Reconsidering the Reliance on Functional Load: The Role of Phonetic Distance in Predicting L2 Segmental Substitutions

Kate Challis; Zoë Zawadzki; Ewa Kusz

doi:10.18778/1731-7533.22.4.02

Authors

Kate Challis Iowa State University
Zoë Zawadzki Iowa State University
Ewa Kusz Rzeszów University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.22.4.02

Keywords:

Functional load, phonetic distance, L2 segmental substitutions, pronunciation errors

Abstract

Much research agrees that Functional Load (FL), i.e., the extent to which a phoneme pair distinguishes between different words in a language, is a useful feature to consider in prioritizing phoneme pairs for pronunciation instruction in the second language (L2) classroom. However, FL measures are not always easy to access and are often calculated according to different principles, whereas other more easily observable features exist, including Phonetic Distance (PD), or the degree of physiological similarity between phones in a phoneme pair. One way to evaluate features and their interrelatedness is to use them in a linear mixed effects regression (LMER) model to predict the rate of observed L2 substitutions that are actually made in speech. This study examines the relationship between two measures of FL (Brown, 1988; Gilner & Morales, 2010) and an estimate of PD we devised from 22 unique articulatory features of vowels and consonants in their ability to predict substitutions in the L2-ARCTIC dataset (Zhao et al. 2018) while accounting for other sources of variation. It was found that even when PD had a resolution of only 2 points, it was highly associated with variance in substitution rates, but that the best model included FL and PD measures together. This finding suggests that PD may also be an important consideration when deciding which phoneme pairs to prioritize in L2 instruction.

References

Ahmed, Tafsser, Muhammad Suffian, Muhammad Yaseen Khan and Alessandro Boglio. 2021. Discovering similarity using articulatory feature-based phonetic edit distance. IEEE Access, 10, 1533-1544. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3137905
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3137905

Barrientos, Fernanda. 2023. On segmental representations in second language phonology: A perceptual account. Second Language Research, 39(1), 259-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583211030637
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583211030637

Blasi, Damián. E., Søren Wichmann, Harald Hammarström, Peter F. Stadler and Motern H. Christiansen. 2016. Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(39), 10818-10823.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605782113

Brown, Adam. 1988. Functional load and teaching of pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly 22(4), 593-606.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587258

Burgess, John and Sheila Spencer. 2000. Phonology and pronunciation in integrated language teaching and teacher education. System 28(2), 191-215.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00007-5

Catford, John C. 1987. Phonetics and the teaching of pronunciation: a systemic description of English phonology. In Morley, J. (Ed.), Current Perspectives on Pronunciation: Practices Anchored in Theory. TESOL, Washington, DC, 87-100.
Google Scholar

Chan, Kit Y., Michael D. Hall and Ashley A. Assgari. 2016. The role of vowel formant frequencies and duration in the perception of foreign accent. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(1), 1–12.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2016.1170746

Connine, Cynthia M., Dawn G. Blasko and Jian Wang. 1994. Vertical similarity in spoken word recognition: Multiple lexical activation, individual differences, and the role of sentence context. Perception Psychophysics, 56, 624-636.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208356

Couper, Graeme. 2017. Teacher cognition of pronunciation teaching: teachers’ concerns and issues. TESOL Quarterly 51(4), 820–43.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.354

Covington, Martin V. 1998. The Will to Learn: A Guide for Motivating Young People. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840043

Crowther, Dustin, Pavel Trofimovich, Kazuya Saito and Talia Isaacs. 2015. Second language comprehensibility revisited: Investigating the effects of learner background. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 814-837.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.203

Cutler, Anne, Nuria Sebastián-Gallés, Olga Soler-Vilageliu and Brit Van Ooijen. 2000. Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: Cross-linguistic comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 28, 746-755.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198409

Denes, Peter B. 1963. On the statistics of spoken English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35(6), 892-904. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1918622
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1918622

Derwing, Tracey, Murray Munro, Ronald Thomson, and Marian Rossiter. 2009. The relationship between l1 fluency and l2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 533-557. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990015.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990015

Czaykowska- Higgins, Ewa and Dobrovolsky, Michael (2010). Phonology: the function and patterning of sounds. In W. O’ Grady, J. Archibald, M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), Contemporary linguistics an introduction, 59-113. Bedford / St. Martin’s.
Google Scholar

Egbert, Jesse, Douglas Biber, and Bethany Gray. 2022. Designing and Evaluating Language Corpora: A Practical Framework for Corpus Representativeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316584880
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316584880

Flege, James and Wieke Eefting. 1987. Production and perception of English stops by native Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 15(1), 67–83.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30538-8

Gao, Zhiyan and Steven Weinberger. 2018. Which phonetic features should pronunciation instructions focus on? An evaluation on the accentedness of segmental/syllable substitutions in L2 speech. Research in Langauge, 16(2), 135-154. doi:10.2478/rela-2018-0012.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2018-0012

Gilner, Leah and Franc Morales. 2010. Functional load: Transcription and analysis of the 10,000 most frequent words in spoken English. The Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3, 135-162.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.5750/bjll.v3i0.27

Gluszek, Agata and John Dovidio. 2010. Speaking with a nonnative accent: Perceptions of bias, communication difficulties, and belonging in the United States. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(2), 224–234.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09359590

Gooskens, Charlotte, Wilbert Heeringa. 2004. Perceptive evaluation of Levenshtein dialect distance measurements using Norwegian dialect data. Language Variation and Change, 16, 189-207. doi: 10.1017/S0954394594163023.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394504163023

Grant, Linda and Donna Brinton. 2014. Pronunciation Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching. University of Michigan Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.4584330

Gries, Stefan Th.. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110307474
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110307474

Hall, Daniel C. 2011. Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: Dispersedness without dispersion. Phonology, 28(1), 1-54. doi:10.1017/S0952675711000029.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675711000029

Hockett, Charles F. 1955. A Manual of Phonology: Memoir 11. Baltimore: Waverly Press, Inc.
Google Scholar

Huensch, Amanda and Charlie Nagle. 2021. The Effect of Speaker Proficiency on Intelligibility, Comprehensibility, and Accentedness in L2 Spanish: A Conceptual Replication and Extension of Isaacs, Talia and Pavel Trofimovich. Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 475-505.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000150

Jakobson, Roman. 1931. Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie, 4. Prague: Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague, 246–267.
Google Scholar

Jułkowska, Izabela and Juli Cebrian. 2015. Effects of listener factors and stimulus properties on the intelligibility, comprehensibility and accentedness of L2 speech. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(2), 211-237. doi: 10.1075/jslp.1.2.04jul.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.1.2.04jul

Kang, Okim, and Meghan Moran. 2014. Functional Loads of Pronunciation Features in Nonnative Speakers’ Oral Assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 176–187. doi:10.1002/tesq.152.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.152

Kilgarriff, Adam. 1995. BNC Database and Word Frequency Lists. Available from http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk/bnc-readme.html
Google Scholar

Kim, Donghyun, Meghan Clayards and Heather Goad. 2018. A longitudinal study of individual differences in the acquisition of new vowel contrasts. Journal of Phonetics, 67: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.11.003
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.11.003

King, Robert. 1967. Functional load and sound change. Language, 43(4), 831.852.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/411969

Kissling, Elizabeth M. 2013. Teaching Pronunciation: Is Explicit Phonetics Instruction Beneficial for FL Learners? The Modern Language Journal 97, no. 3 (2013): 720–44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43651702
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12029.x

Kominek, John and Alan W. Black. 2004. The CMU Arctic speech databases. In Fifth ISCA workshop on speech synthesis (SSW 5), 223-224. http://www.festvox.org/cmu_arctic
Google Scholar

Ladefoged, Peter. 2006. A Course in Phonetics. California, Thomson Wadsworth Corporation.
Google Scholar

Lancaster University (n.d.). UCREL CLAWS5 Tagset. Retrieved April 17, 2023, from https://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/claws5tags.html
Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2018. Second language acquisition, WE, and language as a complex adaptive system (CAS). World Englishes, 37(1), 80-92.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12304

Levis, John. 2018. Setting Priorities: What Teachers and Researchers Say. In Intelligibility, Oral Communication, and the Teaching of Pronunciation (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp. 33-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108241564.005
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108241564.005

Liu, Di and Marnie Reed. 2022 [Manuscript in publication]. From technology-enhanced to technology-based language teaching: A complexity theory approach to pronunciation teaching. In S. McCrocklin (Ed.), Technological resources for second language pronunciation learning and teaching. [Publisher unknown].
Google Scholar

Liu, Di, Tamara Jones and Marnie Reed. 2023. Phonetics in Language Teaching (Elements in Phonetics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108992015
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108992015

McCrostie, James. 2007. Investigating the accuracy of teachers' word frequency intuitions. RELC journal, 38(1), 53-66.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206076158

McCullough, Elizabeth. 2013. Acoustic correlates of perceived foreign accent in non-native English. PhD Dissertation. The Ohio State University, Ohio: Columbus.
Google Scholar

Macdonald, Shem. 2002. Pronunciation - views and practices of reluctant teachers. Prospect, 17, 3-18.
Google Scholar

McQueen, James M., Michael D. Tyler and Anne Cutler. 2012. Lexical retuning of children's speech perception: Evidence for knowledge about words' component sounds. Language Learning and Development, 8(4), 317-339.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.641887

Molemans, Inge, Renate van den Berg, Lieve van Severen and Steven Gillis. 2012. How to measure the onset of babbling reliably? Journal of Child Language, 39(3), 523-552.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000911000171

MontrealCorpusTools. “GitHub - MontrealCorpusTools/Montreal-Forced-Aligner: Command Line Utility for Forced Alignment Using Kaldi.” GitHub, n.d. https://github.com/MontrealCorpusTools/Montreal-Forced-Aligner
Google Scholar

Munro, Murray. 1993. Productions of English Vowels by Native Speakers of Arabic: Acoustic Measurements and Accentedness Ratings. Language and Speech, 36 (1), 39–66.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099303600103

Munro, Murray and Tracey Derwing. 1998. The Effects of Speaking Rate he Effects of Speaking Rate on Listener Evaluations of Native and Foreign-Accented Speech. Language Learning, 48 (2), 159–182.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00038

Munro, Murray and Tracey Derwing. 2006. The Functional Load Principle in ESL Pronunciation Instruction: An Exploratory Study. System 34 (4), 520–531. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2006.09.004.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.09.004

Neri, Ambra, Catia Cucchiarini, Helmer Strik. 2006. Selecting segmental substitutions in non-native Dutch for optimal pronunciation training, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching IRAL 44(4), 357-404. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2006.016
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2006.016

Pucher, Michael, Andreas Turk, Jitendra Ajmera and Natalie Fecher. 2007. Phonetic distance measures for speech recognition vocabulary and grammar optimization. 3rd Congress of the Alps Adria Acoustics Association.
Google Scholar

R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/
Google Scholar

Riney, Timothy, Mari Takada and Mitsuhiko Ota. 2000. Segmentals and global foreign accent: the Japanese flap in EFL. TESOL Quarterly 34(4), 711-737.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587782

Schaden, Stefan. 2006. Evaluation of automatically generated transcriptions of non-native pronunciations using a phonetic distance measure. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’06), Genoa, Italy. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
Google Scholar

Sewell, Andrew. 2021. Functional load and the teaching-learning relationship in L2 pronunciation. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 1–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.627378
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.627378

Schmitt, Norbert and Bruce Dunham. 1999. Exploring native and non-native intuitions of word frequency. Second Language Research, 15(4), 389-411.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/026765899669633186

Shi, Rushen, Janet F. Werker and Anne Cutler. 2006. Recognition and representation of function words in English-learning infants. Infancy, 10(2), 187-198.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327078in1002_5

Slowiaczek, L. M., and Hamburger, M. (1992). Prelexical facilitation and lexical interference in auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 18, 1239-1250
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.18.6.1239

Stokes, Stephanie and Dinoj Surendran. 2005. Articulatory complexity, ambient frequency, and functional load as predictors of consonant development in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 577-591.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/040)

Surendran, Dinoj and Partha Niyogi. 2003. Measuring the functional load of phonological contrasts. In: Tech. Rep. No. TR-2003-12, Chicago.
Google Scholar

Suzukida, Yui and Kazuya Saito. 2019. Which Segmental Features Matter for Successful L2 Comprehensibility? Revisiting and Generalizing the Pedagogical Value of the Functional Load Principle. Language Teaching Research, 1–20. doi:10.1177/1362168819858246.
Google Scholar

Suzukida, Yui and Kazuya Saito. 2021. Which segmental features matter for successful L2 comprehensibility? Revisiting and generalizing the pedagogical value of the functional load principle. Language Teaching Research, 25(3), 431-450.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819858246

Sweller, John. 2011. Cognitive load theory. Psychology of learning and motivation, 55, 37-76.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8

Wayland, Ratree. 1997. Non-native Production of Thai: Acoustic Measurements and Accentedness Ratings. Applied Linguistics, 18(3), 345–373.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.3.345

Wedel, Andrew, Scott Jackson and Abby Kaplan. 2013a. Functional Load and the Lexicon: Evidence that Syntactic Category and Frequency Relationships in Minimal Lemma Pairs Predict the Loss of Phoneme Contrasts in Language Change. Language and Speech 56(3), 395-417. doi: doi:10.1177/0023830913489096.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830913489096

Wedel, Andrew, Abby Kaplan and Scott Jackson. 2013b. High Functional Load Inhibits Phonological Contrast Loss: A Corpus Study. Cognition, 128(2), 179–186 doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002

Zipf, George K. 1932. Selected studies of the principle of relative frequency in language. Harvard University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674434929
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674434929

Zhao, Guanlong, Sinem Sonsaat, Alif Silpachai, Ivana Lucic, Evgeny Chukharev-Hudilainen, John Levis and Ricardo Gutierrez-Osuna. 2018. L2-ARCTIC: A non-native English speech corpus, 2783-2787. doi: 2783-2787. 10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1110.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1110