Article published in:
Vol. 17:2 (2019) ► pp. 249268


Adams-Goertel, R.
(2013) Prosodic elements to improve pronunciation in English language learners: A short report. Applied Research on English Language, 2, 117–128.Google Scholar
Aquil, R.
(2012) Listening to English connected speech: A problem and solutions. Arab World English Journal, 3, 329–364.Google Scholar
Bailey, K.
(1999) Speaking: A critical skill and a challenge. Calico Journal, 16(3), 277–293.Google Scholar
Bissiri, M. P., & Pfitzinger, H. R.
(2009) Italian speakers learn lexical stress of German morphologically complex words. Speech Communication, 51, 933–947. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., & Yule, G.
(1983) Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cebrian, J., & Carlet, A.
(2014) Second-language learners’ identification of target-language phonemes: a short-term phonetic training study. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(4), 474–499. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M.; Brinton, D. M.; Goodwin, J. M. & Griner, B.
(2010) Teaching Pronunciation: A Course Book and Reference Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J.
(2009) Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles in communication. Language Teaching, 42, 476–490. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Diepenbroek, L. G. & Foote, J. A.
(2012) How well do general-skills ESL textbooks address pronunciation? TESL Canada Journal, 30, 22–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G.
(1998) Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48 (3), 393–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D., & Tagg, T.
(1998) Students’ views of academic aural/oral skills: A comparative needs analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 289–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gómez Lacabex, E., & del Puerto, F. G.
(2014) Two phonetic-training procedures for young learners: Investigating instructional effects on perceptual awareness. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(4), 500–531. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C.
(2015) Suprasegmentals. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 23. Oxford: Elsevier, 714–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M.
(2007) Phonological characteristics of Farsi speakers of English and L1 Australian English speakers’ perception of proficiency. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Linguistics, Curtin University.Google Scholar
Hardison, D. M.
(2004) Generalization of computer assisted prosody training: Quantitative and qualitative findings. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 34–52.Google Scholar
He, X., Heuven, V. J. van & Gussenhoven, C.
(2012) The selection of intonation contours by Chinese L2 speakers of Dutch: Orthographic closure vs. prosodic knowledge. Second Language Research, 28, 283–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heuven, V. J. van
(2017) Prosody and sentence type in Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 22, 3–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Making sense of strange sounds: (mutual) intelligibility of related language varieties. A review. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 2, 39–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heuven, V. J. van
(1994) Introducing prosodic phonetics. In C. Odé & V. J. van Heuven (Eds.), Experimental studies of Indonesian prosody. Semaian 9. Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië, Leiden University, 1–26.Google Scholar
Hirose, K.
(2004) Accent type recognition of Japanese using perceived mora pitch values and its use for pronunciation training system. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages (TAL), Beijing, 77–80. Retrieved from http://​www​.isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/tal2004​/papers​/tal4​_077​.pdf
Hirschfeld, U. & Trouvain, J.
(2007) Teaching prosody in German as foreign language. In J. Trouvain & U. Gut (Eds.), Non-native prosody. Phonetic description and teaching practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 171–189.Google Scholar
Levelt, W.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A.
(2006) Spoken discourse, academics and global English: A corpus perspective. In R. Huges (Ed.), Spoken English, TESOL and applied linguistics (pp. 143–158). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Missaglia, F.
(1999) Contrastive prosody in SLA – An empirical study with adult Italian learners of German. Proceedings of the 14th Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1, 551–554.Google Scholar
Nagano, K., & Ozawa, K.
(1990) English speech training using voice conversion. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 90), Kobe, 1169–1172.Google Scholar
Nicolosi, L., Harryman, E., & Keresheck, J.
(1989) Terminology of communication disorders. Baltimore, MD: William & Wilkins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nooteboom, S. G.
(1997) “The Prosody of Speech: Melody and Rhythm.” In The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, edited by W. J. Hardcastle and J. Laver, 640–673. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S. G. & Doodeman, G. J. N.
(1984) Speech quality and the gating paradigm. In M. P. R. van den Broecke & A. Cohen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Dordrecht: Foris, 481–485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pike, K. L.
(1945) The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Saito, K.; Trofimovich, P. & Isaacs, T.
(2016) Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 217–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Samareh, Y.
(1986) Phonology of Farsi language. Tehran: Markaz e Nashre Daneshgahi.Google Scholar
Shademan, S.
(2002) Epenthetic vowel harmony in Farsi. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Su, C.-Y. & Tseng, C.-Y.
(2015) A phonetics-based computer aided prosody training system for L2 English learning. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow. Retrieved from https://​www​.internationalphoneticassociation​.org​/icphs​-proceedings​/ICPhS2015​/Papers​/ICPHS0536​.pdf
Sundström, A.
(1998) Automatic prosody modification as a means for foreign language pronunciation training. Proceedings of an ISCA Workshop on Speech Technology in Language Learning (STILL 98), Marholmen, 49–52.Google Scholar
Turk, A. E., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S.
(2007) Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. Journal of Phonetics, 35(4), 445–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ur, P.
(1996) A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ueno, N.
(1998) Teaching English pronunciation to Japanese English majors: A comparison of a suprasegmental-oriented and a segmental-oriented teaching approach. JACET Bulletin, 29, 207–225.Google Scholar
Wang, H., Zhu, L., Li, X. & Heuven, V. J. van
(2011) Relative importance of tone and segments for the intelligibility of Mandarin and Cantonese. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong, 2090–2093.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, G.
(1979) Persian grammar: History and state of its study. The Hague, Paris and New York: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yates, K.
(2003) Teaching linguistic mimicry to improve second language pronunciation (Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton).Google Scholar
Yenkimaleki, M.
(2016) Why prosody awareness training is necessary for training future interpreters. Journal of Education and human development, 5, 256–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Effect of prosody awareness training on the quality of consecutive interpreting between English and Farsi. LOT: Utrecht.Google Scholar
Yenkimaleki, M. & Heuven, V. J. van
(2013) Prosodic feature awareness training in interpreting: An experimental study. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Education, Research and Innovation, November 18–20, 2013, Seville, 4179–4188.Google Scholar
(2016a) Effect of explicit teaching of prosodic features on the development of listening comprehension by Farsi-English interpreter trainees: An experimental study. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 4, 32–41.Google Scholar
(2016b) The effect of prosody teaching on developing word recognition skills for interpreter trainees: An experimental study. Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 7, 1101–1107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016c) Prosody teaching matters in developing speaking skills for Farsi-English interpreter trainees: An experimental study. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 4, 82–91.Google Scholar
(2016d) Effect of prosody awareness training on the performance of consecutive interpretation from Farsi into English: An experimental study. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies, 1–17.Google Scholar
(2018) The effect of teaching prosody teaching on interpreting performance: An experimental study of consecutive interpreting from English into Farsi. Perspectives: Studies in translatology, 26, 84–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) The relative contribution of computer assisted prosody training vs. instructor-based prosody teaching in developing speaking skills by interpreter trainees: an experimental study. Speech Communication, 107, 48–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Yenkimaleki, Mahmood & Vincent J. van Heuven
2021. Effects of attention to segmental vs. suprasegmental features on the speech intelligibility and comprehensibility of the EFL learners targeting the perception or production-focused practice. System 100  pp. 102557 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 january 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.