Assessing and Diagnosing Speech Perception Problems

1
Assessing and Diagnosing Speech Perception
Problems
DLLS Symposium 2004 Justin R. Shewell justin_shew
ell_at_byu.edu http//www.jshewell.com
2
Overview

• Why Perception?
• Look at the role of perception in acquisition of
  English pronunciation and listening skills
• Look at the teachability of perception
• The Diagnostic Tool
• Look at the overall format and rationale
• Look at sample items
• Look at preliminary results of pilot testing
• Look at future (later) versions

3
Why Perception?

• Research suggests that accurate perception of
  sounds and intonation patterns leads to more
  accurate production of these sounds
• Flege and Eefting, 1987
• Schneiderman, Bourdages, and Champagne, 1988
• Ingram and Park, 1997
• Chan, 2001

4
Why Perception?

• Research also indicates that training in speech
  perception leads to improvement in both
  perception and production of English sounds
• de Bot, 1983
• Champane-Muzar, Schneiderman, and Bourdages, 1993
• Cenoz and Lecumberri, 1999

5
Rationale

• Training in perception can lead to improvements
  in perception and production, and accurate
  perception can lead to accurate production
• Many teachers are responsible for diagnosing
  students problems
• Difficult task for non-native speakers of English
• Current measures are short and require time in
  class

6
The Diagnostic Tool

• Consists of five sections
• Vowels
• Consonants
• Word Stress
• Intonation
• Sentence Stress
• Possible addition of reduced speech in future
  versions

7
Vowels

• Minimal pair sentences
• Items chosen based on functional load (Catford,
  1987)
• Images were used to help overcome possible
  problems with reading skills.
• Images and items came from Pronunciation Matters
  (Henrichsen et. al, 1999) or were original
• 44 total items (11 contrasts) broken into two
  forms22 items per form

8
Vowels Example Item
9
Consonants

• Minimal pair sentences
• Items chosen based on functional load
• Focused only on syllable initial/final contrast
  (no medial contrasts)
• Used images to overcome problems with reading
  comprehension and vocabulary
• Items and images from Pronunciation Matters or
  original
• 100 total items (25 contrasts) broken into two
  forms50 items per form

10
Consonants Example Item
11
Word Stress

• Items contained two to six syllables
• Items represented different parts of speech
• Presented in isolation to avoid problems with
  grammar and other linguistic features being used
  to determine answer

12
Word Stress Example Item
13
Intonation

• Two sections (item types)
• Question/Statement
• Tag Questions
• Items came from a test developed by Amber Pauga
  and Brent Green at BYU-Hawaii or were original

14
Intonation Section 1 Example Item
15
Intonation Section 2 Example Item
16
Sentence Stress

• Two sections
• Stressed word
• Thought groups (Gilbert, 1993)
• Items were original or taken from Pronunciation
  Matters (Henrichsen et. al)
• Each item presented with a rejoinder that
  distinguished the difference in meaning on the
  screen but not in the audio file

17
Sentence Stress Section 1 Example Item
18
Sentence Stress Section 2 Example Item
19
Evaluation Results

• Test was piloted at the English Language Center
  at Brigham Young University
• 89 students participated, comprising 11 different
  language groups
• Reliability and Validity assessments were
  conducted using variations on currently accepted
  methods

20
Reliabilty

• Vowel Section 0.32 (22 items)
• Consonant Section 0.91 (50 items)
• Word Stress Section 0.65 (20 items)
• Intonation Section 0.25 (20 items)
• Sentence Stress 0.15 (20 items)
• Possible that having more items per section will
  increase reliability (due to forms and time
  constraints in pilot)

21
Validity

• Difficult to assess (no equivalent measures, no
  definite scores)
• Compared language groups with research on
  specific problems in language groups
• Nilsen and Nilsen, 1973
• Swan, 2001
• General trend showed that higher proficiency led
  to more accurate perception (as shown in Flege
  and Eefting, 1987)
• Other analyses still in progress

22
Future Work

• Do a detailed item analysis and discard bad items
• Combine both forms into one assessment remove
  sections specific to IRB research
• Pilot the next version with a small group
• Conduct further reliability and validity studies
• Review feedback submitted during pilot and make
  appropriate modifications

23
References

• Catford, J.C. (1987). "Phonetics and the teaching
  of pronunciation", in Morley, J. (Ed.) Current
  perspectives on pronunciation Practices anchored
  in theory. Washington DC. TESOL. pp. 83-100.
• Cenoz, J. Lecumberri, L. G. (1999). The effect
  of training on the discrimination of English
  vowels. International Review of Applied
  Linguistics, 36(4), 261-275.
• Champagne-Muzar, C., Schneiderman, E. I.,
  Bourdages, J. S. (1993). Second language accent
  The role of the pedagogical environment.
  International Review of Applied Linguistics, 31,
  143-160.
• Chan, C. (2001). The perception (and production)
  of English word-initial consonants by native
  speakers of Cantonese. Hong Kong Journal of
  Applied Linguistics, 6, 26-44.
• de Bot, K. (1983). Visual feedback of intonation
  I Effectiveness and induced practice behavior.
  Language and Speech, 26, 331-350.
• Flege, J. E. Eefting, W. (1987). Production and
  perception of English stops by native Spanish
  speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 67-83.
• Gilbert, J. (1993). Clear speech Pronunciation
  and listening comprehension in North American
  English. New York Cambridge University Press.
• Henrichsen, L., Green, B., Nishitani, A.,
  Bagley, C. (1999) Pronunciation matters
  Communicative, story-based activities for
  mastering the sounds of North American English.
  Ann Arbor, MI University of Michigan Press.
• Ingram, J. C. L. Park, S. G. (1997).
  Cross-language vowel perception and production by
  Japanese and Korean learners of English. Journal
  of Phonetics, 25, 343-370.
• Nilsen, D.L.F. Nilsen, A.P. (1973).
  Pronunciation contrasts in English. New York
  Regents.
• Schneiderman, E., Bourdages, J., Champagne, C.
  (1988). Second-language accent The relationship
  between discrimination and perception in
  acquisition. Language Learning, 38, 1-19.
• Swan, M. Smith, B. (2001). Learner English A
  teachers guide to interference and other
  problems. 2nd ed. New York Cambridge University
  Press.