Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation
Vol. 8:1 (2022) ► pp.95–115

Phonetic listen-and-repeat training alters 6–7-year-old children’s non-native vowel contrast production after one training session

ORCID logo | University of Turku
 | Aalto University
 | University of Turku
The present study investigated children’s ability to learn to produce a non-native vowel contrast through a listen-and-repeat training method that is traditionally used in foreign language classrooms. Sixteen Finnish preschoolers (aged 6–7 years) were tested. The stimuli were two semi-synthetic pseudo words with the familiar vowel /y/ and the novel vowel /ʉ/ embedded in the first syllable. The procedure included four training and four recording sessions on two consecutive days. The vowels produced by the children were acoustically analyzed to obtain the average values of the first and second formant. The results showed that the participants changed their production of /ʉ/ towards the acoustic model after the first training and the change remained throughout the experiment. Our findings suggest 6–7-year-old children learn to produce a non-native vowel contrast even with limited L2 sound exposure in a listen-and-repeat training setting.
Keywords: children, pronunciation, phonetic training, production training, second language learning, vowels
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.AOL and second language sound learning
    • 2.1Phonetic studies on child and adult learners in naturalistic L2 environments and instructed learning settings
    • 2.2Child and adult learners in phonetic L2 training studies
  • 3.Material and methods
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Stimuli
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Analysis
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 9 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.21005.imm
References (37)
References
Alku, P., Tiitinen, H., & Näätänen, R. (1999). A method for generating natural-sounding speech stimuli for cognitive brain research. Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 110 (8), 1329–1333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baigorri, M., Campanelli, L., & Levy, E. S. (2019). Perception of American–English vowels by early and late Spanish–English bilinguals. Language and Speech; Lang Speech, 62 (4), 002383091880693–700. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In J. C. Goodman, & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.), The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words (pp. 167–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1995). A direct-realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language speech research (pp. 171–206) York Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Strange, W. (1992). Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 20 1, 305–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception. In O. Bohn, & M. J. Munro (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honour of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2020). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.43.Google Scholar
Darcy, I., & Krüger, F. (2012). Vowel perception and production in turkish children acquiring L2 german DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2009). Give input a chance! In T. Piske & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp.175–190). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(1987). The production of ”new” and ”similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15 1, 47–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 229–273) Timonium, MD; York Press.Google Scholar
(1999). The relation between L2 production and perception. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetics Sciences , 1273–1276.
Flege, J. E., & Bohn, O. (2021). The revised speech learning model (SLM-r). In R. Wayland (Ed.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress (pp. 3–83). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., MacKay, I. R., & Meador, D. (1999). Native Italian speakers’ perception and production of English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106 (5), 2973–2987. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995). Factors affecting strength of perceived foreign accent in a second language. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97 (5 Pt 1), 3125–3134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41 (1), 78–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakopoulou, A., Uther, M., & Ylinen, S. (2013). Enhanced plasticity in spoken language acquisition for child learners: Evidence from phonetic training studies in child and adult learners of English. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 29 (2), 201–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heeren, W. F. L., & Schouten, M. E. H. (2010). Perceptual development of the Finnish /t-t:/ Distinction in Dutch 12-year-old children: A training study. Journal of Phonetics, 38 1, 594–603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Perceptual development of phoneme contrasts: How sensitivity changes along acoustic dimensions that contrast phoneme categories. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124 (4), 2291–2302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Immonen, K. & Peltola, M. S. (2018). Finnish Children Producing English Vowels – Studying in an English Immersion Class Affects Vowel Production. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9 (1), 27–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kewley-Port, D., & Watson, C. S. (1994). Formant-frequency discrimination for isolated English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95 (1), 485–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopečková, R., Dimroth, C., & Gut, U. (2019). Children’s and adults’ initial phonological acquisition of a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 5 (3), 374–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (1991). Human adults and human infants show a ”perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception & Psychophysics, 50 (2), 93–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (2008). Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: New data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 363 (1493), 979–1000. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., & et al. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255 (5044), 606–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morales Reyes, A., Arechabaleta-Regulez, B., & Montrul, S. (2017). The acquisition of rhotics by child L2 and L3 learners. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3 (2), 242–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oh, G. E., Guion-Anderson, S., Aoyama, K., Flege, J. E., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Yamada, T. (2011). A one-year longitudinal study of English and Japanese vowel production by Japanese adults and children in an English-speaking setting. Journal of Phonetics, 39 (2), 156–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Official Statistics of Finland (OSF): Population structure [e-publication]. ISSN=1797-5395. 2018, Appendix table 1. Population according to language 1980–2018. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred: 22.4.2021]. Access method: [URL]
Peltola, K. U., Rautaoja, T., Alku, P., & Peltola, M. S. (2017). Adult learners and a one-day production training – small changes but the native language sound system prevails. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 8 (1), 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peltola, K. U., Tamminen, H., Alku, P., Kujala, T., & Peltola, M. S. (2020). Motoric training alters speech sound perception and production – active listening training does not lead into learning outcomes. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 11 (1), 10–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peltola, M. S., Tamminen, H., Salonen, L., Toivonen, H., Kujala, T., & Näätänen, R. (2010). Two languages–one brain. Paper presented at the Third ISCA Workshop on Experimental Linguistics , 145–148.
Peltola, M. S., Tamminen, H., Toivonen, H., Kujala, T., & Näätänen, R. (2012). Different kinds of bilinguals – different kinds of brains: The neural organisation of two languages in one brain. Brain and Language, 121 (3), 261–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pyykkö, R. (2017). Monikielisyys vahvuudeksi. Selvitys Suomen kielivarannon tilasta ja tasosta. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture 2017:51. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Taimi, L., Jähi, K., Alku, P., & Peltola, M. S. (2014). Children learning a non-native vowel – the effect of a two-day production training. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 5 (6), 1229–1235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamminen, H., Peltola, M. S., Toivonen, H., Kujala, T., & Näätänen, R. (2013). Phonological processing differences in bilinguals and monolinguals. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 87 (1), 8–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsukada, K., Birdsong, D., Bialystok, E., Mack, M., Sung, H., & Flege, J. E. (2005). A developmental study of English vowel production and perception by native Korean adults and children. Journal of Phonetics, 33 (3), 263–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, M. D. (2019). PAM-L2 and phonological category acquisition in the foreign language classroom. In A. M. Nyvad, M. Hejná, A. Højen, A. Bothe Jespersen & M. Hjortshøj Sørensen (Eds.), A sound approach to language Matters – In honor of Ocke-Schwen Bohn (pp. 607–630). Aarhus: Dept, of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Amrate, Moustafa & Pi-hua Tsai
2024. Computer-assisted pronunciation training: A systematic review. ReCALL ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Saloranta, Antti, Katja Haapanen, Kimmo U. Peltola, Henna Tamminen, Paavo Alku, Lannie Uwu-khaeb & Maija S. Peltola
2024. One-day listen-and-repeat training of a non-native vowel duration contrast for speakers of Namibian languages. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 10:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 october 2024. 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.