Article published In:
FORUMVol. 17:2 (2019) ► pp.249–268
Explicit teaching of segmentals versus suprasegmentals in developing speaking skills by interpreter trainees
An experimental study
The present study investigates the effect of explicit teaching of segmentals and suprasegmentals in developing speaking
skills for Farsi-English interpreter trainees. Three groups of student interpreters were formed. All were native speakers of Farsi who
studied English translation and interpreting at the BA level at the University of Applied Sciences in Tehran, Iran. Participants were
assigned to groups at random, but with equal division between genders (7 female and 7 male students in each group). No significant
differences in English language skills (TOEFL scores) could be established between the groups prior to the experiment. Participants took a
pretest of speaking skills before starting the program. The control group listened to authentic audio tracks in English and discussed their
contents, watched authentic English movies, and discussed issues in the movies in pairs in the classroom. The first experimental group spent
part of the time on theoretical explanation of, and practical exercises with, English suprasegmentals. The second experimental group spent
part of the time on theoretical explanation of, and practical exercises with, English segmentals. The total instruction time was the same
for all three groups, i.e. 12 hours. Students then took a posttest in speaking skills. The results show that the explicit teaching of
suprasegmentals significantly improved the students’ speaking skills more than that of the other groups. These results have pedagogical
implications for curriculum designers, interpreting programs for training future interpreters, material producers and all who are involved
in language study and pedagogy.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1English and Farsi sound systems
- 2.Main aim and the research question
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1Participants
- 3.2Procedure
- 4.Results
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (49)
References
Adams-Goertel, R. (2013). Prosodic elements to improve pronunciation in English language learners: A short report. Applied Research on English Language, 21, 117–128.
Aquil, R. (2012). Listening to English connected speech: A problem and solutions. Arab World English Journal, 31, 329–364.
Bailey, K. (1999). Speaking: A critical skill and a challenge. Calico Journal, 16(3), 277–293.
Bissiri, M. P., & Pfitzinger, H. R. (2009). Italian speakers learn lexical stress of German morphologically complex words. Speech Communication, 511, 933–947. 

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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. 

Celce-Murcia, M.; Brinton, D. M.; Goodwin, J. M. & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching Pronunciation: A Course Book and Reference Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles in communication. Language Teaching, 421, 476–490. 

Derwing, T. M., Diepenbroek, L. G. & Foote, J. A. (2012). How well do general-skills ESL textbooks address pronunciation? TESL Canada Journal, 301, 22–44. 

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. 

Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1998). Students’ views of academic aural/oral skills: A comparative needs analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 289–318. 

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. 

Gussenhoven, C. (2015). Suprasegmentals. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 231. Oxford: Elsevier, 714–721. 

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.
Hardison, D. M. (2004). Generalization of computer assisted prosody training: Quantitative and qualitative findings. Language Learning & Technology, 81, 34–52.
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, 281, 283–318. 

Heuven, V. J. van (2017). Prosody and sentence type in Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 221, 3–29. 

Heuven, V. J. van. (2008). Making sense of strange sounds: (mutual) intelligibility of related language varieties. A review. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 21, 39–62. 

Heuven, V. J. van (1994). Introducing prosodic phonetics. In C. Odé & V. J. van Heuven (Eds.), Experimental studies of Indonesian prosody. Semaian 91. Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië, Leiden University, 1–26.
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 [URL]
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.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.
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. 

Missaglia, F. (1999). Contrastive prosody in SLA – An empirical study with adult Italian learners of German. Proceedings of the 14th Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 11, 551–554.
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.
Nicolosi, L., Harryman, E., & Keresheck, J. (1989). Terminology of communication disorders. Baltimore, MD: William & Wilkins. 

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.
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. 

Pike, K. L. (1945). The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
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, 371, 217–240. 

Samareh, Y. (1986). Phonology of Farsi language. Tehran: Markaz e Nashre Daneshgahi.
Shademan, S. (2002). Epenthetic vowel harmony in Farsi. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of California Los Angeles.
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 [URL]
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.
Turk, A. E., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2007). Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. Journal of Phonetics, 35(4), 445–472. 

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ueno, N. (1998). Teaching English pronunciation to Japanese English majors: A comparison of a suprasegmental-oriented and a segmental-oriented teaching approach. JACET Bulletin, 291, 207–225.
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.
Windfuhr, G. (1979). Persian grammar: History and state of its study. The Hague, Paris and New York: Mouton. 

Yates, K. (2003). Teaching linguistic mimicry to improve second language pronunciation (Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton).
Yenkimaleki, M. (2016). Why prosody awareness training is necessary for training future interpreters. Journal of Education and human development, 51, 256–261. 

Yenkimaleki, M. (2017). Effect of prosody awareness training on the quality of consecutive interpreting between English and Farsi. LOT: Utrecht.
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.
Yenkimaleki, M. & Heuven, V. J. van. (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, 41, 32–41.
Yenkimaleki, M. & Heuven, V. J. van. (2016b). The effect of prosody teaching on developing word recognition skills for interpreter trainees: An experimental study. Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 71, 1101–1107. 

Yenkimaleki, M. & Heuven, V. J. van. (2016c). Prosody teaching matters in developing speaking skills for Farsi-English interpreter trainees: An experimental study. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 41, 82–91.
Yenkimaleki, M. & Heuven, V. J. van. (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.
Yenkimaleki, M. & Heuven, V. J. van. (2018). The effect of teaching prosody teaching on interpreting performance: An experimental study of consecutive interpreting from English into Farsi. Perspectives: Studies in translatology, 261, 84–99. 

Yenkimaleki, M. & Heuven, V. J. van. (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, 1071, 48–57. 

Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Yenkimaleki, Mahmood, Vincent J. van Heuven & Mostafa Hosseini
2024.
The effect of providing feedback and feedforward in prosody instruction for developing listening comprehension skills by interpreter trainees.
Foreign Language Annals 57:1
► pp. 184 ff.

Yenkimaleki, Mahmood, Vincent J. van Heuven & Hassan Soodmand Afshar
2023.
The efficacy of segmental/suprasegmental
vs.
holistic pronunciation instruction on the development of listening comprehension skills by EFL learners
.
The Language Learning Journal 51:6
► pp. 734 ff.

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.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 january 2025. 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.