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B 363, 979–1000.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 261–284.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 345–366.Google Scholar
Lengeris, A., & Hazan, V. (2010). The effect of native vowel processing ability and frequency discrimination acuity on the phonetic training of English vowels for native speakers of Greek. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128, 3757–3768.Google Scholar
Lev-Ari, S., & Peperkamp, S. (2013). Low inhibitory skill leads to non-native perception and production in bilinguals’ native language. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 320–331.Google Scholar
Lev-Ari, S., & Peperkamp, S. (2014). The influence of inhibitory skill on phonological representations in production and perception. Journal of Phonetics, 47, 36–46.Google Scholar
Levis, J. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 367–377.Google Scholar
Levkina, M. (2014). The role of task sequencing in L2 development as mediated by working memory capacity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: II. The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242–1255.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. 2006. Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1–14.Google Scholar
Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/and/l: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874–886.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second-language learning: Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39, 251–275.Google Scholar
Malicka, A., & Levkina, M. (2012). Measuring task complexity. Does EFL proficiency matter? In Shehadeh, A. & Coombe, C. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts. Research and implementation (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.Google Scholar
McKinnon, S. (2017). TBLT instructional effects on tonal alignment and pitch range in L2 Spanish imperatives versus declaratives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2). doi: 10.1017/S0272263116000267 Google Scholar
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 241–259.Google Scholar
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 81–108.Google Scholar
Moyer, A. (2009). Input as a critical means to an end: Quantity and quality of experience in L2 phonological attainment. In Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 159–174). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Moyer, A. (2014). Exceptional outcomes in L2 phonology: The critical factors of learner engagement and self-regulation. Applied Linguistics, 35, 418–440.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J. (1993). Production of English vowels by native speakers of Arabic: Acoustic measurements and accentedness ratings. Language and Speech, 36, 39–66.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J. (1998). The effects of noise on the intelligibility of foreign-accented speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 139–154.Google Scholar
Park, J. K. (2000). The effects of forms and meaning-focused instruction on ESL learners’ phonological acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Parlak, Ö, & Zeigler, N. (2017). The impact of recasts on the acquisition of primary stress in a computer-mediated environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2). doi: 10.1017/S0272263116000310 Google Scholar
Pederson, E., & Guion-Anderson, S. (2010). Orienting attention during phonetic training facilitates learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127, EL54–EL59.Google Scholar
Perrachione, T. K., Lee, J., Ha, L. Y., & Wong, P. C. (2011). Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 461–472.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Piske, T. (2008). Phonetic awareness, phonetic sensitivity and the second language learner. In Cenoz, J. & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education Vol. 6: Knowledge about language (pp. 155–166). New York, NY: Springer Science.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on speech production, interaction, uptake of premodified input and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 45, 195–215.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Putz, M. & Sicola, L. (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 243–268). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161–176.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 229–248). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2011). Examining the role of explicit phonetic instruction in native-like and comprehensible pronunciation development: An instructed SLA approach to L2 phonology. Language Awareness, 20, 45–59.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis of 15 quasiexperimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 842–854.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, 499–529.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2015). Communicative focus on L2 phonetic form: Teaching Japanese learners to perceive and produce English /r/ without explicit instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Akiyama, Y. (2017). Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 67, 43–74. doi: 10.1111/lang.12184 Google Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012a). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633.Google Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012b). Investigating the pedagogical potential of recasts for L2 vowel acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 385–396.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, 1–19. doi: 10.1177/0023830916687793 Google Scholar
Scharenborg, O., Weber, A., & Janse, E. (2015). The role of attentional abilities in lexically guided perceptual learning by older listeners. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 493–507.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and Awareness (pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawaiì, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, G. (2016). Word boundaries in L2 speech: Evidence from Polish learners of English. Second Language Research, 32, 397–426.Google Scholar
Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human speech. New York, NY: Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. A. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.Google Scholar
Sicola, L., & Darcy, I. (2015). Integrating pronunciation into the language classroom. In Reed, M. & Levis, J. (Eds.), Handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 467–483). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998a). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998b). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–286.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influence on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.Google Scholar
Solon, M., Long, A. Y., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016). Task complexity, language-related episodes, and production of L2 Spanish vowels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000425 Google Scholar
Strange, W., & Dittmann, S. (1984). Effects of discrimination training on the perception of/rl/by Japanese adults learning English. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 131–145.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. (2012). Improving L2 listeners’ perception of English vowels: A computer-mediated approach. Language Learning, 62, 1231–1258.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. I., & Derwing, T. M. (2015). The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36, 326–344.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Gatbonton, E. (2006). Repetition and focus on form in processing L2 Spanish words: Implications for pronunciation instruction. Modern Language Journal, 90, 519–535.Google Scholar
Trude, A. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Negative transfer from Spanish and English to Portuguese pronunciation: The roles of inhibition and working memory. Language Learning, 61, 259–280.Google Scholar
van Batenburg, E. S., Oostdam, R. J., van Gelderen, A. J., & de Jong, N. H. (2016). Measuring L2 speakers’ interactional ability using interactive speech tasks. Language Testing, 1–26. doi: 10.1177/0265532216679452 Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatagiri, H. S., & Levis, J. M. (2007). Phonological awareness and speech comprehensibility: An exploratory study. Language Awareness, 16, 263–277.Google Scholar
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Wrembel, M. (2015). Metaphonological awareness in multilinguals: A case of L3 Polish. Language Awareness, 24, 60–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, B. A., Baese-Berk, M. M., Marrone, N., & Bradlow, A. R. (2015). Enhancing speech learning by combining task practice with periods of stimulus exposure without practice. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138, 928–937.Google Scholar
Yanguas, Í. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning and Technology, 14, 72–93.Google Scholar
Ylinen, S., Uther, M., Latvala, A., Vepsäläinen, S., Iverson, P., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Näätänen, R. (2010). Training the brain to weight speech cues differently: A study of Finnish second-language users of English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1319–1332.Google Scholar
Zielinski, B., & Yates, L. (2014). Pronunciation instruction is not appropriate for beginning-level learners. In Grant, L. (Ed.), Pronunciation myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching (pp. 56–79). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar