UNIVERSIDAD DE CONCEPCIÓN

FACULTAD DE EDUCACIÓN
PEDAGOGÍA EN INGLÉS

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERCEPTION OF ENGLISH

VOWELS IN ADVANCED LEARNERS OF ENGLISH

SEMINARIO PARA OPTAR AL GRADO DE LICENCIADO EN EDUCACIÓN

Prof. Guía: PhD. Yasna Pereira Reyes

Seminaristas: Angelo Cuevas Diaz
Eduardo Figueroa Herrera

CONCEPCIÓN, 2017
1
 UNIVERSIDAD DE CONCEPCIÓN
FACULTAD DE EDUCACIÓN
PEDAGOGÍA EN INGLÉS

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERCEPTION OF ENGLISH

VOWELS IN ADVANCED LEARNERS OF ENGLISH

SEMINARIO PARA OPTAR AL GRADO DE LICENCIADO EN EDUCACIÓN

Prof. Guía: PhD. Yasna Pereira Reyes

Seminaristas: Angelo Cuevas Diaz
Eduardo Figueroa Herrera

CONCEPCIÓN, 2017

2
“The power of imagination is the
ability to create your own future”

Hideaki Anno, 1996 NGE

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Since we started to work on this thesis, we have been blessed with the company of
many people we would like to acknowledge in this page. This thesis would not have
been possible without the kind support and wise guidance of Professor Yasna
Pereira. It is because of her that we were able not only to complete this process, but
also to see phonetics in a way we could not have imagined before. We cannot
express how grateful we are for the opportunity to work with her.

Also important was the unconditional love and support of the Figueroa-Herrera and
Cuevas-Diaz families. They trusted in our work and provided us with encouragement
from our first years in this world until now that we are finishing our years of study.

We would also like to recognize the support of our friends and relatives, who were
by our side and always found a way to rise our spirits. In a special way we are grateful
for having Claudia Arenas “Kuky” in our lives, whose support and friendship has
been with us for many years.

Finally, we are grateful with the foreign languages department of our University and
its teachers, who taught us much more than just the language we learnt. Thank you
very much to all of you.

Angelo Cuevas and Eduardo Figueroa

4
ABSTRACT

Learning English vowels represents a challenge for Spanish speakers, mainly

because of the differences in both vowel systems (Iverson & Evans, 2007). There is
a wide variety of factors affecting this process (Flege, 1995; Kuhl, 2000). The
purpose of this study is to find the factors that affect the perception of English vowels
in advanced learners. For this, a survey was applied to a group of fourth-year
students from an English Teacher Training Programme asking about their
experience with the language and their habits regarding input. Additionally, a level
test, a listening test measuring their ability to discern minimal pairs and a vowel
identification test were applied. The relation between the participant’s ability to
perceive English vowels and the variables under study was tested. The analysis
shows a moderately significant relation between the listening capacity demonstrated
in the minimal pairs test and the results in the vowel perception test.

* This research is part of the project “Language attrition in Teachers of English: The
Perception of English Vowels”. VRID UdeC: 216.065.021-1.OIN

5
RESUMEN

Aprender las vocales del inglés representa un reto para los hispanohablantes,
principalmente debido a las diferencias entre ambos sistemas de vocales (Iverson y
Evans, 2007). Hay una gran variedad de factores que afectan este proceso (Flege,
1995; Kuhl, 2000). El propósito de este estudio es encontrar los factores que afectan
la percepción de vocales inglesas en estudiantes avanzados. Para ello, se aplicó
una encuesta a un grupo de estudiantes de cuarto año de un programa de formación
de profesores de inglés acerca de su experiencia con el idioma y sus hábitos con
respecto a su exposición al idioma. Además, se aplicó una prueba de nivel, una
prueba de audición que midió su capacidad para discernir pares mínimos y una
prueba de identificación de vocales. Se evaluó la relación entre la capacidad del
participante para percibir las vocales inglesas y las variables bajo estudio. El análisis
mostró una relación moderadamente significativa entre la capacidad de escucha
demostrada en la prueba de pares mínimos y los resultados en la prueba de
percepción de vocales.

* Esta investigación es parte del proyecto “Language attrition in Teachers of English:

The Perception of English Vowels”. VRID UdeC: 216.065.021-1.OIN

6
INDEX

Acknowledgements 4
Abstract 5
Resumen 6
Index 7
List of figures 9
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 10
1.1 Presentation of the problem 10
1.2 Research questions 10
1.3 General objectives 10
1.4 Specific objectives 11
1.5 Importance of the study 11
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 13
Factors related to L2 Speech perception 13
2.1 Linguistic factors 13
2.1.1 Listening capacity as a predictor of perception of vowels 13
2.1.2 Language experience as a predictor of perception of vowels 15
Perceptual assimilation model 15
Speech learning model 16
2.2 Non-linguistic factors 16
2.2.1 Motivation as a predictor of perception of vowels 16
2.3 English vowel perception difficulties 18
2.3.1 Duration 18
2.3.2 Typical confusions for L1 Spanish speaker learners 19
2.4 L2 speech perception and production link 19
2.5 Implications for teaching and learning 23
2.6 Training to improve vowel perception 25
Summary 26

7
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 28
3.1 Participants 28
3.2 Testing material 28
3.2.1 Language proficiency test 28
3.2.2 Listening Test 29
3.2.3 Vowel Identification Test 30
3.3 Survey 32
3.4 Statistical analysis 32
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS 34
4.1 General results 34
4.1.1 Vowel identification test 34
4.1.2 Listening test 37
4.1.3 Language proficiency test 38
4.1.4 Survey 39
4.2 Specific results 42
4.2.1 Confusions in the perception of English vowels 42
4.2.2 Correlations 43
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION 47
VI. REFERENCES 50
VII. APPENDIX 57
7.1 List of lexical items used in the vowel identification test 57
7.2 List of audio files used in the vowel identification test 59
7.3 Results per participants 62
7.4 Individual results per stimuli in the vowel identification test 63
7.5 Survey 64
7.6 Listening test 68
7.7 List of participants 72
7.8 Poster presented at RICELT 2017 73

8
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 3.1 Proficiency Test 29
Fig 3.2 Vowel identification test 30
Fig 3.3 Response buttons in the vowel identification test 31
Fig 3.4 End of the Vowel Identification test 32
Fig 4.1 Boxplots for the vowel identification test 34
Table 4.1 Mean score, tense-lax and position distinction per vowel 35
Table 4.2 T-test between tense-lax vowels 36
Fig 4.2 Variability in individual performance vowel identification test 37
Fig 4.3 Variability in individual performance Listening Test 38
Fig 4.4 Hours of English outside the classes 39
Fig 4.5 Use of English Skills 39
Fig 4.6 Participants’ self-assessment 40
Fig 4.7 Participant’s activities to improve pronunciation 40
Fig 4.8 Participant’s strategies to learn pronunciation 41
Table 4.3 Most common confusions in the vowel identification test 42
Fig 4.9 Scatter plot Correlation vowel identification test and listening test 43
Fig 4.10 Scatter plot Correlation vowel identification test and proficiency test 44
Fig 4.11 Scatter plot Correlation vowel identification test and listening input 45
Fig 4.12 Scatter plot Correlation vowel identification test and self-assessment 46

9
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Presentation of the problem

Pronunciation is an important part of any language and English is not the exception.
This is why teaching and learning pronunciation is of utmost importance. The
perception of speech is a major component of pronunciation. In this matter, the
perception of speech, and more specifically to perceive the vowels of the English
language becomes the focus of this thesis. Considering this, in order to understand
this aspect of linguistics, the factors that influence the perception of the English
vowels will be looked into.

1.2 Research questions

 Is the learner’s listening capacity related to their English vowel perception
capacity?
 Is the learner’s experience with the language related to their English vowel
perception capacity?
 Is the learner’s proficiency level related to their English vowel perception
capacity?

1.3 General objective

Find the relation between linguistic (listening capacity and language proficiency) and
non-linguistic (motivation) factors with the capacity to perceive English vowels in
advanced learners of English.

10
1.4 Specific objectives

 Find the relation between the learners’ listening capacity and the vowel
perception capacity.
 Find the relation between the learners’ language experience and the vowel
perception capacity.
 Find the relation between the learners’ language proficiency and the vowel
perception capacity.
 Explore the contribution of motivation in the learners’ general capacity to perceive
L2 sounds.

1.5 Importance of the perception of English vowels

In every-day life, listening is a very important part of communication. It has been

suggested that half of human communicative time is used in listening (Gilman &
Moody 1984). Generally, humans are exposed to all kind of sounds, but for
communicative purposes they focus on speech, that is made up of vowels and
consonants in combination.

The focus of this thesis is on the perception of English vowels. Almost every time a
person produces sounds, they are producing vowels and thus the interlocutor
perceives vowels. In English, vowel contrast perception is slightly more important
than consonant perception. A misperception of a vowel may lead to a
misunderstanding in communication. Additionally, in accent distinctions, most of the
differences are focused on the use of vowels. (M. Nespor, 2002).

Regarding teaching English as a second language, it is important to consider how

Spanish speakers learn English vowels to appreciate the importance of them. In
general, Spanish speakers have problems to differentiate several English vowels.
For example, the confusion between the English /ɪ/ and /i:/ and the Spanish /i/.
Learners with Spanish as L1 tend to struggle while learning the difference between
these vowels (Flege, Bohn & Jang, 1997). This can be explained by many theories.

11
The most accepted theory is that the reduced or relatively small vowel system of the
Spanish language speakers may affect the way they learn other vowels. There is
evidence for this in studies that compare the performance of learners of English with
German as L1 with English learners with Spanish as L1 (Iverson and Evans, 2009).
Their study concluded that as the German language has a larger vowel system,
German speakers have an advantage when learning new vowels in comparison with
Spanish speakers.

Vowels were included in this thesis considering also the suggestion made by Flege
and Bohn that there is no critical period for vowel learning (Flege, Bohn & Jang,
1997). This means that there is a chance to teach vowels at every age and that
mistakes in production of vowels can be corrected at any time.

The other main element in this thesis is perception of L2 speech. Perception in L2

influences proficiency. Studies have shown that there is a relation between listening
ability and language proficiency in general, including oral production and
comprehension (Feyten, 1991). Hence, teaching perception through pronunciation
in the classroom becomes of utmost importance (Morley, 1994). This is why
investigation focused on these topics has much to offer to teachers and students in
terms of helping them to set learning goals, identifying appropriate pedagogical
priorities for the classroom, and determining the most effective approaches to
teaching (Derwing & Munro, 2005).

For the purpose of this thesis, several possible factors were considered when
searching for the ones that may be influential in the perception of English vowels.
Listening capacity, motivation and language proficiency were selected to be tested.

12
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Factors related to L2 speech perception

Different factors that may influence the perception of a second language (L2) have
been explored such as age, use of L2, motivation, among others (Cenoz,
Lecumberri, 1999). In this thesis, linguistic and non-linguistic factors were
considered such as learners’ listening capacity, learners’ language proficiency level,
and learners’ motivation. In this chapter, the relevance of this thesis in the context of
L2 speech perception and production and the literature that supports the basis for
this thesis will be presented.

2.1 Linguistic factors

2.1.1 Listening capacity as a predictor of perception of vowels

Research has demonstrated that an average adult spends over 40% of their
communicative time listening (Gilman & Moody, 1984). It is logical then, to consider
listening capacity as a highly influential factor affecting the perception of speech in
general and particularly about vowels. Another reason to consider it as a factor is
that, in comparison with other variables that have proved to be significant in the
acquisition of a second language, the listening skill is special in the sense that it can
be improved with training, whereas non-linguistic factors like motivation cannot be
controlled (Feyten, 1991). Following this line of thought, by studying whether there
is a relation between the learners’ listening capacity and the perception of English
vowels, there will be a chance to improve it later by designing training focused on
listening. However, the literature regarding the relation between listening capacity
and the perception of L2 vowels is rather scarce. It is important to state that for the
purpose of this thesis the listening capacity will be understood as the capacity a
learner has to recognize and differentiate sounds, specifically vowels. Thus, it is

13
different from general listening comprehension capacity which refers to the ability to
obtain meaning from spoken language.

One study that deals with the relation between listening capacity and the perception
of L2 vowels was conducted by Iverson and Evans (2007). The aim of their study
was to find whether learners with a larger first-language vowel system differ on the
cues they use to learn the English vowel system. Even though the main focus of their
study was not on the relation between listening capacity and vowel perception, it
considered auditory traits like formant frequency and duration and the impact they
have on the learning of the English vowels by learners with different first-languages.
One of the main results of Iverson and Evans’ study was that the patterns of formant
movement in English vowels are important to L2 listeners when recognizing them.
This is also true for native speakers of English who seem to rely on acoustic
information more than on abstract representations of the sounds when categorizing
vowels. From this it can be assumed that the role played by vowels’ acoustic cues
in the recognition and categorization of sounds is of utmost importance and hence,
the role that listening capacity has on the general perception of vowels must be
equally relevant.

Another important finding for the purpose of the present thesis that can be
highlighted from Iverson and Evans’ study is that listeners learn the phonetic details
of a vowel all at once rather than only learning the cues that seem best for
distinguishing categories. This can be an explanation to the way L2 learners learn
vowels in terms of phonetic details, and how this information continues to be relevant
to them at the moment of perceiving vowels during the rest of their lives. It can be
assumed that this phonetic information from the vowels is useful for communication
at the moment of perceiving vowels, but just as long as the listening capacity is
present to be able to hear said information.

In a study conducted by Feyten (1991) the relation between listening skill and several
other second language aspects is demonstrated. The aim of her study was to find
whether more attention needs to be paid to the listening skills in the preparation of
foreign language students and, more relevant for this study, whether the listening

14
skill could be a good predictor of language achievement. The results of Feyten’s
study showed that there was a relation between listening ability and overall foreign
language proficiency; there was also a relation between listening ability when
correlated with foreign language comprehension and with oral proficiency skill
(Feyten, 1991). These findings support the importance of the listening skill
(perception) as a factor affecting the general improvement of English language
proficiency and more specifically, the way it affects the perception of English vowels,
which is the focus of this thesis project.

2.1.2 Language Experience as a predictor of Perception of Vowels

Regarding aspects such as years of study, formal or informal study of the language,
exposure to the language among others, learners’ language experience was
considered as another linguistic factor, referring to characteristics of the learning
process that an individual has during his/her life. There are some models to explain
the influence of experience and the way a person learns a second language sound
system. In this section the two most influential approaches will be presented.

Perceptual Assimilation Model

The Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM) (model developed to explain non-native

speech perception) focused on inexperienced learners of English. It states that these
perceivers assimilate the phonemes of a second language to their closest in the L1
when they hear them for the first time (Best, 1995; Best & Tyler, 2007). Best suggests
that the assimilation of phonemes are usually grouped into categories that consider
the similarities between the new sounds and the sound categories from the L1.

15
Speech Learning Model

Flege (1995) proposed a model based on his research that differs in several ideas
with Best’s model (PAM). The Speech Learning Model (SLM) states that if the target
phoneme in the L2 is similar to a phoneme in the L1 vowel system, the learner will
have problems learning it. The author suggested that the learner will probably
perceive that the L2 phoneme is a realization of the L1 category. This model predicts
that speech sounds are specified in long-term memory representations called
“phonetic categories”, which are used to process speech. These phonetic categories
and the mechanism used to learn the native categories last during the whole life,
and those same mechanisms are used when learning new categories. When new
sounds are learned, existing categories evolve to adapt themselves in order to cover
the L1 and L2 sounds. This is why bilingual learners struggle to define or differentiate
the sounds when learning them. In the context of Spanish speakers with Flege’s
model it could be predicted that learners will have problems with English /ɪ/ and /i:/
because they share some features of the native Spanish category /i/.

2.2 Non-linguistic factors

2.2.1 Motivation as a predictor of Perception of Vowels

The next factor to be discussed as a possible predictor of vowel perception capacity

in this thesis is motivation. The relation between phonetic and phonological aspects
and motivation when learning a second language has not been explored by many
authors. There are, however, some studies that explore the importance of motivation
when learning a second language in general.

First of all, motivation has been defined as those factors that energize behaviour and
give it direction (Hilgard, Atkinson, 1979). The relation between motivational factors
and proficiency in second language has been a widely covered topic by authors all
around the world. Gardner, in his 2007 manuscript on motivation and second
language acquisition reviewed his model and compared it with later studies on the
topic. He begins by highlighting the importance of motivation on second language

16
acquisition, and argues that this factor is much more complex than just wanting to
learn the language (Gardner, 2007). Motivation is one of the three main aspects of
his model, alongside with Integrativeness (also called Openness to cultural
identification) and attitudes towards the learning situation. The motivation aspect of
his model refers to the behavioural, cognitive, and affective components that move
the learner to keep improving his/her proficiency in an L2. Integrativeness or lately
called Openness to cultural identification refers to the idea that a learner of a second
language will be influenced by the target culture of the said language. Finally, the
attitudes towards the learning situation refer to those aspects that are directly related
with the environment or the way in which the second language is learned.

Other authors have proposed that motivation is a more changeable and dynamic
variable in learning a second language (Dörnyei, 2005). A model with this idea is the
one proposed by Dörnyei and his L2 Motivational Self-System. This approach was
created considering that the concept of integrativeness proposed by Gardner and
Lambert in (1959), and supported by several authors in the following years, was not
updated. Dörnyei thought that this concept lacked a connection with the new
cognitive motivational concepts emerging from motivational psychological studies.
The main concept this approach provides is that learners have an image of
themselves that they compare with two other images: the Ideal self and the Ought-
to self. The Ideal self refers to the attributes and knowledge that the person would
like to possess. In the L2 Motivational Self-system, it refers to the level of proficiency
in the language that a person would like to have. The Ought-to self refers to the
attributes and knowledge the person considers he should possess. This approach
refers to the level of proficiency or knowledge of the language that a person
considers should have. These two concepts were based on the psychological theory
of the ideal self and the Ought-to self (Markus & Nurius, 1986). From this, it can be
assumed that the learners’ Ideal-self will be one with a better pronunciation (native-
like), thus, providing a hypothetical link between motivation and pronunciation.

Both approaches mentioned previously are similar in the sense that they consider
motivation as a key factor. These approaches and their implications played an

17
important role while creating the tool used to measure motivation and at the moment
of analysing the results searching for the possible effects that motivation has on the
perception of English vowels.

2.3 English vowels perception difficulties

Considering the difficulties that Spanish speakers may have in perceiving English
vowels, two factors related to vowel perception were considered. The first is duration
of a sound which influences the perception and the categorization of L2 vowels. The
second factor included was the typical confusions in the perception of vowels by
Spanish speakers, due to the smaller vowel system this language has.

2.3.1 Duration

One of the factors that affects the perception of vowels for non-native speakers of
English is duration. Cebrian (2006) tested a group of adult speakers of Catalan with
varying levels of English and their experience with the language. The main objective
of his research was to study the effect of L2 experience on the categorization of
vowels, and the ability to distinguish the tense-lax vowel contrast. The results
obtained showed that native speakers of English focus more on the vowel quality
whereas non-native speakers tend to extend the duration of vowels, in order to
differentiate each of them with the vowels of their mother tongue. It was also
demonstrated that the ability to categorize vowels in the target language seems to
be downgraded depending on the age a person starts learning another language.
Their results suggested that the vowel categorization capacity may be improved by
being exposed to the target language, and being able to use the L2. Therefore,
exposure and use of the L2 play an important role in the process of learning the
sounds of another language.

18
2.3.2 Typical confusions for L1 Spanish speakers

Iverson & Evans (2009) proved that individuals with smaller and larger L1 vowel
inventories may learn L2 vowel systems likewise. This was demonstrated by testing
the perception of English vowels to a group of Spanish speakers (with a small L1
vowel system) and to a group of German speakers (with a larger L1 vowel system).
The results showed that the Germans were much better than the Spanish after a
short period of training. However, the Spanish speakers improved as much as the
Germans after additional sessions of training. The findings of their research suggest
that a larger vowel category may help in the process of learning an L2, and in case
of Spanish speakers, training improves identification of L2 vowels.

One of the confusions made by the Spanish speakers was that they tended to
assimilate L2 vowels into the same L1 categories e.g. the English vowels / ɪ / and /
i: / and the Spanish / i / (Escudero & Boersma, 2004; Flege et al., 1997; Iverson &
Evans, 2007). In addition to this, individuals with a smaller vowel system, such as
Spanish, tend to use less dimensions to distinguish L1 vowels, considering other
aspects in order to differentiate L2 vowels such as diphthongs or nasal sounds
(Iverson & Evans, 2007). In this thesis, these results will be used as parameters of
comparison for confusions in the perception of English vowels.

2.4 L2 speech Perception and Production link

When talking about the perception of vowels, it is also necessary to discuss the
relation between perception and speech production, being both components of
human communication. Historically, language research has split into these two
different fields; psychologists and psycholinguistics worked on problems of phoneme
perception while phoneticians covered articulation and speech acoustics (Casserly
& Pisoni, 2010). The main reason for the separation of both fields is that their
research procedures and study methodologies differ greatly from one another. By
doing so, researchers have been allowed to comprehend this highly complex and
unique behaviour that is human speech by dividing it into manageable chunks.

19
However, Casserly and Pisoni predicted that in order to gain a full understanding of
human speech it will be necessary to reunite both concepts of perception and
production in a joint approach to common problems. It is both logical and necessary
to consider in this thesis the link between perception and production given that they
are the main components of the speech chain as proposed by Denes and Pinson
(1963).

In order to comprehend the nature of the relation between perception and

production, certain phenomena have been proposed as evidence of the existence of
this link. One is the ’Phonetic Convergence’ phenomenon. A clearer evidence of this
phenomenon was provided by Pardo (2006) as a result from one experiment
conducted with two speakers talking about a map. One of them had the full map
(speaker 1) and the other (speaker 2) had an incomplete version of the map. The
speaker with the full map was expected to provide directions on how to draw a path
on the map for the other speaker. They were being recorded as they shared
information about the map’s different landmarks expecting them to produce certain
target words. Finally, a given number of naïve listeners were asked to listen and
compare a word from one speaker at the beginning and at the end of the task, with
a single recording of the same word said by the other speaker. As a result, the naïve
listeners identified the words said by speaker 2 as more similar to the ones produced
by speaker 1 at the end of the task. The result of this experiment showed that there
is a link between what an individual perceives and produces in real time interaction.
The phonetic convergence refers to the adaptation of one speech to the interlocutor’s
speech characteristics. In the mentioned experiment the changes were subtle but
notorious enough for a listener to identify them, allowing them to recognize
similarities at the moment of the comparison. If there were no link between
perception and production, phonetic convergence would not be possible. Pardo
suggested that phonetic convergence could be of major importance for other
phenomena such as accent change and dialect formation.

Even if this experiment is rather recent, research on this kind of phenomena goes
back as far as 1911, with Etienne Lombard and his “Lombard Speech phenomenon”

20
(Lane & Tranel, 1971). His rather early experiments showed that there is a relation
between what a person hears and produces by modifying the context with
background noise. The speakers raise or lower their volume of speech according to
the level of background noise. They even modify the way of articulating speech to
make it more understandable under these conditions in real time. This modification
of articulation was predicted in 1990 by Björn Lindblom and his “Hyper- and Hypo-
articulation theory”. This theory postulated that individuals modify their speech in
accordance to two conflicting forces: economy of effort, which leads the speaker to
hypo-articulate; and communicative contrast, which leads the speaker to hyper-
articulate in order to be more understandable under certain conditions. This theory
also adds evidence to the existence of a direct real-time relation between perception
and production.

Another phenomenon that provides evidence to this perception-production link is the

“auditory sensorimotor adaptation” phenomenon as studied by Villacorta (Villacorta,
Perkell & Guenther, 2007). Their research showed that a speaker modifies his/her
speech according to their own voice. One of the experiments presented in their
research consisted in individuals producing certain target vowels while they hear
their production through headphones only. During the experiments, the produced
output was modified in real time with a software that shifted certain characteristics
of the vowel to be more similar to another. The modified production was played
through the headphone without the individual's awareness of it. As a result the
individuals modified their speech to compensate what they perceived in their voice
through the headphones unaware of the modification. This experiment not only
provides more evidence of the existence and importance of the perception-
production link, but also showed that as humans communicate, they are also
listening to their own speech making corrections in real time.

Considering the existence of this link, there is a study that takes this a step forward.
In 2004, a group of researchers suggested that the link between perception and
production could provide future therapeutic treatment to stuttering (Stuart,
Kalinowski, Rastatter, Saltuklaroglu & Dayalu, 2004). They found evidence that if

21
people who stutter perceive voluntary stuttering (syllabic repetition) before talking,
they tend to reduce significantly the stuttering in their speech. With these findings it
is clear that the active relation between perception and production not only exists,
but also is of great importance for the future of the field and for the understanding
and improvement of human communication. This could also be supported by
evidence of the effect of training on perception and the way it impacts production in
learners.

Okuno and Hardison (2016) conducted a study in which they demonstrated that
training individuals to perceive duration (in this case Japanese vowel duration) has
an impact on their production. There are, however, several studies that attempted to
prove the relevance of the link here discussed and failed to find strong empirical
evidence. For instance, Hattori and Iverson (2010) conducted a study with Japanese
learners of English on their perception and production of the English /r/- /l/ contrasts.
They were not successful in finding a strong relationship between these two
processes, suggesting that they seem to be more autonomous than they are thought
to be. As a counterargument for the existence of a strong link between perception
and production, the evidence provided by Smith and Hayes-Harb in their study of
German learners of English could be mentioned (Smith & Hayes-Harb, 2008). They
found moderate correlation between some acoustic measures of the German
learners’ production and their accuracy in perception of the English language. Even
if they failed in finding evidence to support the link, they agree that there is a
connection, and that it is important to define it.

Furthermore, the relation between perception and production is relevant for the
purpose of language teaching and learning. When talking about learning a new
vowel system, it is logical to consider a relation between what can be heard or
listened to and what will be produced. As an example, Flege’s Speech Learning
Model (1995) can be considered. In his study Flege states that Spanish speakers
with no experience in English tend to identify the English vowel /æ/ as a realization
of the Spanish /a/. If they never establish a new category for the new vowel, they will
not produce the vowel accurately. However, if they establish a new category for the

22
new vowel, separating it from the Spanish /a/, the learner will produce it accurately,
making clear differences from the /a/ category in their vowel system. From his model
it can be assumed that if a learner perceives a vowel sound and categorizes it
correctly, the vowel that the learner will produce will be more accurate, thus
suggesting a link between perception and production in the learning of vowels.
Consequently, there are several studies that demonstrate a relation between
perception and production, and the way the two capacities may work which are worth
considering for the future of language research.

2.5 Implications for teaching and learning pronunciation

There are two main ways in which pronunciation of English as a second language is
taught nowadays. One way is the analytic-imitative approach which depends on the
learner’s ability to imitate rhythm and sounds and relies on the availability of media
resources with pronunciation models. A second way is the analytic-linguistic
approach, which uses information and tools such as phonetic alphabet, articulatory
descriptions, among others (Celce-Murcia, Brinton & Goodwin, 1996). These two
approaches are meant to complement each other in the teaching of pronunciation.
In the following paragraphs some of the most relevant approaches to teach
pronunciation will be revised, excluding those approaches that did not consider
pronunciation as relevant as grammatical accuracy or listening comprehension such
as the grammar translation method and the reading-based method.

An important contribution to the pronunciation aspect of the language was made by

the creation of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) in 1886. It is thought that
this so called reform movement started by the International Phonetic association led
to the creation of Audiolingualism and of the Oral Approach between the 1940s and
1950s. These two approaches had in common the importance and detailed
instruction of pronunciation and the use of aids such as the IPA and similar
resources. From these approaches it is important to rescue the importance given to
minimal pair drills in the lessons. During the 60s the focus on cognitive psychology
led to the development of the Cognitive Approach which viewed language as rule-
23
governed behaviour. This approach, like some others, did not give pronunciation an
important position, based on the argument that pronunciation mistakes were a
normal part of the language learning process and that with time these mistakes will
be automatically corrected as the learners’ proficiency increases.

During the 1970s two methods considered pronunciation in different ways, one of
them was the Silent way. This approach relied on the student's ability to develop
their pronunciation skill from the instructions given by the teacher. The instructions
were not oral, as the name of the approach suggests, but relied on articulatory
demonstration and several charts and tools to teach pronunciation with little oral
input from the teacher. The other approach from this period was the Community
language learning which relied on tape recorders and a teacher who acts as model
of the correct pronunciation. This method uses mainly repetition and drill based on
the requirements of the learner.

Currently the Communicative approach dominates language teaching. This method

created on the 80s brought renewed importance to pronunciation, focusing on
communication as the core of every lesson. Nowadays the language teaching lesson
has a communicative focus as suggested during the 80s, giving more importance to
pronunciation at both segmental and suprasegmental levels. However, according to
Levis (2006), language teaching nowadays does not consider some important
aspects of pronunciation that have been studied in recent research (Levis, 2016). In
his article he suggested that “High Variability Phonetic Training” is not properly
adapted to be applied in the language teaching classroom. He analyses the
importance of perceptual training based on the premise that an improved perception
leads to an improved production (Lambacher, Martens, Kakehi, Marasinghe &
Molhot, 2005) as discussed on the perception and production link in this thesis. Levis
emphasizes the importance of including ‘multiple talkers’ from the same dialect but
with different genders and varied voice qualities, or from different dialects also
including native and non-native speakers.

Considering the evidence provided by all these studies, to be on the right track to
teach pronunciation, classes need to include input from various speakers of different

24
gender, perceptual and production training and feedback. Ultimately, perceptual
training has proved to be beneficial for L2 learners.

2.6 Training to improve vowel perception

There is evidence of the efficacy of training at the moment of learning new L2

sounds. For example, training Japanese adults (which are similar to Spanish
speakers in terms of the number of vowels in their mother-tongue vowel system) on
English vowels improved their performance by 25 percentage points in a vowel
recognition test (Lambacher, Martens, Kakehi, Marasinghe & Molhot, 2005). There
is also the evidence provided by Iverson and Evans (2007) about the improvement
made by L1 German and Spanish speakers after auditory training for English vowels.
In their study they concluded that even if German improved more, Spanish speakers
also improved their vowel identification skills. Furthermore, both groups (German
and Spanish L1 speakers) were able to retain what was learned in the training.

Cenoz and Garcia-Lecumberri (1999) also tested the improvement made by Spanish
and Basque L1 speakers, all of them university students, after training in terms of
English vowel perception. The mean obtained after a few hours of training was 6.6
points higher than the mean obtained before training. Their study also showed that
the difficult sounds were the ones that presented the most important improvements,
being this finding of great pedagogical relevance because it provides evidence of
the positive effects of training on students.

Nishi and Kewley-Port (2007) suggested that training on larger sets is more effective
overall than concentrating on only the most difficult vowels. According to Iverson and
Evans (2009), with training, a subject can apply their vowel category knowledge to
natural variable speech without changing their knowledge, making the categorization
process more efficient and long lasting. In the same paper, they suggested that an
efficient training should have highly variable stimulus sets, because this way the
process of applying categories to real speech is trained. In the same line, the use of
High Variability Phonetic Training (HVPT) has been proved to be highly efficient on

25
training perception of English sounds (Thompson, 2012). This kind of training is
relevant because it provides the learner a variety of stimuli including a wide scope
of natural speech produced by speakers differing in gender, dialect, voice quality,
etc. In his study, Thompson tested learners of English with Mandarin as their L1. The
use of a computer based training combined with HVPT allowed the participants to
improve their perceptual ability and also maintain it through time.

With this evidence in mind it can be concluded that there are great benefits in training
speech perception. It can be also assumed that these benefits can be increased with
the use of computer based training (Thompson, 2012) considering that the new
generations are born surrounded by technology. This kind of training offers the
teacher the possibility to focus on specific problems, help students with different
capacities and provide accurate and effective feedback. These are two essential
learner’s needs that teachers can not normally cater for in the classroom.

Summary

Several factors have been presented in this chapter that affect a learner’s perception
of speech and more specifically of the English vowels. These factors are linked with
a variety of aspects of learning experience and to different skills such as learner’s
ability to discern minimal pairs or their English proficiency level. As a whole, the
umbrella term that covers the perception of vowels and the factors affecting it in the
classroom is pronunciation.

Pronunciation has an important role in every English as a second language

classrooms nowadays. However, there is a lack of perceptual training material that
could be beneficial for learners and teachers. As discussed in the previous section,
training perception allows teachers to address specific problems in pronunciation
and helps them to identify individual differences and plan accordingly. By doing so
not only the learners will be able to recognize and identify English vowels better but
will also be able to produce speech more accurately. This can be explained by the
relation between perception and production.

26
Furthermore, the relation between perception and production is a matter of
discussion and research as suggested previously in this chapter. It is for this reason
that problems regarding perception and production need to be addressed in Chilean
classrooms. By doing so, students could improve their pronunciation skill as a whole.
Then again, the solution comes in the form of training. Specifically, listening training
with a variety of input that could also allow the student to practice their perceptual
ability and, as a next stage, to practice their production.

Finally, future research on this matter could focus on clarifying the relation between
perception and production, and to link the different challenges in perception of L2
sounds with non-linguistic factors such as the number of students per classroom, the
material available for training and teaching in general, and the use of technology in
in the EFL classroom.

27
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

The purpose of the present thesis was to find some influential factors that may affect
the perception of English vowels in advanced learners of English as a second
language. In this section the methodology used in this thesis is presented, including
the participants tested and the testing material applied.

3.1 Participants

The participants of this thesis were 17 fourth-year students of the English Teacher
Training Program at Universidad de Concepción (7 male and 10 female). All the
participants were tested in a computer’s lab in this institution. No hearing problems
were reported.

3.2 Testing Material

3.2.1 Language proficiency test

To obtain a general measure of the participants’ level of English according to the

Common European Framework of Language Learning (CEF), an online proficiency
test was applied to the participants. It consisted of 50 general grammar and
vocabulary items, allowing the participants to know their results immediately after
the application of this test informed in the Englishtag website. (Deluskanon S.L., n.d.)

28
 Fig. 3.1 Proficiency Test. Retrieved from Englishtag.com

3.2.2 Listening Test

To determine the ability to discern minimal pairs, the Oxford Placement Test 2 (Alan,
1992) was applied to the participants, in order to measure their listening capacity.
This test consisted of 100 sentences. All the participants were given this test after
the Vowel Identification Test. A percentage was calculated based on the number of
correct answers per participant.

e.g. Will you get some soap/soup at the supermarket?

The team need new shirts/shorts.

29
3.2.3 Vowel Identification Test

Stimulus

In this test, a set of 84 audios of 11 vowels of English (/æ/, /ʌ/, /ɑ:/, /ɪ/, /i:/, /e/, /ɜ:/,
/ɒ/, /ɔ:/, /ʊ/, /u:/) in the context of /bVt/ or /hVd/ words were used. Non-words were
not included in the list (e.g. a word with the pronunciation /bʊt/ was not found). These
audios were recorded at University College London by two female and two male
speakers of Standard Southern British English (Pereira Reyes, 2013). Another list of
words containing the same 11 English vowels was recorded by a native female
speaker of English with the same accent to be used as examples in the practice
phase. For this, 11 words from Well’s (1982) lexical sets were used. The audio files
were obtained using a digital recorder (Philips voice tracer DVT2700) and then
presented in the Vowel Identification Test using the “TP - Perception Tests /
Perceptions Training Tasks” software. (Rauber, 2013). Results are stored in an
Excel document which can only be accessed by the researcher.

Fig. 3.2 Vowel Identification Test.

30
Procedure

For this test the participants were presented with 95 audio files of 5 speakers saying
words that contained the 11 English vowels chosen. The words were randomized by
the software. Once the audio was presented, 11 response buttons were shown on a
computer screen with one-syllable words. These response buttons used words
containing the English vowels being tested (cat, cup, card, sit, pet, seat, word, pot,
caught, put, food). A practice phase was given to the participants before the main
test. The participants took from 10 to 30 minutes to complete the test. The
participants did not receive any feedback on their answers.

Fig. 3.3 Response buttons in the Vowel Identification Test.

31
 Fig. 3.4 End of the Vowel Identification Test.

3.3 Survey

Apart from the tests given to the participants, an online survey (appendix 7.5) was
applied to this group, covering aspects of the participants’ experience with the
language, some items on their motivation for learning English and the habits they
have regarding English input. The participants received a link to this survey through
email and filled it in before taking the tests.

3.4 Statistical Analysis

For the statistical analysis and graphs, SPSS software (23rd version) was used.
Pearson-moment correlations were run between the vowel identification test and the
listening test, the vowel identification test and the proficiency test, the vowel
identification test and listening input, and finally the vowel identification test and the

32
self-assessment as measured in the survey. Additionally, a Repeated-measures
ANOVA was run for the results of the Vowel Identification Test. A T-test was run in
order to compare the results of the different vowels. Finally, the resulting data from
the test was tabulated in a confusion matrix for their analysis.

33
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

In this chapter, the results of the statistical analysis run for the data are presented.
IBM SPSS statistics analysis software (v23) was used (see 3.3). In the first section,
the general results from the different tests are shown. After that, there are specific
analysis which are relevant for the present thesis.

4.1 General results

4.1.1 Vowel Identification Test

To measure the participants’ vowel identification capacity a vowel identification test

was used. The group overall mean in the vowel identification test was 58.37 (SD
9.77). The results ranged from the lowest score (40.18) to the highest score (81.85).

Fig. 4.1 shows boxplots for the perception of 11 English vowels used in the Vowel Test.

34
In a more specific analysis, table 4.1 shows the mean results per vowel in the vowel
identification test, and also the highest and lowest scores per vowel. The highest
score was 74.88 for the /iː/ vowel, and the lowest score was 31.73 for the /ʊ/ vowel.

Vowel Mean Score Lowest Score Highest Score

/iː/ tense 74.88 33 100

/ɪ/ lax 66.44 00 100

/e/ lax 71.86 47.10 88.90

/ɜː/ tense 58.03 00 100

/æ/ lax 49.72 12.50 100

/ʌ/ lax 45.35 00 100

/ɑː/ tense 51.78 23.10 85.70

/ɒ/ lax 64.97 00 100

/ɔː/ tense 61.32 16.70 100

/ʊ/ lax 31.73 00 100

/uː/ tense 65.94 10 100

FRONT

CENTRAL

BACK

Table 4.1 shows the mean score per vowel and the highest and lowest scores, including tense-lax
distinction and their articulatory position.

35
Additionally, in order to find whether there was any significant difference between
the tense-lax pairs, a one-sample T-test was used for all the pairs of vowels (Table
4.2). Only the vowels /ʊ/ and /u:/ showed a significant difference (p < 0.05)

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences
95%
Confidence
Std. Interval of the
Error Difference Sig. (2-
PAIRS Mean SD Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
SEAT - SIT 8,44 19,63 4,76 -1,65 18,54 1,77 16 ,095
PET - WORD 13,82 29,07 7,05 -1,12 28,78 1,96 16 ,067
CAT - CUP 4,37 28,34 6,87 -10,20 18,94 ,64 16 ,534
CAT - CARD -2,06 28,77 6,98 -16,85 12,73 -,30 16 ,771
CUP - CARD -6,44 22,13 5,37 -17,81 4,94 -1,20 16 ,248
POT - CAUGHT 3,65 26,51 6,43 -9,98 17,28 ,57 16 ,578
PUT - FOOD -34,21 39,98 9,70 -54,76 -13,65 -3,52 16 ,003

Table 4.2 shows a T-test analysis between pairs of vowels, and their differences regarding tense-
lax and/or lax-lax distinctions.

36
4.1.2 Listening Test

To measure the participants’ listening capacity, a listening test was applied to them.
The test had 100 items, the scores were transformed into percentages (1 percentage
point per item). The group overall mean in the listening test was 78.18 % (SD 8.73).
11 participants were above the mean. The highest score reported was 91% and the
lowest score was 59%.

Fig.4.2 Graph shows variability and individual performance in the listening test.

37
4.1.3 Language proficiency test

To know the participants’ level of English, a language proficiency test was applied.
The test had 50 items, each item was given a point and scores were transformed
into percentages. The group overall mean was 90.12 (SD 8.73), with the majority of
participants being above the mean. The highest score was 98% and the lowest score
was 76%.

Fig. 4.3 graph shows variability and individual performance in the English proficiency test.

38
4.1.4 Survey

To gather information about habits regarding use of English and listening, a survey
was given to participants. From a general point of view, most of the participants use
their English more than an hour outside classes on an average day.

Fig. 4.4 shows the amount of hours participants use English outside classes on an average day.

Considering participants’ listening skills, all the participants use them for fun. In terms
of improving their level of English and also teaching, most of the participants use
their listening skills at least once a week.

Fig. 4.5 shows the participants’ use of listening skills.

39
As for participant’s self-assessment on the basic skills: speaking, reading, writing
and listening, results show a different evaluation depending on the skill. Specifically,
in terms of listening, participants expressed their self-assessment with the highest
scores.

Fig. 4.6 shows the participants’ self-assessment considering speaking, reading, writing and
listening.

Considering what participants do to improve their pronunciation, the most popular

activity was the use of some kind of drilling practice to improve pronunciation. Other
activities reported are speaking and use of dictionaries to check pronunciation. The
least frequent activity was listening to media to practice (audio-visual or audio).

Listen to media

21% 17%
Look up phonemic
transcription
21% Drilling

41%
Speaking with
others

Fig. 4.7 shows the activities participants do to improve pronunciation.

40
As for participants’ strategies to learn the pronunciation of words, the preferred
strategies were listen and repeat and use of dictionaries to check pronunciation.
There was also a considerable amount of participants reporting they do not have any
strategy to learn the pronunciation of new words.

No strategy

32% 27%
Look up phonemic
transcription
Speaking (saying
out loud)
14% 27% Listen and repeat

Fig. 4.8 shows the strategies to learn pronunciation of words.

41
4.2 Specific results

4.2.1 Confusions in the perception of English vowels

The most common confusions in the perception of English vowels were between the
tense and lax vowels. Table 4.3 shows a selection of the first and second most
common confusions (in columns) observed in this test.

Vowel % Most % 2nd most %

common common
confusion confusion
/i:/ 69.9% /i/ 27.9% /e/ 2.2%
/i/ 67.6% /i:/ 20.6% /e/ 11.8%
/e/ 83.1% /æ/ 6.6% /ɑː/ 4.4%
/ɜː/ 53.7% /e/ 19.1% /æ/ 8.8%
/æ/ 44.1% /ʌ/ 30.9% /ɑː/ 23.5%
/ʌ/ 46.3% /ɑː/ 20.6% /æ/ 14%
/ɑː/ 59.6% /ʌ/ 15.4% /æ/ 11.8%
/ɔː/ 55.9% /ɜː/ 23.5% /ɒ/ 16.9%
/ɒ/ 59.6% /ɔː/ 26.5% /ʌ/ 5.1%
/ʊ/ 35.3% /uː/ 52.9% /ʌ/ 2.9%
/uː/ 67.6% /ʊ/ 26.5% /ʌ/ 2.2%

Table 4.3 shows the most common confusions in the Vowel Identification Test.

42
4.2.2 Correlations

Vowel identification test and listening test

To find whether there was any relation between the participants’ capacity to perceive
English Vowels (M 58.3, SD 9.8) and their listening capacity as tested in the listening
test (M 78.2, SD 8.7) a Pearson-moment correlation test was run. Results showed
there was a moderate correlation between English vowel perception capacity and
listening for minimal pairs capacity: r: .565*, N: 17, p<0.05.

Fig. 4.9 shows a scatter plot for Pearson-moment correlation test between English Vowel
identification test and the Listening for minimal pairs test.

43
Vowel identification test and language proficiency test

To find whether there was a relation between the vowel identification test (M 58.3,
SD 9.8) and the language proficiency test (M 90.12, SD 6.9), a Pearson moment
correlation test was run. Results showed there was no significant correlation
between participant’s vowel identification capacity and the participant’s level of
English: r: .324, N: 17, p > 0.05.

Fig. 4.10 shows a scatter plot for Pearson-moment correlation test between English Vowel
identification test and the language proficiency test.

44
Vowel identification test and listening input

A Pearson moment correlation test was run between the results from the Vowel
identification test (M 58.3, SD 9.8) and the results from the survey regarding the
participant’s listening input (M 80, SD 10) (4.3). The Listening input was calculated
by transforming the scores for the frequency of use of their English for listening into
percentages (5 = 100%, 4 = 80%, 3 = 60%, 2 = 40%, and 1= 20%). Results showed
there was no significant correlation between participant’s vowel identification
capacity and the participant’s listening input: r: .126, N: 17, p > 0.05.

Fig. 4.11 shows a scatter plot for Pearson-moment correlation test between English Vowel
identification test and the participant’s listening input.

45
Vowel identification test and participants’ self-assessment

A Pearson moment correlation test was run between the results from the Vowel
identification test (M 58.3, SD 9.8) and the results from the survey regarding the
participant’s self-assessment (PSA) of their level of English (M 82.6, SD 9.7). PSA
was calculated by transforming the scores for the participants’ self-assessment of
their skills into percentages (5 = 100%, 4 = 80%, 3 = 60%, 2 = 40%, and 1= 20%).
Results showed there was no significant correlation between participant’s vowel
identification capacity and the participant’s self-assessment: r: .204, N: 17, p > 0.05.

Fig. 4.12 shows a scatter plot for Pearson-moment correlation test between English Vowel
identification test and the participant’s self-assessment.

46
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION

From a general point of view, the resulting data from the vowel identification test
(VIT) showed that the majority of participants obtained an overall score above the
group mean. Considering that the participants are advanced learners of English, this
finding is in line with Cebrian’s study (2006) which suggested that the vowel
categorization capacity improves with exposure to the target language.

From a more specific point of view, the analysis of the data from VIT regarding the
difference between the identification of tense and lax vowels showed that tense
vowels were apparently easier to perceive. Participants obtained a higher score for
these vowels. It may be argued that duration seems to have an impact on the
perception of English vowels, showing that lax vowels with shorter duration seem to
be harder to perceive. These results are similar to findings in previous studies
showing that duration is an important cue when perceiving English vowels (Cebrian
1991; Iverson and Evans 2007).

Additionally, the analysis of the VIT’s results showed the most common confusions
between vowels. Minimal pairs of vowels (tense-lax pairs) were the most difficult to
discern. This finding is in line with Flege’s Speech Learning Model (1995), which
suggested that L2 vowels that are similar to the L1 sounds will be troublesome to
recognize. Some other studies have also predicted this outcome (Escudero &
Boersma, 2004; Flege et al., 1997; Iverson & Evans, 2007)

The main objective of this thesis was to find the relation between different factors
(linguistic and non-linguistic) with the capacity to perceive English vowels. For this
purpose the results from the VIT and from the Listening test were analysed. The
analysis showed that there is a relation between the participants’ listening capacity
and their vowel identification capacity. This result is in agreement with previous
studies regarding the importance of listening capacity as a predictor for language
proficiency level (Iverson & Evans, 2007; Feyten, 1991). More important, these
results suggest the influence that the listening skill may have on the perception of
English vowels.

47
Regarding the relation between language proficiency and vowel identification
capacity measured by VIT, no relation was found, unlike in Feyten’s study (1991)
which suggested that the general listening skill was related with the general
proficiency level of English as an L2.

Regarding more qualitative data, the results from the survey provided two variables
to test as factors that may have an impact on the perception of English vowels. The
first one is the amount of time the participants spend listening to English (Listening
input). The data showed no relation between this factor and the capacity to identify
English vowels. It might be the case that someone who spends more time listening
to English does so because he/she thinks needs more input. Additionally, this person
may have low scores in the VIT. Thus, the correlation analysis would not show a
direct relation. It could be worth adding an extra question to find out the motivation
behind the amount of hours spent on listening then.

A similar case was found for the analysis of the self-assessment of the participants’
English skills (Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing) and the possible relation
with the vowel identification capacity. The lack of relation between these two
capacities may suggest that Dörnyei’s (2005) Motivational Self-system has no
implication regarding motivation and vowel perception capacity for this group of
participants. However, from this item of the survey it can be concluded that their
listening capacity plays an important role on their self-evaluation. The majority of
participants declared to feel confident about their listening skill and that they
understand spoken English fluently.

Finally, when participants were asked about the strategies they use to learn
pronunciation and what activities they do for this purpose, most of participants
mentioned they use some sort of drilling or repeating exercise. This evidence is in
line with the “auditory sensorimotor adaptation” phenomena as proposed by
Villacorta et al (2007). This phenomena could explain the preference of the
participants to repeat and drill new words in order to improve their pronunciation.

In the future, the importance of the perception of English vowels and listening
capacity for minimal pairs could be considered in the creation of future English

48
curriculum for Chilean classrooms. The results of this study could be used for the
creation and design of training material using a computer based platform with high
variability input (stimulus) and could be beneficial for teachers and students when
aiming at improving English pronunciation. More research on this topic is needed.

49
VI. REFERENCES

Allan, D. (1996). Oxford Placement Test 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W.

Strange, Speech perception and linguistic experience: issues in cross-language

research (pp. 171-204). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Non-native and second-language speech

perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Munro, J. & Bohn, O-S. (Eds.),

Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech

perception and production. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 13-34.

Casserly, E. D., & Pisoni, D. B. (2010, 07). Speech perception and production. Wiley

Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(5), 629-647. doi:10.1002/wcs.63

Cebrian, J. (2006, 07). Experience and the use of non-native duration in L2 vowel

categorization. Journal of Phonetics, 34(3), 372-387.

doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2005.08.003

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching pronunciation:

A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge

University Press.

50
Cenoz, J., & Lecumberri, L. G. (1999). The Effect of Training on the Discrimination

of English Vowels. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language

Teaching, 37(4). doi:10.1515/iral.1999.37.4.261

Denes, P., & Pinson, E. (1963). The Speech Chain. Garden City, NY: Anchor

Press/Doubleday.

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005, 09). Second Language Accent and

Pronunciation Teaching: A Research-Based Approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3),

379. Doi: 10.2307/3588486

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in

Second language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Escudero, P., & Boersma, P. (2004, 12). Bridging the Gap between L2 Speech

Perception Research and Phonological Theory. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 26(04). Doi: 10.1017/s0272263104040021

Feyten, C. M. (1991). The Power of Listening Ability: An Overlooked Dimension in

Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 75(2), 173. Doi:

10.2307/328825

51
Figuereido, Rauber, Rato & Santos (2013).(version 3.1) [Software], : Worken.

Retrieved from: http://www.worken.com.br/tp_regfree.php?I=e .

Flege, J., (1995). "Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and

problems". In Winifred Strange. Speech perception and linguistic experience:

Theoretical and methodological issues. Baltimore: York Press. pp. 233–277.

Flege, J. E., Bohn, O., & Jang, S. (1997, 10). Effects of experience on non-native

speakers' production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25(4),

437-470. doi:10.1006/jpho.1997.0052

Gardner, R. C. (2007, June 01). Motivation and second language acquisition.

Retrieved May 22, 2017, from http://hdl.handle.net/10481/31616

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second-language

acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Comedienne De Psychologies,

13(4), 266-272. DOI: 10.1037/h0083787

Gilman, R. A., & Moody, R. L. (1984, 09). What Practitioners Say About Listening:

Research Implications for the Classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 17(4), 331-334.

doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb03236.x

Hattori, K., & Iverson, P. (2010). Examination of the Relationship between L2

Perception and Production: An Investigation of English/r/-/l/Perception and

52
Production by Adult Japanese Speakers. In Interspeech workshop on Second

Language Studies: Acquisition, Learning, Education and Technology, 3–6. Retrieved

from http://www.gavo.t.utokyo.ac.jp/L2WS2010/papers/L2WS2010_P2-04.pdf

Hilgard, E. R., R. L. Atkinson & R. C. Atkinson. (1979). Introduction to Psychology.

7 ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

th

Iverson, P., & Evans, B. G. (2009, 08). Learning English vowels with different first

language vowel systems II: Auditory training for native Spanish and German

speakers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(2), 866-877.

doi:10.1121/1.3148196

Iverson, P., & Evans, B. G. (2007). Learning English vowels with different first-

language vowel systems: Perception of formant targets, formant movement, and

duration. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(5), 2842.

doi:10.1121/1.2783198

Lambacher, S. G., Martens, W. L., Kakehi, K., Marasinghe, C. A., & Molholt, G.

(2005, 04). The effects of identification training on the identification and production

of American English vowels by native speakers of Japanese. Applied

Psycholinguistics, 26(02). Doi: 10.1017/s0142716405050150

53
Lane, H., & Tranel, B. (1971, 12). The Lombard Sign and the Role of Hearing in

Speech. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 14(4), 677.

doi:10.1044/jshr.1404.677

Levis, J. M. (2006). Pronunciation and the assessment of spoken language. In

Spoken English, TESOL and applied linguistics (pp. 245-270). Palgrave Macmillan

UK.

Levis, J. M., Sonsaat, S., Link, S., & Barriuso, T. A. (2016). Native and nonnative

teachers of L2 pronunciation: Effects on learner performance. Tesol Quarterly, 50(4),

894-931.

Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory.

Speech Production and Speech Modelling, 403-439. Doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-

2037-8_16

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-

969. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.41.9.954

Morley, J. (1994). Pronunciation pedagogy and theory: New views, new directions.

Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

54
N., & Guasti Maria, T. (n.d.). Focus-Stress Alignment and its Consequences for

Acquisition. Retrieved May 22, 2017, from

https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.1418/7558

Nespor, M., & Guasti, M. T. (2002). Focus-stress alignment and its consequences

for acquisition. Lingue e linguaggio, 1(1), 79-196.

Nishi, K., & Kewley-Port, D. (2007, 12). Training Japanese Listeners to Perceive

American English Vowels: Influence of Training Sets. Journal of Speech Language

and Hearing Research, 50(6), 1496. Doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/103)

Okuno, T., & Hardison, D. M. (2016). Perception-Production Link in L2 Japanese

Vowel Duration: Training with Technology, 20(2), 61–80.

Pardo, J. S. (2006, 04). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction.

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(4), 2382-2393.

doi:10.1121/1.2178720

Pereira, Y., & Hazan, V. (2013). Impact of different training modes on the perception

and production of English vowels by L2 learners. New Sounds, 17-19.

55
Smith, B. L., & Hayes-Harb R. (2008). Speech Production and Speech Perception

Findings for Native German Speakers Learning English as a Second Language.

University of Utah. Salt Lake City. UT.

Stuart, A., Kalinowski, J., Rastatter, M. P., Saltuklaroglu, T., & Dayalu, V. (2004, 01).

Investigations of the impact of altered auditory feedback in‐the‐ear devices on the

speech of people who stutter: Initial fitting and 4‐month follow‐up. International

Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 39(1), 93-113. Doi:

10.1080/13682820310001616976

Thomson, R. I. (2012). Improving L2 listeners’ perception of English vowels: a

computer‐mediated approach. Language Learning, 62(4), 1231-1258.

Villacorta, V. M., Perkell, J. S., & Guenther, F. H. (2007, 10). Sensorimotor

adaptation to feedback perturbations of vowel acoustics and its relation to

perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(4), 2306-2319.

doi:10.1121/1.2773966

56
VII. APPENDIX

7.1 List of lexical items used in the vowel identification test

Practice Stage

 Dress
 Fleece
 Foot
 Force
 Goose
 Kit
 Lot
 Nurse
 Start
 Strut
 Trap

Test

 Bart
 Bat
 Beet
 Bert
 Bet
 Bit
 Boot
 Bot
 Bought
 Butt
 Had

57
 Hard
 Head
 Heard
 Heed
 Hid
 Hoard
 Hod
 Hood
 Hudd
 Who’d

58
7.2 List of audio files used in the vowel identification test

Practice stage

 Dress_SSO_1.wav
 Fleece_SSO_1.wav
 Foot_SSO_1.wav
 Force_SSO_1.wav
 Goose_SSO_1.wav
 Kit_SSO_1.wav
 Lot_SSO_1.wav
 Nurse_SSO_1.wav
 Start_SSO_1.wav
 Strut_SSO_1.wav
 Trap_SSO_1.wav

Test

 Bart2f2.wav
 Bart3_m1.wav
 Bart4f1.wav
 Bart4m2.wav
 bat1f1.wav
 bat2f2.wav
 bat2_m1.wav
 bat3m2.wav
 beet1m2.wav
 beet4f1.wav
 beet4f2.wav
 beet4_m1.wav
 Bert1f1.wav

59
 Bert1f2.wav
 Bert2m2.wav
 Bert2_m1.wav
 bet1f2.wav
 bet1_m1.wav
 bet2m2.wav
 bet3f1.wav
 bit1f1.wav
 bit1m2.wav
 bit4f2.wav
 bit_m1.wav
 boot2f2.wav
 boot3f1.wav
 boot3m2.wav
 boot3_m1.wav
 bot1_m1.wav
 bot3f1.wav
 bot4f2.wav
 bot4m2.wav
 bought1f1.wav
 bought1_m1.wav
 bought2m2.wav
 bought3f2.wav
 butt1f1.wav
 butt1m2.wav
 butt1_m1.wav
 butt4f2.wav
 had1f1.wav
 had3f2.wav
 had3_m1.wav

60
 had4m2.wav
 hard1f1.wav
 hard1f2.wav
 hard1m2.wav
 hard1_m1.wav
 head1f2.wav
 head3f1.wav
 head3m2.wav
 head3_m1.wav
 heard2f1.wav
 heard2_m1.wav
 heard3m2.wav
 heard4f2.wav
 heed2f2.wav
 heed3f1.wav
 heed3_m1.wav
 heed5m2.wav
 hid1_m1.wav

61
7.3 Results per participant

LEVEL: Language Proficiency Test

LISTENING: Listening Test
VOWEL_TOTAL: Vowel Identification Test
LISTENING_INPUT: Listening Input
SELF_ASSESSMENT: Self-assessment

62
7.4 Individual results per stimuli in the vowel identification test

63
7.5 Survey

64
65
66
67
7.6 Listening Test

68
69
70
71
7.7 List of participants
N° Participant Code
1 F1
2 F2
3 F4
4 F5
5 F6
6 F7
7 F8
8 F9
9 F10
10 F11
11 M1
12 M2
13 M4
14 M5
15 M7
16 M8
17 M9

72
7.8 Poster Presented at RICELT 2017

73