5-_Almihmadi__2012

Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...…………………………………………….… Volume 3 (2012)

41

Teaching English Phonetics to Non-native

Speakers of English: an ‎Innovative

Constructivist Paradigm

Mariam M. Almihmadi

Umm Al-Qura University, Saudi Arabia

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

In this paper, I propose an innovative paradigm for teaching English phonetics to non-

native speakers of English. In teaching segmental sounds, subsegmental features,

suprasegmental effects, and fine phonetic detail, the paradigm adopts the constructivist

approach. It promotes experiential learning through guided and interactive cognitive,

auditory, visual, and psychomotor tasks. Unifying these tasks is the theme of learning

phonetics by doing phonetics. The paradigm requires students to do visual and auditory

inspections of in-class live recordings, using the appropriate speech-analysis package.

Students also monitor speech unfolds in real time via x-ray movies and interactive

articulatory diagrams. Moreover, students watch themselves articulate speech sounds in

slow motion. To better understand and learn about the contribution of fine phonetic

detail to the pronunciation of words, students engage in constructing and analysing lists

of inter-language homophones. The paradigm also raises students’ awareness of inter-

language phonemic contrasts through the construction and analysis of lists of nativized

loanwords from English into their L1 and vice versa. Finally, the paradigm requires

students to make predictions about the likely English pronunciation of nonsense words.

Keywords: Phonetics teaching, Constructivism, Interactive Multi-Modal Tasks

Introduction

English phonetics is a staple component in EFL taught programs offered by universities

around the globe (see e.g., Bloothooft et. al., 1998; Hazan & van Dommelen, 1997,

1999; Ladefoged, 1995). The course is variably named Phonetics, Phonetics and

Phonology, Phonetics and Pronunciation, English Phonetics, etc. (Ezza & Saadeh,

2011). One of the major objectives of including this course into degree programs is for

students to have an understanding of the various phonetic concepts that are necessary to

appreciate points of similarity and contrast between their L1 and L2, and to improve

their command over sounds and pronunciation norms including intonation patterns of

English. These concepts belong to four major areas of phonetic research: (1) segmental

effects which cover, for instance, sound classes, articulation and acoustics; (2)

suprasegmental effects which standardly include pitch, loudness, stress, intonation, and

rhythm; (3) subsegmental aspects, such as nasality and voicing; and (4) fine phonetic

detail (FPD) found in systematic variations between and within speakers that are

measurable along temporal and spectral scales, for instance.

Different teaching paradigms have been proposed since the beginning of phonetics

pedagogy. For scope and space reasons, this paper is only concerned with the recent

innovations. However, most of these, though commendable, lack clear theoretical

underpinnings. Lack of theoretical vigor can take the discipline back to trial-and-error

methodologies. As Yilmaz (2008, p. 161) stresses “learning theories are indispensable

for effective and pedagogically meaningful instructional practices”. It is the ‘direction’


42

and ‘focus’ in terms of McLeod (2003) and Fosnot (1996) that are at stake here. Any

form of teaching without theoretical grounding can easily lose focus and drift in

opposing directions, thus confusing the learners.

In this paper, I propose a paradigm for teaching English that is founded on the

principles of constructivism (Kolb, 1984; Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Fosnot, 1996;

Hendry et. al., 1999). Lying at the heart of constructivism is experiential learning,

where learners construct knowledge by going through the constructivist cycle of action-

reflection-interpretation. The application of constructivism to classroom learning can

greatly improve the learning experience. It is unfortunate that with such theoretical

appeal, empirical success, and world-wide scholarly recognition, constructivism

remains largely unexplored in phonetics teaching research.

One of the main contributions of this paper is adding theoretical rigor to the emerging

field of phonetics pedagogy. Also, the paper offers an original scheme for teaching the

main topics of phonetics: segmental sounds, suprasegmental effects, subsegmental

features and fine phonetic detail.

Literature Review

Innovations in the teaching of phonetics flourish in the era of information technology.

With the rapid advances in IT, “entirely new forms of teaching interactions” (Mompean

et. al., 2011, p. 1) are now possible.

Among the first aspects of phonetics to have seen innovations were suprasegmental

effects. Researchers way back as in the 1960s used (what was then called) visualizers to

teach English intonation and pitch movements. For example, Vardanian (1964) used

computer-generated displays of English intonation contours in teaching EFL learners.

Also, Anderson (1960) used technology to teach deaf people English intonation.

More recently, however, there is a marked shift in teaching paradigms towards adopting

a more global and integrative form of teaching covering all main areas of phonetics. In

their review of the recent trends in phonetics teaching, Mompean et. al. (2011)

expressed the hope that contemporary trends could usher in “a breakdown of the

division between research and practice” (p. 2). These contemporary trends are the

following: (1) fieldwork-like practices, in which students observe speech data and form

hypotheses about the data. Ashby (2007) and Ashby et. al. (2005b) were among the first

to implement this method, which shares with the constructivist approach the concept of

learning by doing.

Another innovation is the utilization of speech analysis software. According to this

method, students make on-the-spot recordings of certain speech items, and then perform

instant acoustic analysis of these items. Researchers like Ashby et. al. (2005a), Wilson

(2008) published papers reporting the use of acoustic software, such as Praat (Boersma

& Weenink, 2012) and SFS (Huckvale, 2010). For example, Ashby et. al. (2005a)

administered a post-course questionnaire and reported a very high satisfaction level

among the students who completed the course. Ashby et. al. (2005a) conclude that the

use of technology in the classroom “can augment students’ learning experience, and

break down unnecessary division between theory and practice” (p. 1). Again, this

highlights the existing gap between theory and practice, which this paper tries to bridge.

Similarly, Wrembel (2001) presents an overview of the recent innovations in the

teaching of phonetics. She lists new teaching techniques including drama techniques,

voice setting techniques, and Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Importantly, Wrembel

(2001, p. 63) speculates that the main driving force for innovation is “a general

tendency in foreign language teaching to embrace … holistic approaches”. This


43

acknowledges the pivotal role theory plays in shaping and sharpening empirical

perspectives on teaching paradigms.

As is clear from this brief review, traces of constructivism are scattered within the

growing body of literature on phonetics pedagogy. These traces just need to be put

together into the assembly of a paradigm. A whole-hearted embracement of the

constructivist approach will make a big difference in students’ performance and

learning outcomes. In the next section, I present glimpses of the constructivist approach

to learning.

Theoretical Framework

This paper proceeds along the theoretical framework of constructivism (Kolb, 1984;

Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Fosnot, 1996; Hendry et. al., 1999). One of the defining

principles of constructivism in learning is that learners actively construct knowledge

based on experiences, rather than passively receive it from their teachers or read it in

textbooks. Specifically, in the classroom, learning occurs when learners attach meaning

to the learning materials (Fosnot, 1996; Hendry et. al., 1999). In other words, learning

consists in self-regulated actions, reflections, and interpretations of new ideas, data, or

events. By assimilating and accommodating incoming information into their past

experiences, doing all necessary modifications of former beliefs and opinions, learners

construct knowledge (cf. Gillani, 2003).

Another basic tenet of constructivist learning is the need for learners to engage in (even

struggle with) raw data and primary resources, rather than receive abstract information

from their teachers (see e.g., Brooks & Brooks, 1993). In this regard, the role of context

or what is also known as ‘situated learning’ (Akermann, 2008) cannot be overstated.

Learners need to see connection among the various pieces of the learning material.

Constructivism in the classroom involves the creation of an optimal environment for

learners to make meaning of the new experiences (Fosnot, 1996). Teachers should

assume the role of skillful facilitators, rather than information-givers. Skillful

facilitation consists in (1) selecting the right material that fits with or augments

students’ experiences, (2) securing the necessary tools for students to engage in the

cycle of actions-reflections-interpretations, (3) structuring learning around main

concepts and central ideas, and (4) soliciting learners’ meaning and checking their

understanding (for more see Beaudin & Quick, 1995).

The Paradigm

Features

Among the defining features of the proposed paradigm are theoretical groundedness,

integration of multi-modality tasks, and inclusivity of all main areas of phonetics.

Firstly, the paradigm is constructivism-grounded. It incorporates constructivist

principles into the teaching of phonetics to non-native speakers of English. For

example, according to the paradigm, students discover for themselves the basic

concepts of phonetics by doing phonetics. They record their own speech, analyze it, and

interpret and discuss their findings and conclusions. Students go through the

constructivist cycle of action-reflection-interpretation every time they come to the

phonetics class. In the same vein, students experience first-hand how speech unfolds in

real time by watching x-ray movies capturing speech internal organs executing a speech

command. These internal organs are normally inaccessible to hand-and-eye inspection.

Therefore, a technology-mediated intervention like x-rays, for instance, is necessary to

record their functions. See the next section for details.


44

Secondly, the paradigm integrates activities and tasks drawn from auditory, visual,

psychomotor, and cognitive modalities. For example, students listen to a piece of

recorded speech while watching a visual display of it on a computer screen. See the next

section for details and examples.

Finally, the paradigm is inclusive of the main areas of phonetic inquiry: segmentals,

suprasegmentals, subsegmentals, and FPD. There are tasks designed to facilitate

learning in each of these areas. Details of these tasks appear in the next section.

Tasks

The tasks in this innovative paradigm are concerned with creating an optimal

environment for students to learn segmental sounds, suprasegmental effects,

subsegmental features, and FPD—areas which constitute the fundamentals of the

phonetics science in the twenty-first century.

For students to learn segmental effects, they first need to encounter the rudiments of

speech production, especially speech organs and the specific articulation maneuvers that

produce the different types of speech sounds. By the time students join university

studies, they will have possessed some form of constructed knowledge of the names of

organs and articulation settings. University students can use this background knowledge

for the new experience. All these students need to do is assimilate the new technical

terms and the unfamiliar articulation maneuvers into their existing experiences. A

particularly beneficial action-reflection task in this respect is the all-too-common

mirror-in-hand technique. Students can look into the mirror and watch themselves

articulate speech sounds in slow motion. A technically-superior alternative to this

technique would be to capture pictures or videos of themselves while slowly articulating

speech using cameras fitted to their smart phones or computers. This task puts forward

to their constructivist minds speech production, organs in action, differences between

types of speech sounds, etc. At the same time, it furnishes rich ground for meta-skills

including categorization and classification. Students engage into a meaning-making

process of hypothesizing about the right classification criteria—what sounds belong to

the same class? What do not? Why? The set of criteria that students arrive at towards

the end of the class might just as well look like the standard classification of sounds into

consonants and vowels, and the various sub-classes within each of these major classes

found in standard phonetics textbooks.

Also, students can assimilate new ideas and beliefs or accommodate former ones about

the inner speech organs (e.g., the vocal bands, the glottis, the pharynx, etc.), which

would not normally be amenable to manual inspection. However, in the paradigm,

students can embark on a technology-mediated journey into these inner organs and see

them in action. For example, monitoring speech unfolds in real time via x-ray movies of

speech and via interactive articulation diagrams that simulate the human larynx is a

truly constructivist experience. This should count as a first-hand experience of raw data.

An excellent resource for x-ray movies for speech is the x-ray database of the Speech

Perception and Production Laboratory, available at

http://psyc.queensu.ca/~munhallk/05_database.htm. Also, x-ray movies of the tongue,

jaw, and larynx during vowel productions are available from the UCLA Phonetics Lab

Data to accompany Ladefoged's textbook ‘Vowels and Consonants’ at

http://www.phonetics.ucla.edu/vowels/chapter11/chapter11.html. For interactive

articulation simulations, the University of Iowa’s Phonetics Flash Animation Project is

recommended. Animated diagrams of English sounds can be accessed at

http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/.

http://psyc.queensu.ca/~munhallk/05_database.htm

http://www.phonetics.ucla.edu/vowels/chapter11/chapter11.html


45

Moving from articulation to acoustics, again the most effective way for students to learn

acoustics is to do acoustics. The paradigm includes tasks designed just for this.

However, to keep the paradigm in harmony with constructivism in learning, students’

first encounter with acoustics should highlight its relevance to their own experiences.

Thus, the very beginning of the session on acoustics requires students to record

themselves onto a speech-analysis package, such as Praat (Boersam & Weenink, 2012),

SFS (Huckvale, 2010), and WASP (Huckvale, 2012). Of course, the constructivist

teacher must first demonstrate to her/his students how to use the recording function on

the selected speech analysis software. The next step requires students to analyze these

recordings.

By design, acoustic analysis on most software packages allows for the synchronization

of visual and auditory inspections of waveform and spectrographic displays. Through

this multi-modality presentation, students construct acoustic concepts, rather than

passively receive them in abstract form. By allowing students to analyze their own

speech, we make their phonetics experience more personal, hence increasing the

likelihood of its assimilation into the ever-growing body of experiences that students

incessantly acquire.

This acoustic activity is an excellent demonstration of the differences between

consonants and vowels. At the same time, it will reinforce the classificatory stand that

students will have taken during the previous articulation-dominated experience.

Students will be able to construct an acoustic criterion and add it to the list of

articulation-based criteria that they will have already constructed. The same argument

applies to subclasses of sounds that are categorized according to place or manner of

articulation or even voicing.

As to suprasegmental effects, acoustic and perception experiences are in fact more

helpful than observing articulation. Speech analysis packages (see above for details)

offer visual displays of pitch contours, where stress and intonation patterns can be

investigated. Also, speech intensity (in the form of acoustic energy) can also be

analyzed and measured. In fact, the various stress correlates relevant to duration,

intensity, fundamental frequency (F0), and spectral prominence are all measureable.

Spectrograms are useful tools for measuring these parameters. The constructivist

teacher should introduce her/his students to the standard tools of analysis in the

discipline. As an action-reflection task, the paradigm puts forth a perception exercise of

the identification type: students record one or two English sentences in different speech

modes, like interrogation, affirmation, threat, hesitation, uncertainty, etc. Then the

teacher prepares a perception task using different randomizations of these utterances.

The students’ task is to match each utterance they hear to the right speech function. This

perception experience facilitates the internalization of the role of intonation in English

discourse. Similar perception tasks can be prepared for the learning of stress.

A similar action-reflection task for learning the components of the syllable (i.e.,

nucleus, onset, and coda) is to record and analyze spectrographic displays of words1 like

I [aı], my [maı], I’m [aım], and mine [maın]. Words like these highlight the

obligatoriness of the nucleus and the optionality of the edge materials (i.e., onsets and

coda).

The learning of subsegmental features in this constructivist paradigm resorts to x-ray

movies and simulation programs. In this paradigm, subsegmental features include

nasality (where the velum is lowered to allow air to escape through the nasal cavity) and

voicing (where the vocal bands at the glottis are set in vibration). Due to the inherently

1 Following conventions, phonetic transcriptions are given in square brackets.


46

inaccessible nature of the production mechanism of these features, the paradigm works

out a technology-mediated, indirect encounter with these features. Specifically, students

watch these movies and interactively change the settings of voicing and nasality on the

interface panel of the selected simulation program.

Finally, we discuss FPD—the latest addition to phonetic sciences. To create a

constructivist learning experience, we need activities that are more cognition-based. The

idea is that by the time students get to encounter FPD, they will have already mastered

sound production, sound classes, articulatory and acoustic properties of sounds,

suprasegmentals and subsegmental effects. Working within the confines of the

relevance principle of constructivism, we first need to let students appreciate how

relevant FPD is to their lives. Therefore, the task of constructing a list of inter-language

homophones is particularly helpful. Homophones are words with different meanings

that have the same pronunciation. For example, in English, the words ‘bank’ meaning

the side of a river, and ‘bank’ referring to a financial institution, are homophones. Now,

in this paradigm, it must be remembered that the task is not just about English. Students

have to find words in English and in their L1 that have the same sound composition.

Examples of inter-language homophones in English and Arabic are listed in Table (1)

below:

Table 1: Examples of inter-language homophones in English and Arabic

English word Arabic word Gloss

‘bait’ [bejt] [bejt] house

‘moot’ [mu:t] [mu:t] die (imperative verb)

‘teen’ [ti:n] [ti:n] figs

With the list constructed, the teacher can prepare an identification or discrimination

perception task using different randomizations of the words. It is very important to have

the words recorded by a bilingual speaker, or, if not possible, to have the English words

recorded by a native speaker of English and L1 words recorded by a native speaker of

L1. This measure is to preserve the minute sound differences between the two

languages in these homophones. These words are composed of more or less the same

segments, yet there are fine phonetic variations in the actual production. These

differences are systematic and can be language-specific. In the identification task,

students will guess if the word or word pair they hear in each trial comes from their L1

or English. Similarly, in the discrimination task, students will have to decide whether

the words in a pair they hear are the same or different words. Advanced discrimination

protocols like AXB, or XAB, where the students have to decide whether the target X is

more similar to the A-word or to the B-word, can also be attempted. To further

appreciate the role of FPD in nativeness and foreign accent comprehensibility, students

can give verbal descriptions of the differences they observe during the perception tasks.

A reinforcement task would be to present students with randomized lists of nonsense

words and ask them to guess the likely pronunciation of the words. The task should

alternate English and L1 pronunciations.

Finally, to raise students’ awareness of the phonemic contrasts that exist between their

L1 and English, the constructivist teacher can ask her/his students to construct a list of

L1 words borrowed from English into their L1 and vice versa. Such words are known in

the phonetics and phonology literature as nativized loanwords. Take as an example, the

nativized Arabic word for ‘computer’ [kumbyu:tar], which is borrowed from English.

Since Arabic sound inventory does not have a voiceless bilabial stop [p], nativization

results in the substitution of [b], which is part of the sound system of Arabic, for the


47

foreign sound [p]. Engaging students in this kind of phonetic-phonological

argumentation will greatly improve their meta-skills of comparative analysis and

appreciation of contrast, which they will need for more advanced phonetics and

phonology courses. It is for this reason that such a highly cognitive task is kept last in

the program. Students need to master the required basic vocabulary, tools, concepts

before they can construct and appreciate advanced argumentation.

Conclusion

This paper presented an innovative paradigm for teaching phonetics to non-native

speakers of English. The paradigm is both practical and theoretically grounded. With

excellent resources freely available, both students and teachers will find it easy to

handle the demand of constructivist learning. The paper is couched in the constructivist-

theoretic approach to learning and teaching. It emphasizes such concepts as experiential

learning, relevance to learners’ past experiences, and cycling through action, reflection,

and interpretation modes. The paradigm integrates tasks and activities appealing to

several modalities including vision, audition, cognition, and kinesthetics. At the same

time, the paradigm covers topics drawn from the main areas of phonetic inquiry. There

are tasks especially designed for facilitating the learning of segmental sounds,

subsegmental features, suprasegmental effects, and fine phonetic detail. The availability

of open-access, interactive and technology-mediated resources leaves little excuse for

teachers of phonetics to carry on with the traditional lecture-type, teacher-centered form

of teaching. This paradigm is an attempt to bring together theory and practice towards a

more effective learning experience.

References

Ackermann, E. (2008). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructivism: What’s the

difference? Retrieved September, 12, 2011 from http://learning.media.mit.edu/

content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf

Anderson, F. (1960). An Experimental Pitch Indicator for Training Deaf Scholars.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32, 1065-1074.

Ashby, M., Figueroa-Clark, M., Seo, E., & Yanagisawa, K. (2005a). Innovations in

practical phonetics teaching and learning. Proceedings of PTLC2005. London:

UCL.

Ashby, P. (2007). Fieldwork for success. Proceedings of PTLC2007. London: UCL.

Ashby, P., Manamperi, A., & Youens, M. (2005b). Discovering phonetics: learning

through fieldwork. Proceedings of PTLC2005. London: UCL.

Beaudin, B. & Quick, D. (1995). Experiential learning: Theoretical underpinnings

(Report No. ETT-95-02). High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural

Health and Safety (HI-CAHS). Colorado State University.

Bloothooft, G., van Dommelen, W., Espain, C., Hazan, V., Huckvale, M., & Wigforss,

E. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of future education in speech communication

sciences. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.

Boersam, P. & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version

5.3.26) [computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org

Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist

classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Ezza, A. & Saadeh, Z. (2011). Dictionary as a major resource for EFL course in

pronunciation. World Journal of English Language, 1(1), 63-67.

http://learning.media.mit.edu/%20content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf

http://learning.media.mit.edu/%20content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf


48

Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of Learning. In C. Fosnot

(Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (pp. 8–33). NY:

Teachers College Press.

Gillani, B. (2003). Learning theories and the design of e-learning environments. MD:

University Press of America.

Hazan, V. & van Dommelen, W. (1997). A survey of phonetics education in Europe.

EuroSpeech97, 1939-42.

Hazan, V. & van Dommelen, W. (1999). Phonetics education in Europe. Proceedings of

MATISSE, 101-104.

Hendry, D., Frommer, M., & Walker, R. (1999). Constructivism and problem-based

learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education 23(3), 359–371.

Huckvale, M. (2010). SFS (version 4.8) [computer software]. Retrieved from

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/resource/sfs/

Huckvale, M. (2012). WASP (version 1.53) [computer software]. Retrieved from

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/resource/sfs/wasp.htm

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ladefoged, P. (1995). Teaching phonetics. Proceedings of the 12th

ICPhS (pp. 432-

433). Stockholm.

McLeod, G. (2003). Learning theory and instructional design. Learning Matters 2, 35–

53.

Mompean, J., Ashby, M., & Fraser, H. (2011). Phonetics teaching and learning: An

overview of recent trends and directions. Proceedings of the 17th ICPhS, (pp. 96-

99). Hong Kong.

Vardanian, R. (1964). Teaching English through oscilloscope displays. Language

Learning, 3(4), 109-118.

Wilson, I. (2008) Using Praat and Moodle for teaching segmental and suprasegmental

pronunciation. Proceedings of the 3rd International WorldCALL Conference (pp.

112-5). The Japan Association for Language Education and Technology.

Wrembel, M. (2001). Innovative approaches to the teaching of practical phonetics.

Proceedings of PTLC01 (pp. 63-66). London: UCL.

Yilmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism: Its theoretical underpinnings, variations, and

implications for classroom instruction. Educational Horizons, 86(3), 161-172.

To cite this article: Almihmadi, M.M. (2012). Teaching English Phonetics to Non-native Speakers of English:

an Innovative Constructivist Paradigm. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, Vol. 3, 41-

48.

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/resource/sfs/

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/resource/sfs/wasp.htm

5-_Almihmadi__2012

Documents

Transcript of 5-_Almihmadi__2012