Home Effects of mixed instruction on Chinese EFL learners’ perception of phonemic contrasts
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Effects of mixed instruction on Chinese EFL learners’ perception of phonemic contrasts

  • Congchao Hua EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: July 3, 2019
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 60 Issue 2

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of mixed instruction as compared with segmental instruction on Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ perception of English phonemic contrasts. Results of a discrimination test revealed that mixed instruction significantly improved the participants’ performance to the same extent as the segmental instruction. Besides, the two types of instruction had the same impacts on the learners’ perception of consonant contrasts and vowel contrasts. In addition, the learners were found to be bad at discriminating consonants contrasting place and vowels contrasting height. The comparable effect of the two types of instruction suggests that the mixed instruction was more efficient than the segmental instruction, as the latter focused solely on phonemes, while the former only devoted one-fourth of the time to phonemes. Based on these findings, we offer some pedagogical suggestions for L2 pronunciation teaching and learning in China and in similar contexts.

Keywords: mixed instruction; segmental instruction; Chinese EFL learners; perception; phonemic contrasts

Appendix 1: Diagnostic Test (Items and Their Types) (Adapted from Baker (2009))

Item Type Item Type Item Type
1 eel eel S 18 sport spot V 35 peace peace S
2 ship chip C 19 cap cap S 36 boat bought V
3 six seeks V 20 put pot V 37 fern phone V
4 fat hat C 21 key key S 38 jack yack C
5 feel peel C 22 pool pull V 39 laugh life V
6 tin ten V 23 grass glass C 40 wheel wheel S
7 back bag C 24 cup cap V 41 beard bead V
8 said sad V 25 heel eel C 42 bin bin S
9 choke joke C 26 comb cone C 43 air ear V
10 cart cat V 27 cow cow S 44 some some S
11 much march V 28 big bigger V 45 buzz bus C
12 tin tin S 29 closing clothing C 46 push puss C
13 best vest C 30 girl gull V 47 all oil V
14 feel veal C 31 walk work V 48 road load C
15 backs box V 32 bed bird V 49 mouse mouth C
16 wing wink C 33 drain train C 50 free three C
17 thing thin C 34 pen pain V 51 pleasure pleasure S

  1. S=same words; C=consonant contrast; V=vowel contrast.

Appendix 2: Coding of the Differences in Features for Consonant Contrasts

Item Place Manner Voicing
2 ship chip 0 1 0
4 fat hat 1 0 0
5 feel peel 1 1 0
7 back bag 0 0 1
9 choke joke 0 0 1
13 best vest 1 1 0
14 feel veal 0 0 1
16 wing wink 0 1 1
17 thing thin 1 0 0
23 grass glass 1 0 0
25 heel eel 1 1 1
26 comb cone 1 0 0
29 closing clothing 1 0 0
33 drain train 0 0 1
38 jack yack 0 1 0
45 buzz bus 0 0 1
46 push puss 1 0 0
48 road load 1 0 0
49 mouse mouth 1 0 0
50 free three 1 0 0

  1. 0=same (no difference); 1=different.

Appendix 3: Coding of the Differences in Features for Vowel Contrasts

Item Frontness Height Length
3 six seeks 0 0 1
6 tin ten 0 1 0
8 said sad 0 1 0
10 cart cat 1 0 1
11 much march 1 1 1
15 backs box 1 0 0
18 sport spot 0 1 1
20 put pot 0 1 0
22 pool pull 0 1 1
24 cup cap 1 0 0
28 big bigger 1 1 1
30 girl gull 0 1 1
31 walk work 1 0 0
32 bed bird 1 0 1
34 pen pain 0 1 1
36 boat bought 1 1 0
37 fern phone 1 1 0
39 laugh life 1 1 0
41 beard bead 1 1 0
43 air ear 0 1 0
47 all oil 1 1 0

  1. 0=same (no difference); 1=different.

References

Akita, M. 2005. The effectiveness of a prosody-oriented approach in L2 perception and production. In A. Brugos, M. R. Clark-Cotton & S. Ha (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 24–36. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar

Anderson-Hsieh, J., R. Johnson & K. Koehler. 1992. The relationship between native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning 42. 529–555.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01043.xSearch in Google Scholar

Baker, A. 1981. Ship or sheep? An intermediate pronunciation course. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Baker, A. 2009. Ship or sheep? An intermediate pronunciation course. 3rd edn. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Best, C. 1995. A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues in cross-language research, 167–200. Timonium, MD: York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bradlow, A. R., D. B. Pisoni, R. Akahane-Yamada & Y. Tohkura. 1997. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101 2299–2310.10.1121/1.418276Search in Google Scholar

Brazil, D. 1994. Pronunciation for advanced learners of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cambridge English. 2019. High beginning Chinese likely errors worksheet [PDF document]. Retrieved from Cambridge English website: https://www.cambridge.org/hk/cambridgeenglish/resources.Search in Google Scholar

Celce-Murcia, M., D. M. Brinton, J. M. Goodwin & B. Griner. 2010. Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide. 2nd edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, J. 2001. Chinese speakers. In M. Swan & B. Smith (eds.), Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems, 2nd edn., 310–324 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667121.022Search in Google Scholar

Chela-Flores, B. 2001. Pronunciation and language learning: An integrative approach. International Review of Applied Linguistics 39. 85–101.10.1515/iral.39.2.85Search in Google Scholar

Collins, B. & I. M. Mees. 2003. Practical phonetics and phonology: A resource book for students. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

de Bot, K. & K. Mailfert. 1982. The teaching of intonation: Fundamental research and classroom applications. TESOL Quarterly 16. 71–77.10.2307/3586564Search in Google Scholar

Derwing, T. M., M. J. Munro & G. Wiebe. 1998. Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning 48(3). 393–410.10.1111/0023-8333.00047Search in Google Scholar

Derwing, T. M. & M. Rossiter. 2003. The effects of pronunciation instruction on the accuracy, fluency and complexity of L2 accented speech. Applied Language Learning 13(1). 1–17.Search in Google Scholar

Euler, S. 2014. Approaches to pronunciation teaching: History and recent development. In J. Szpyra-Kozłowska, E. Guz, P. Steinbrich & R. Święciński (eds.), Recent developments in applied phonetics, 35–78. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Search in Google Scholar

Flege, J. E. 1995. Second language speech learning Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience Issues in cross-language research, 233–277. Timonium, MD: York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fouz-González, J. 2015. Trends and directions in computer-assisted pronunciation training. In J. A. Mompean & J. Fouz-Gonzalez (eds.), Investigating English pronunciation: Trends and directions, 174–195. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137509437Search in Google Scholar

Gonzales-Bueno, M. & M. Quintana-Lara. 2011. The teaching of L2 pronunciation through processing instruction. Applied Language Learning 31(1–2). 57–82.Search in Google Scholar

Gordon, J. & I. Darcy. 2016. The development of comprehensible speech in L2 learners: A classroom study on the effects of short-term pronunciation instruction. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 2(1). 56–92.10.1075/jslp.2.1.03gorSearch in Google Scholar

Hahn, L. D. 2004. Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly 38(2). 201–223.10.2307/3588378Search in Google Scholar

Hardison, D. M. 2004. Generalization of computer-assisted prosody training: Quantitative and qualitative findings. Language Learning & Technology 8. 34–52.Search in Google Scholar

Hirata, Y. 2004. Computer assisted pronunciation training for native English speakers learning Japanese pitch and durational contrasts. Computer Assisted Language Learning 17(3). 357–376.10.1080/0958822042000319629Search in Google Scholar

Ingels, S. A. 2011. The effects of self-monitoring strategy use on the pronunciation of learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbann-Champaign.Search in Google Scholar

Isaacs, T. 2014. Assessing pronunciation. In A. J. Kunnan (ed.), The companion to language assessment, 140–155. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla012Search in Google Scholar

Jenkins, J. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kissling, E. M. 2013. Teaching pronunciation: Is explicit phonetics instruction beneficial for FL learners? The Modern Language Journal 97(3). 720–744.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12029.xSearch in Google Scholar

Ladefoged, P. & S. F. Disner. 2012. Vowels and consonants. 3rd edn. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Leather, J. & A. James. 1996. Second language speech. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 269–316. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50011-6Search in Google Scholar

Lee, H. Y. & H. Huang. 2016. Gradient of learnability in teaching English pronunciation to Korean learners. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 139(4). 1859–1872.10.1121/1.4945716Search in Google Scholar

Lee, W. & E. Zee. 2003. Standard Chinese (Beijing). Journal of the International Phonetic Association 33(1). 109–112.10.1017/S0025100303001208Search in Google Scholar

Long, M. H. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (eds.), Foreign language research in crosscultural perspective, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.2.07lonSearch in Google Scholar

Lord, G. 2005. (How) Can we teach foreign language pronunciation? On the effects of a Spanish phonetics course. Hispania 88. 557–567.10.2307/20063159Search in Google Scholar

Mirzaei, A., Z. Abdollahian & M. Ranjbar. 2012. The role of noticing in L2 learners’ production of intonation patterns. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills 4(1). 141–170.Search in Google Scholar

Missaglia, F. 1999, August. Contrastive prosody in SLA: An empirical study with Italian learners of German. Paper presented at the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco. Retrieved from https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS1999/papers/p14_0551.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Mitrofanova, Y. 2012. Raising EFL students’ awareness of English intonation functioning. Language Awareness 21. 279–291.10.1080/09658416.2011.609621Search in Google Scholar

Moeng, E. 2016. Comparing the distributional learnability of stops, fricatives, glides, and vowels. Proceedings of the 40th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD). http://www.bu.edu/bucld/files/2016/09/BUCLD-2016-Moeng1.pdf Search in Google Scholar

Mompean, J. A. & P. Lintunen. 2015. Phonetic notation in foreign language teaching and learning: Potential advantages and learners’ views. Research in Language 13(3). 292–314.10.1515/rela-2015-0026Search in Google Scholar

Neufeld, G. G. 1980. On the adults’ ability to acquire phonology. TESOL Quarterly 14. 285–298.10.2307/3586595Search in Google Scholar

Pennington, M. C. & N. C. Ellis. 2000. Cantonese speakers’ memory for English sentences with prosodic cues. Modern Language Journal 84(3). 372–389.10.1111/0026-7902.00075Search in Google Scholar

Ramirez Verdugo, D. 2006. A study of intonation awareness and learning in non-native speakers of English. Language Awareness 15(3). 141–159.10.2167/la404.0Search in Google Scholar

Roach, P. 2009. English phonetics and phonology: A practical course. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Saito, K. & R. Lyster. 2012. Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /r/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning 62. 595–633.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00639.xSearch in Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11. 129–158.10.1093/applin/11.2.129Search in Google Scholar

Sereno, J., L. Lammers & A. Jongman. 2016. The relative contribution of segments and intonation to the perception of foreign-accented speech. Applied Psycholinguistics 37. 303–322.10.1017/S0142716414000575Search in Google Scholar

Snow, C. E. & M. Hoefnagel-Hohle. 1979. Individual differences in second language ability: A factor analytic study. Language and Speech 22. 151–162.10.1177/002383097902200205Search in Google Scholar

Sun, L. & V. J. van Heuven. 2007. Perceptual assimilation of English vowels by Chinese listeners: Can native-language interference be predicted? In B. Los & M. van Koppen (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2007, 150–161. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/avt.24.15sunSearch in Google Scholar

Tanner, M. W. & M. M. Landon. 2009. The effects of computer-assisted pronunciation readings on ESL learners’ use of pausing, stress, intonation, and overall comprehensibility. Language Learning & Technology. 13(3). 51–65.Search in Google Scholar

Thomson, R. I. 2011. Computer assisted pronunciation training: Targeting second language vowel perception improves pronunciation. CALICO Journal 28(3). 744–765.10.11139/cj.28.3.744-765Search in Google Scholar

Thomson, R. I. & T. M. Derwing. 2015. The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics 36(3). 326–344.10.1093/applin/amu076Search in Google Scholar

Wong, J. W. S. 2015. Does proficiency matter? The effects of L2 vowel training on Cantonese ESL learners with high and low proficiency levels. In J. A. Mompean & J. Fouz-González (eds.), Investigating English pronunciation: Current trends and directions, 219–240. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137509437_10Search in Google Scholar

Zielinski, B. 2015. The segmental/suprasegmental debate. In M. Reed & J. M. Levis (eds.), The handbook of English pronunciation, 1st edn., 397–412. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1002/9781118346952.ch22Search in Google Scholar
Published Online: 2019-07-03
Published in Print: 2022-06-27

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Speech-accompanying gestures in L1 and L2 conversational interaction by speakers of different proficiency levels
  4. Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition: The role of language background on instructed L3 Portuguese acquisition
  5. Task complexity, language proficiency and working memory: Interaction effects on second language speech performance
  6. Typology and contexts of article errors: Investigation into the use of English articles by Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners
  7. Gender assignment strategies used by L1 and L2 speakers of Spanish
  8. The refusal of request speech act in Persian, English, and Balouchi languages: A cross-cultural and cross-linguistic study
  9. Non-nativelike outcome of naturalistic child L2 acquisition of Japanese: The case of noun–verb collocations
  10. Effects of mixed instruction on Chinese EFL learners’ perception of phonemic contrasts
  11. Dynamism of collocation in L2 English writing: A bigram-based study
  12. Nominal agreement in the interlanguage of Dutch L2 learners of Spanish
  13. Picture or non-picture? The influence of narrative task types on lower- and higher-proficiency EFL learners’ oral production
  14. Grammatical aspect and world knowledge in second language reading
  15. An exploratory study on pro-drop in a written description task in L2 Spanish
  16. Negotiation of meaning in child-child vs. adult-adult interactions: Evidence from low proficiency EFL learners
  17. Aspect semantics and ESL article use
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-0243
Keywords for this article
mixed instruction; segmental instruction; Chinese EFL learners; perception; phonemic contrasts

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Speech-accompanying gestures in L1 and L2 conversational interaction by speakers of different proficiency levels
  4. Transfer in L3 cognate language acquisition: The role of language background on instructed L3 Portuguese acquisition
  5. Task complexity, language proficiency and working memory: Interaction effects on second language speech performance
  6. Typology and contexts of article errors: Investigation into the use of English articles by Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners
  7. Gender assignment strategies used by L1 and L2 speakers of Spanish
  8. The refusal of request speech act in Persian, English, and Balouchi languages: A cross-cultural and cross-linguistic study
  9. Non-nativelike outcome of naturalistic child L2 acquisition of Japanese: The case of noun–verb collocations
  10. Effects of mixed instruction on Chinese EFL learners’ perception of phonemic contrasts
  11. Dynamism of collocation in L2 English writing: A bigram-based study
  12. Nominal agreement in the interlanguage of Dutch L2 learners of Spanish
  13. Picture or non-picture? The influence of narrative task types on lower- and higher-proficiency EFL learners’ oral production
  14. Grammatical aspect and world knowledge in second language reading
  15. An exploratory study on pro-drop in a written description task in L2 Spanish
  16. Negotiation of meaning in child-child vs. adult-adult interactions: Evidence from low proficiency EFL learners
  17. Aspect semantics and ESL article use
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 27.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2018-0243/html
Scroll to top button